Multiple First Amendment lawyers informed me this morning that Justice Merchan's directive to press is at best "dubious" and at worst "unconstitutional prior restraint." Anything said in open court is fair game.
Multiple First Amendment lawyers informed me this morning that Justice Merchan's directive to press is at best "dubious" and at worst "unconstitutional prior restraint." Anything said in open court is fair game.
If juror safety is a concern, the appropriate remedy is sealing, per the attorneys. Merchan is free to revisit his prior ruling.
@Emily_Saul_ @Bruno_J_Navarro As a guideline, media orgs don't publish names of sexual-assault victims. They should do something similar here: Publishing identifying info about jurors may be perfectly legal, but it's going to get someone killed. Big media orgs have the power to act.
@Emily_Saul_ @molcranenewman It’s shameful how the press have been basically outing jurors.
@Emily_Saul_ Anything said in open court is definitely fair game. 💯
@Emily_Saul_ And, I would tell the press what I tell my kids.... Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
@Emily_Saul_ @eorden Ms Saul, journalists regularly make editorial choices to not release information. The example that first comes to mind is not releasing the name of someone that has been arrested but not charged with a crime. This isn’t a circus. Be a better person and consider their safety
@Emily_Saul_ What exactly do they propose to seal? the biographical details are said in open court--so a sealing order doesn't work. 1A is not absolute--especially here when you have to balance an interest as serious as juror safety.
@Emily_Saul_ The jurors have rights: the safety of themselves and their families. The press can cope with not putting out every possible bit of info, where safety is concerned.
@Emily_Saul_ Think of cases in progress, or juveniles, where they CANNOT report everything, for legal reasons. It's like those.