Sub judice contempt

[juniorJ]

Hi,

I have a quick question concerning sub judice contempt.

Let's say something has been published online, it is clearly contemptuous and the article was published after the arrest of the person subject to proceedings.

The person dies before a trial can take place.

Is the publisher of the article still up for contempt?

 

[Proserpina]

Hi,

I have a quick question concerning sub judice contempt.

Let's say something has been published online, it is clearly contemptuous and the article was published after the arrest of the person subject to proceedings.

The person dies before a trial can take place.

Is the publisher of the article still up for contempt?

US state please.

 

[juniorJ]

US state please.

California

 

[FlyingRon]

You'd have to give us more information. Who was under the court order not to disseminate the information? How did the person who published the information get it? Was the information at the time it was published prejudicial to the proceedings in progress? Which person died? The person who was the subject of the court proceeding? The person who leaked the info? The person who published it?

It would depend if the publisher was (or had reason to know) that the information published was under restriction. These restrictions are very much at odds with the first amendment, and while the court may sanction the attorneys and parties directly involved, they have more issues taking action against the press who gets the information downs

 

[juniorJ]

You'd have to give us more information. Who was under the court order not to disseminate the information? How did the person who published the information get it? Was the information at the time it was published prejudicial to the proceedings in progress? Which person died? The person who was the subject of the court proceeding? The person who leaked the info? The person who published it?

It would depend if the publisher was (or had reason to know) that the information published was under restriction. These restrictions are very much at odds with the first amendment, and while the court may sanction the attorneys and parties directly involved, they have more issues taking action against the press who gets the information downs

The information was published online on a blog post and is clearly prejudicial. The person that died was the person subject to the criminal proceedings. The person who published the information is alive and well.

The main question is, since the person subject to proceedings is no longer living, can the publisher of the blog post still be charged with contempt even though (quite obviously) the other trial will no longer go ahead.

 

[TigerD]

The information was published online on a blog post and is clearly prejudicial. The person that died was the person subject to the criminal proceedings. The person who published the information is alive and well.

The main question is, since the person subject to proceedings is no longer living, can the publisher of the blog post still be charged with contempt even though (quite obviously) the other trial will no longer go ahead.

1. No such thing as "clearly prejudicial".
2. You need to answer FlyingRon's questions - they are critical to you getting anything close to resembling a correct answer.
3. Who are you in this?

TD

 

[FlyingRon]

You've still not indicated if some protective order was in place. Upon who was that order placed?

Death of the defendant doesn't get you off the hook, though if there's no further criminal proceeding pending, the whole issue may be moot and not worth pursuing.
Again, going back to what I originally stated, it would depend on how the protective order was written and whether the person publishing the information reasonably knew or should have know about the order. It also matters highly how the information was obtained. Even with a protective order, information derived from public sources: already in the media or public records, for example, is fair game. Of course, the order can be extended after the fact to prevent further dissemination.

You'd need to stop waffling and give the full story and just who you are in this game.

If you can't do that, you're going to need to contact an attorney who you can confidentially relay the facts.

 

[juniorJ]

1. No such thing as "clearly prejudicial".
2. You need to answer FlyingRon's questions - they are critical to you getting anything close to resembling a correct answer.
3. Who are you in this?

TD

For the purposes of this post what I am referring to IS clearly contemptuous and would prejudice the trial. Who I am in relation to the facts is irrelevant, but thank you to the both of you, you have been a great help.

Thanks FlyingRon

 

[Zigner]

For the purposes of this post what I am referring to IS clearly contemptuous and would prejudice the trial. Who I am in relation to the facts is irrelevant, but thank you to the both of you, you have been a great help.

Thanks FlyingRon

This rolleyes is why we don't do homework or hypotheticals.

 

[juniorJ]

This rolleyes is why we don't do homework or hypotheticals.

This isn't a hypothetical or homework as you suggest. But what is wrong with asking for some assistance?

 

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

This isn't a hypothetical or homework as you suggest. But what is wrong with asking for some assistance?

Nothing, but the experts from whom you seek help aren't asking the questions they ask from idle curiosity. You do not get to decide what is irrelevant. If you want assistance, help those trying to help you.

 

[LdiJ]

This isn't a hypothetical or homework as you suggest. But what is wrong with asking for some assistance?

Ok...let me give you an idea of why we are asking questions...

There is a difference between contempt as used in general language and contempt as a legal term.

Someone could write a blog that is clearly contemptuous and prejudicial but not be in contempt of court unless there was a gag order not permitting that particular person to write anything about a particular case.

Even in the case of legal contempt, if the case ends, the gag order ends.

 

[juniorJ]

Nothing, but the experts from whom you seek help aren't asking the questions they ask from idle curiosity. You do not get to decide what is irrelevant. If you want assistance, help those trying to help you.

Spoken like a true lawyer

Even in the case of legal contempt, if the case ends, the gag order ends.

I was under the impression that the period of sub judice is up until all attempts at an appeal have also been exhausted.

 

[quincy]

Who are you in all of this, junior? I think it is safe to assume you are not the dead defendant.

Could you also answer the questions FlyingRon asked, please? Thank you.

... Who was under the court order not to disseminate the information?

Hint: Usually it will be the trial participants only. A court can generally not prevent the media from disseminating information (look up "prior restraint") but can only prevent those who are the sources of information from relating the information to the media for dissemination.

... How did the person who published the information get it?

Hint: If the information was leaked to the writer by a person under the court order (i.e., a trial participant), the writer can publish what s/he has learned and the person who leaked the information can be held in contempt.

... Was the information at the time it was published prejudicial to the proceedings in progress?

Hint: Rarely would published information about a case be "prejudicial" to the proceedings.

As LdiJ noted, there can be a difference in writing that is "contemptuous" and writing that is in "contempt" of a court order.

 

[Zigner]

Spoken like a true lawyer



I was under the impression that the period of sub judice is up until all attempts at an appeal have also been exhausted.

alrighty then