English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Kansas trial judges and the news media often have clashed over the meaning of the First and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The media assume that the freedom of the press, protected by the first amendment, gives them the right to report comprehensively on court cases. Thus, the media may publicize information that is prejudicial to criminal defendants but is inadmissible as evidence in court. Judges, however, assume that they have a high duty to protect defendants' Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial--one in which jurors are impartial and have not been influenced by prejudicial publicity. Judges may try to limit publicity to maintain the fairness of criminal or civil proceedings or to protect the privacy of participants. Because of their different outlooks, judges and the media in Kansas can find themselves in sharp conflict.

Press Freedom and Fair Trials in Kansas: How Media and the Courts Have Struggled to Resolve Competing Claims of Constitutional Rights