Sub judice contempt

[Ohiogal]

If the defendant is dead there are not appeals that will happen.

 

[Zigner]

Shush now - you just gotta take his word on it!

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.



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.



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.



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.

 

[FlyingRon]

If the defendant is dead there are not appeals that will happen.

And since there hasn't apparently yet been a conviction, there's not likely to be anything to appeal..

But, even if the proceedings have stopped, if there was a violation of a order, the judge COULD still institute contempt actions.

I disagree with some of Quincy's statements, while prior restraint is extremely limited, the media can be constrained in some circumstances.

As pointed out just because something is contemptuous to a person or prejudicial to the proceedings DOESN'T MAKE IT CONTEMPT.
CONTEMPT means that there was some specific action contrary to a lawful order of the COURT (i.e., the judge).
Since the poster hasn't indicated what order may have existed, there's no way to guess whether there could be any contempt action that could be taken.

I'm not going to invent scenarios to expound upon. If the poster wants to post a REAL situation with the details we've asked about, then we might be able to give an answer.
If he wants general information, I would refer him to his local law library and the rules of whatever court he's concerned about.

 

[quincy]

... I disagree with some of Quincy's statements, while prior restraint is extremely limited, the media can be constrained in some circumstances. ...

I used the words "generally cannot prevent the media," so I don't think you are really disagreeing with my statements.

What the court can do is make it difficult for the media to access information, by having closed hearings and by instituting gag orders to prevent the participants in a trial from speaking to the media. So that any closed hearing or gag order does not offend the Constitution, however, there must be a compelling interest shown that is greater than the First Amendment right of the public to have access to a public proceeding.

Constraints on the media are generally self-imposed constraints (i.e., ethical decisions to print or not to print).

 

[juniorJ]

I apologize that I can not be forthright with any more information, but I thought it would have been obvious by now that I an unable to expound any more details. Thank you for all of your responses, they have been appreciated.

When I said earlier, "clearly contemptuous" I meant it clearly satisfied the legal meaning of 'contempt'.

Once again, apologies I could not clearly illustrate the situation.

And in relation to the end of the sub judice period, I was speaking generally at that point. Not to the facts of this situation.

Keep up the good work.

 

[LdiJ]

I apologize that I can not be forthright with any more information, but I thought it would have been obvious by now that I an unable to expound any more details. Thank you for all of your responses, they have been appreciated.

When I said earlier, "clearly contemptuous" I meant it clearly satisfied the legal meaning of 'contempt'.

Once again, apologies I could not clearly illustrate the situation.

And in relation to the end of the sub judice period, I was speaking generally at that point. Not to the facts of this situation.

Keep up the good work.

If you cannot be forthright with more information, then this thread is done.

 

[quincy]

I apologize that I can not be forthright with any more information, but I thought it would have been obvious by now that I an unable to expound any more details. Thank you for all of your responses, they have been appreciated.

When I said earlier, "clearly contemptuous" I meant it clearly satisfied the legal meaning of 'contempt'.

Once again, apologies I could not clearly illustrate the situation.

And in relation to the end of the sub judice period, I was speaking generally at that point. Not to the facts of this situation.

Keep up the good work.

It would be very odd for a writer to be in contempt of a court order unless the writer was a participant in the trial and was under court order not to disclose any information from the trial.

I agree with LdiJ, though. Without facts, there is no point in keeping this thread going - unless someone wants to start serving beer and pizza. I'd stick around for that.

 

[juniorJ]

If you cannot be forthright with more information, then this thread is done.

If a moderator would like to lock the thread they may be my guest.

LdiJ seems to be gunning for your job though .

 

[LdiJ]

If a moderator would like to lock the thread they may be my guest.

LdiJ seems to be gunning for your job though .

We are all volunteers here. We do not have the time or energy to deal with people who cannot give real information. It doesn't matter whether the moderator would close your thread or not.

 

[juniorJ]

We are all volunteers here. We do not have the time or energy to deal with people who cannot give real information. It doesn't matter whether the moderator would close your thread or not.

And I, like many others are greatful for your assistance. Thanks once again for the candor everyone - much appreciated .

 

[quincy]

I let the moderator know that you want your thread locked, junior - although I think it is still possible for a new member to lock their own thread, unless that feature has been eliminated.

 

[juniorJ]

I let the moderator know that you want your thread locked, junior - although I think it is still possible for a new member to lock their own thread, unless that feature has been eliminated.

Thanks Quincy. At a glance it doesn't seem like I have that functionality but nonetheless I assume the powers that be will come a long in due course. Maybe, they should give LidJ the job - seems to be everywhere.

Cheers