the media: emphasized evidence that tended to incriminate, read any blog referencing the Casey Anthony case? imo-yes…what do you think?

I had commented on a blog –
             Posted by: finnperkins | June 01, 2009 at 09:37 PM

Sheppard v. Maxwell


 some one responded with this-

 – “That was relative to publicity and coverage “during” the “trial” and how it affected the “jury” not to be confused with media attention, coverage or discussions “before” the trial or interest from the general public.”

cxxx lxxxxxxxxx


So I replied –

To cxxx lxxxxxxxxx

In response to Sheppard v. Maxwell, would not apply, per your comment – “That was relative to publicity and coverage “during” the “trial” and how it affected the “jury” not to be confused with media attention, coverage or discussions “before” the trial or interest from the general public.”


Taken directly from the 384 U.S. 333-Syllabus [1,2,3 and 4]
During the entire pretrial period, virulent and incriminating publicity about petitioner and the murder made the case notorious, and the news media frequently aired charges and countercharges besides those for which petitioner was tried. Three months before trial, he was examined for more than five hours without counsel in a televised three-day inquest conducted before an audience of several hundred spectators in a gymnasium. Over three weeks before trial, the newspapers published the names and addresses of prospective jurors causing them to receive letters and telephone calls about the case.

[2]Estes v. Texas
Throughout this period, the newspapers emphasized evidence that tended to incriminate Sheppard and pointed out discrepancies in his statements to authorities. At the same time, Sheppard made many public statements to the press, and wrote feature articles asserting his innocence.

[4]Sheppard v. Maxwell
We granted certiorari, 382 U.S. 916 (1965). We have concluded that Sheppard did not receive a fair trial consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and, therefore, reverse the judgment.



[3]Stroble v. California
“Disclosed that scientific tests at the Sheppard home have definitely established that the killer washed off a trail of blood from the murder bedroom to the downstairs section,”
A circumstance casting doubt on Sheppard’s accounts of the murder, no such evidence was produced at trial.


imo -I will not bore you with the details, except this one- “including but limited to the release of the jurors’ names, address and telephone numbers.”

I ask that if you feel this is OK, then why is there a need for on line screen names, why not use your real names? I think in reality, it isn’t ok with any of you, and that privacy is something none of you here want the US supreme court or any other court to take away from you, so why should a local circuit trial judge be allowed to disregard the rights of the jurors’.
Again, I am not offering any opinion on Ms. Anthony’s claim of innocence; I am only stating that in order for the verdict, that when rendered, when the gavel hits the sound block that the verdict will stand.


Posted by: finnperkins | June 03, 2009 at 02:59 AM

“…privacy must be approached from a people-centered perspective, and not through the marketplace.” -by Leslie Regan Shade, …and I agree.

I realized recently that I am not surprise by the content on the local TV station’s websites. I can go and click on any one of them and view photos of car crashes, the very site that a persons life had been taken, and more times than not, video footage of the latest reason why the interstate highway 4, is blocked.  The very photos that offer clues to the FDLE, are right there for not only my eyes to see, but also available to viewers from all over the world.  

My issue with this practice is that, the families of these victims, not only have the initial shock of hearing about their loved ones death or injuries, but they now have a constant reminder of this tragedy. 

I know that the technology of instant video gratification has surpassed the hallmarks of the First Amendment, and circumvents the Fifth Amendment on a daily basis. 

I am offering my opinion on this because recently I was informed that my one of my parents had been in an accident in which, a driver of a truck made a right turn on red, and fail to yield to the pedestrian, who at that time was in the crossing the street.  My parent did not see the truck until it had been contact, and their body had remained pinned under the truck, the truck moved them several feet before coming to a stop.

I for one, even if this were not my parent, would not want photos of this on my local TV stations webs site, not would I want the images posted on the news, with anyone of or delightful news anchors.

I cannot even begin to imagine what it would be like to see these images of this accident, nor would I want to be filmed’ while hearing news of this tragic accident.

I think the idea of filming anything usually is to make record of something, whether it is for profit or for documentation of service rendered by the OFD /first responders, or for court record.  Usually it is the later. 

Therefore, in the name of justice, many have said, they want to see the video of Casey in the jail’s medical waiting room.  Is this because as a society, whose been cabled fed a variety of reality format television shows, that the folks say “hey, it reality, lets she her in pain, let’s see her incriminated herself…let see it, lets see it…”

When will the insanity of the insane notion that one-person tragedy is another person’s favored pastime.  I have ask, did the corrections officers take Ms. Anthony out of her cell, bring her down to the medial facility’s waiting area, to film her reactions the day Mr. Padilla offered his findings from the search at lake near Jay Blanchard park.

….You know, the search paid by Mr. Padilla.

….You know the one resulted in misinformation from Mr. Padilla     and that the FDLE had to field questionable findings latter to be found as animal bones and products unrelated to the Anthony’s or to their home.

The answer is no. the corrections department and its officers allowed Ms. Anthony to remain in her Cell.  It has been of record, the OCCO stated Ms. Anthony heard the news on her radio.  Also noted is that the Video in question is incomplete, as Ms. Anthony was in the medical waiting room for more than 30 minutes, and the video

is shorter, based on the video time counter.

May I remind you of these two cases –

Estes v. Texas in 1965- Estes v. Texas, the Supreme Court overturned his conviction of a defendant whose trial was televised to the public. The Supreme Court held that the defendant was deprived of his due process rights.  In addition, the court declared that by televising the trial, the jury was made, inherently prejudicial. 

Sheppard v. Maxwell in 1966- The Supreme Court in an 8 to 1 decision declared that Sheppard had been deprived of a fair trial because the judge failed to minimize “the prejudicial impact of massive publicity.”

The most recent case of deprived in deference by the court and the media is the issue of a person’s right to privacy vs. the public’s right to know.  In the Orlando Sentinel filed a Freedom of Information Act request, to obtain copies of racecar driver Dale Earnhardt’s autopsy photos.

I remember when the Orlando Sentinel requested his autopsy photos, stating that they wanted to have an expert see these photos, who would offer their expert opinion on head trauma and it’s relation to on going safety issues in the field of auto racing.  The newspaper added that they did not intend to publish the photographs.

Mr. Earnhardt’s widow, Teresa Earnhardt, was, perhaps understandably, outraged. She had also feared that access to these photos would lead, inevitably to the internet.  One website, whose owner is Michael Uribe, had in previous instances, published photographs of other drivers whom have had similar accidents, in which death had resulted.

“It repulses me, as an advocate and as a person, what those creeps are doing,” Rumberger said of the posting of the images of the drivers who accidents resulted in death at Daytona, only three days apart during Speedweeks 1994.  “You know exactly where they were going with the Earnhardt photographs.”


Nevertheless, by the time, the suit settled, Mr. Uribe had been enjoining in the suit along with the media in its request.  He was excluded in the meeting that was part of the mediated settlement, in which the Orlando Sentinel, and its representatives were given permission to view the photographs along with Dr. Barry Myers, PhD, a specialist in head and neck injury, and holds a position as associate professor at Duke University,


In summary, this issue-

I will post Leslie Shade’s opinion;

“Leslie Regan Shade argues that the human right to privacy is necessary for meaningful democratic participation, and ensures human dignity and autonomy.  Privacy depends on norms for how information is distributed, and if this is appropriate.  Violations of privacy depend on context.  The human right to privacy has precedent in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”[1] Shade believes that privacy must be approached from a people-centered perspective, and not through the marketplace.[2]”


Shade, L. R. (2008). Reconsidering the right to privacy in Canada. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 28(1), 80-91.

United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved October 7, 2006 from

%d bloggers like this: