Tweet
Moin zusammen!
Ich hab den nachfolgenden Bericht bisher leider nur oberflächlich lesen können. Anscheinend hat die Presse einen ordentlichen Hammer zu schlucken. Schnellübersetzungen könnt Ihr hier machen: http://www.translate.ru
Der Bericht kommt von dieser Adresse: http://www.mjfanclub.net/news/index.html
Viel Spaß beim Lesen
LG Sabine
A court decision from last Wednesday allows the Michael Jackson case to stand as a precedent on secrecy. In a one-sentence decision made public on Friday, the California Supreme Court denied a request by news organizations to "depublish" the ruling - meaning it will stay on the legal books and can be used by judges and lawyers on the issue of sealing documents in other cases.
In April 2005, a three-member panel of the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled that Judge Melville had been justified in sealing dozens of court records. The judge argued that releasing the documents could have prejudiced the jury pool and that he wanted to protect a fair trial right.
News organizations had protested the unprecedented secrecy. When much of it was upheld by the appeals court they moved to "depublish" the opinion so that it could not be cited as precedent in the future. The high court refused, without comment.
According to some legal experts this decision could shut off public access to information in high-profile cases. Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson stated:
"It is a very dangerous precedent because it gives the court an opportunity to close out the public from critical information during a high-publicity trial. This formalizes the celebrity exception to the First Amendment."
Attorney Theodore Boutrous Jr., who argued the case on behalf of the news media, said in an interview Monday that he hopes the case will not be applied in future cases.
"The argument that the Jackson lawyers made for secrecy was that this was a special case. It should have extraordinarily limited application, but there is the danger it will be applied to other cases."
County Counsel Stephen Shane Stark said in a letter that the case could help judges in other high-profile cases decide whether to seal court documents.
"The media's insatiable quest for stories that showcase criminal behavior illustrates why this decision is significant and should remain published. While admittedly a Michael Jackson case does not happen very frequently, the media presents for public consumption a new crime story seemingly every day."
Source: MJFC / AP
Ich hab den nachfolgenden Bericht bisher leider nur oberflächlich lesen können. Anscheinend hat die Presse einen ordentlichen Hammer zu schlucken. Schnellübersetzungen könnt Ihr hier machen: http://www.translate.ru
Der Bericht kommt von dieser Adresse: http://www.mjfanclub.net/news/index.html
Viel Spaß beim Lesen
LG Sabine
A court decision from last Wednesday allows the Michael Jackson case to stand as a precedent on secrecy. In a one-sentence decision made public on Friday, the California Supreme Court denied a request by news organizations to "depublish" the ruling - meaning it will stay on the legal books and can be used by judges and lawyers on the issue of sealing documents in other cases.
In April 2005, a three-member panel of the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled that Judge Melville had been justified in sealing dozens of court records. The judge argued that releasing the documents could have prejudiced the jury pool and that he wanted to protect a fair trial right.
News organizations had protested the unprecedented secrecy. When much of it was upheld by the appeals court they moved to "depublish" the opinion so that it could not be cited as precedent in the future. The high court refused, without comment.
According to some legal experts this decision could shut off public access to information in high-profile cases. Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson stated:
"It is a very dangerous precedent because it gives the court an opportunity to close out the public from critical information during a high-publicity trial. This formalizes the celebrity exception to the First Amendment."
Attorney Theodore Boutrous Jr., who argued the case on behalf of the news media, said in an interview Monday that he hopes the case will not be applied in future cases.
"The argument that the Jackson lawyers made for secrecy was that this was a special case. It should have extraordinarily limited application, but there is the danger it will be applied to other cases."
County Counsel Stephen Shane Stark said in a letter that the case could help judges in other high-profile cases decide whether to seal court documents.
"The media's insatiable quest for stories that showcase criminal behavior illustrates why this decision is significant and should remain published. While admittedly a Michael Jackson case does not happen very frequently, the media presents for public consumption a new crime story seemingly every day."
Source: MJFC / AP
Kommentar