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/

Zendy Plus

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

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

It seems odd, in retrospect, that the fate of those accused of sophisticated crimes such as the Watergate cover-up should be placed in the hands of a jury composed of people whose familiarity with public issues was on a par with two potential jurors at G. Gordon Liddy's trial who had never heard of the Watergate break-in.' Yet that was exactly what seemed to be required by the fair trial partisans of the so-called "free press versus fair trial" controversy over the effect of pre-trial publicity on the fairness of a trial. The unique events preceding the trial of H.R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, John Mitchell, Robert Mardian and Kenneth Parkinson in the Watergate case crystallized the issues of this controversy in a way that calls for re-examination of the underlying principles. The free press versus fair trial dispute seems to be an unlikely conflict. Both lawyers and journalists would no doubt maintain that they were trying to get at the "truth" behind Watergate. But, at least since the time that Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea, wondered aloud "Quid est veritas?" there has been no easy answer to the question. Newspaper and television reporters think they are advancing the cause of truth when they make revelations about people accused or suspected of crime. Although fairness can be more important than truth, one would hope that the trials of accused criminals would also aim at getting to the truth of the matter. Nonetheless, one faction in the dispute, spurred by mid-sixties events such as the reversal of the murder conviction of Dr. Sam Sheppard on grounds of press interference with a fair trial,2 has increasingly taken the position that the publicity generated in the reporter's search for "truth" was tainting the minds of potential jurors and interfering with the Sixth Amendment right to

A Jury's Pre-Trial Knowledge in Historical Perspective: The Distinction between Pre-Trial Information and "Prejudicial" Publicity