◆ SpookStack

Stuart observed *.., that pretrial publicity+-even pervasive, |} trial judge has = major responsibility. or fails to taxe to mitigate the effects of pretrial publicity-- ¥ the measures Cescribed in Sheppard--mey well determine whether the Defendant receives a trial consistent with’ the requirements . . : *. > “ . _ acous: ye course, there 4s nothing nif iribes the press xxon reporting events that transpire-in the courtroof = 2 ire But where there is a reasonable likelihood that prejudicia news prior te trial will prevent a fair trial, the Judge should continue. thé case until the threat abates, or tran “pevereals a are tat eclblaetvess ‘the cure }ies “tn “those remedial measures that wil}. ‘prevent the prejudice at 4 . inception, “whe courty must take such steps by rute and , regulation that will protect their processes from presudics ity outeide interferences. Neither prosecutors, counsel for defense, the accused, witnesses, ‘court staff nor enforcement officers com ing under the jurtadiction of the court should be emitted to frustrate its function. ~ Collaboration bet~ “ween counsel, and the ‘press ‘as to information ‘attecting the fairness of @ criminal trial is not only subject ta regula tion, but is highly censurable and worthy of disciplinary meesures.* Id.; at 362-363 (emphasis added) .* The U.S. Supreme Court in Rebraska Press Association v. What the Judge says aboutg 3 a case, in or ovt of the courtroon, is likely te appear in news =|