Murder Case Tried by Media

[Aldebaran]

I'm not sure if this belongs here or in Legal Malpractice. But I'll try it here.

In my hometown, there was recently a case against a man whose girlfriend was found dead and this guy was the one they arrested and put in jail to await trial for murder. Afterwards, I constantly saw the Sheriff and District Attorney on the local news saying that "This guy is guilty, we know he's guilty, and he will be found guilty and will spend the rest of his life in prison", and other such things. All the while, this guy sits in a jail cell not able to address the public the way the sheriff and DA do, and cannot tell anyone his side of the story. All anyone heard was the accuser's side of the story.

Now, I don't know what the facts were. Same as everyone else, I only know what I saw on the TV news, and then only the accuser's side of things.

Doesn't "innocent unless proven guilty in the court of law" apply here? If he's considered innocent up until his trial, then how can the DA and sheriff say to the public that he's considered guilty already??? Is that even legal?

Well, here's the outcome of the case: The guy ended up killing himself in Jail the day before his trial (the second guy to die in that jail in 3 years). It's possible he knew he was going to be found guilty whether he was actually guilty or not. We'll never know now. But if the verdict is decided before a trial even takes place, and only one point of view is heard while the other is locked away in silence, then it would seem that our law enforcers are not adhering to the law they have sworn to protect.

I guess my question is: Do the sheriff and DA break the law by presuming an accused to be guilty before a trial, and thus tell the public so before the trial and sway public opinion before a jury is selected? I've often heard the phrase, "I can't answer questions while an investigation is still underway". That would seem to indicate that making accusations or implying facts about a case before trial is not legal.

[Who'sThatGuy]

I'm not sure if this belongs here or in Legal Malpractice. But I'll try it here.

In my hometown, there was recently a case against a man whose girlfriend was found dead and this guy was the one they arrested and put in jail to await trial for murder. Afterwards, I constantly saw the Sheriff and District Attorney on the local news saying that "This guy is guilty, we know he's guilty, and he will be found guilty and will spend the rest of his life in prison", and other such things. All the while, this guy sits in a jail cell not able to address the public the way the sheriff and DA do, and cannot tell anyone his side of the story. All anyone heard was the accuser's side of the story.

Now, I don't know what the facts were. Same as everyone else, I only know what I saw on the TV news, and then only the accuser's side of things.

Doesn't "innocent unless proven guilty in the court of law" apply here? If he's considered innocent up until his trial, then how can the DA and sheriff say to the public that he's considered guilty already??? Is that even legal?

Well, here's the outcome of the case: The guy ended up killing himself in Jail the day before his trial (the second guy to die in that jail in 3 years). It's possible he knew he was going to be found guilty whether he was actually guilty or not. We'll never know now. But if the verdict is decided before a trial even takes place, and only one point of view is heard while the other is locked away in silence, then it would seem that our law enforcers are not adhering to the law they have sworn to protect.

I guess my question is: Do the sheriff and DA break the law by presuming an accused to be guilty before a trial, and thus tell the public so before the trial and sway public opinion before a jury is selected? I've often heard the phrase, "I can't answer questions while an investigation is still underway". That would seem to indicate that making accusations or implying facts about a case before trial is not legal.

If the jury pool is tainted in county X, they will move the case to county Y or until another area that the media hasn't tainted is found. The sheriff must have had some concrete evidence on this particular case.

You have to love it when justice is actually served...

[Aldebaran]

If the jury pool is tainted in county X, they will move the case to county Y or until another area that the media hasn't tainted is found. The sheriff must have had some concrete evidence on this particular case.

You have to love it when justice is actually served...

Actually, the judge refused to move the trial because, as he put it, "not everyone in the county watches the news, and therefore the jury pool is not tainted". So the trial was going to take place where the media spread the word of the accusers, and only the accusers.

Also, I'm not sure what you meant by when you said, "You have to love it when justice is actually served". Nobody here thinks justice was served. They're actually saying that he robbed the victim's family of justice by not having a trial. I would counter that with the idea that they robbed the accused of justice by making the case a one-sided event tried in the media. There's no justice in that at all.

[Who'sThatGuy]

Actually, the judge refused to move the trial because, as he put it, "not everyone in the county watches the news, and therefore the jury pool is not tainted". So the trial was going to take place where the media spread the word of the accusers, and only the accusers.

Also, I'm not sure what you meant by when you said, "You have to love it when justice is actually served". Nobody here thinks justice was served. They're actually saying that he robbed the victim's family of justice by not having a trial. I would counter that with the idea that they robbed the accused of justice by making the case a one-sided event tried in the media. There's no justice in that at all.

Well I call it justice. I would rather have the guy that killed a family member of mine die behind bars then sit on death row for 25 years waiting to be executed. I don't call a murderer waiting on death row 25 years justice, I call that empty promises.

[Aldebaran]

Well I call it justice. I would rather have the guy that killed a family member of mine die behind bars then sit on death row for 25 years waiting to be executed. I don't call a murderer waiting on death row 25 years justice, I call that empty promises.

You're completely missing the point. The point is: A person is supposedly considered innocent unless proven guilty in the court of law. THEN justice can be served, which would either mean being released if the charges were not sufficient to prove the guy did anything wrong, or prison or death if found guilty. The media, the police and the DA, and apparently YOU, think he's guilty simply because he was accused. You are reflecting exactly the response I fear anyone in the general public would have when simply hearing an allegation about someone on the news.

It's also what the police and DA count on, and it perverts real justice.

[cdwjava]

I guess my question is: Do the sheriff and DA break the law by presuming an accused to be guilty before a trial, and thus tell the public so before the trial and sway public opinion before a jury is selected?

No. Law enforcement and the DA can express their opinions should they wish to do so. Yes, it might give rise to a successful motion to change the venue, but apparently in this case the judge did not think it was enough.

I've often heard the phrase, "I can't answer questions while an investigation is still underway".

And often times that will be the reply you'd get. However, I suspect in this matter the investigation was done and they had the guy in custody they believed was guilty. If they want to tip their hand to the media, the defense probably has little objections as it gives them an idea of the state's case ahead of time.

That would seem to indicate that making accusations or implying facts about a case before trial is not legal.

Unless it can be shown that they were making it all up, the DA and the police are free to comment almost as they will on the matter. The defense can do the same thing. The defense is free to make comments all they want as well. It's not always a good idea to publicly talk about a case from either side, but, it happens.

[525601minutes]

All the while, this guy sits in a jail cell not able to address the public the way the sheriff and DA do, and cannot tell anyone his side of the story.

Why can't he tell anyone his side of the story? He should have access to the media through his lawyer. What is stopping him from writing letters to reporters, newspapers, etc.?

Being 'tried in the press' isn't special to this case.. Look up Lizzie Borden and see how long this has been going on. That said - just because the media says you are guilty does not mean you are going to be punished.. ACTUAL guilt and punishment is still determined by the legal system regardless of what is said on the news.

[Aldebaran]

No. Law enforcement and the DA can express their opinions should they wish to do so. Yes, it might give rise to a successful motion to change the venue, but apparently in this case the judge did not think it was enough.


And often times that will be the reply you'd get. However, I suspect in this matter the investigation was done and they had the guy in custody they believed was guilty. If they want to tip their hand to the media, the defense probably has little objections as it gives them an idea of the state's case ahead of time.


Unless it can be shown that they were making it all up, the DA and the police are free to comment almost as they will on the matter. The defense can do the same thing. The defense is free to make comments all they want as well. It's not always a good idea to publicly talk about a case from either side, but, it happens.

It would seem to me that the police making accusations about somebody in front of the media knowing full well that the public is going to hear it would be defined as slander. It's just like if you or I started making accusations about a coworker and spread it around to the entire company you worked for, just because you thought the accusations were true. That coworker could then sue you for slander.

Just imagine yourself in this scenario: You next door neighbor is found dead in his home. The next thing you know, you’ve been arrested and charged with a murder. You sit in a jail cell for the next several months while the sheriff and district attorney constantly use the local news to make accusations against you that they know you did it, that you were seen with your neighbor a few hours before he was found dead, and that you had been seen arguing with him in the past. So they “know” you did it, and you will be spending the rest of your life in prison and your neighbor’s family will finally have justice, but will never get back the family member you took away from them.

Problem is—you didn’t do anything to your neighbor. But you have no way to tell that to the public. You’re stuck sitting in a jail cell watching on TV as your reputation gets slandered by government officials who like to say that you’re considered innocent unless proven guilty in the court of law.

Do you feel that you’d be getting justice? Oh yeah, and if you’re acquitted, you get to go home to a community that now believes you’re a murderer who got away with it, simply because the sheriff and DA don’t respect the fact that you’re innocent unless PROVEN guilty in the COURT OF LAW, and wasn’t willing to protect the rights of the accused by keeping their mouths shut.

My original question at the beginning of this thread is simply to know whether or not the sheriff or DA is breaking the law by talking about a case that hasn’t even been tried, thereby influencing public opinion (slander) and tainting any jury that would eventually hear the case. Isn’t the police dept. supposed to be impartial rather than take sides?

[cbg]

No, actually. "Innocent until proven guilty" exists inside a courtroom. The judge and jury are required to remain impartial, but no one ever said that the cops did.

And I don't think you fully understand what slander is and is not, from the example you gave.

[cdwjava]

It would seem to me that the police making accusations about somebody in front of the media knowing full well that the public is going to hear it would be defined as slander.

Then you would be wrong.

The police arrested him. They are certainly free to explain the reasons why they arrested him and why they think he is guilty.

It's just like if you or I started making accusations about a coworker and spread it around to the entire company you worked for, just because you thought the accusations were true. That coworker could then sue you for slander.

If I knew the accusations were untrue, and spread the stories with malicious intent, and you suffered some articulable damages, sure. But, opinions and conclusions (even if erroneous) are generally going to be perfectly lawful. Now, in this scenario the employer might have some other rules to enforce that would stop the spreading of rumors, but a tort for slander would not be likely unless I made the stories up.

Just imagine yourself in this scenario: You next door neighbor is found dead in his home. The next thing you know, you’ve been arrested and charged with a murder. You sit in a jail cell for the next several months while the sheriff and district attorney constantly use the local news to make accusations against you that they know you did it, that you were seen with your neighbor a few hours before he was found dead, and that you had been seen arguing with him in the past. So they “know” you did it, and you will be spending the rest of your life in prison and your neighbor’s family will finally have justice, but will never get back the family member you took away from them. ...

Do you feel that you’d be getting justice? Oh yeah, and if you’re acquitted, you get to go home to a community that now believes you’re a murderer who got away with it, simply because the sheriff and DA don’t respect the fact that you’re innocent unless PROVEN guilty in the COURT OF LAW, and wasn’t willing to protect the rights of the accused by keeping their mouths shut.

That would suck. And this sort of thing happens with accused child molesters all the time. But, there is no law to prevent the police or the prosecutor from expressing their opinion or explaining the evidence they have obtained in the case. In such a case the defense can publish their own account, they can seek a gag order, they can move for a change of venue, any number of things. It is a rare thing that such public proclamations cross into the realm of prosecutorial misconduct.

My original question at the beginning of this thread is simply to know whether or not the sheriff or DA is breaking the law by talking about a case that hasn’t even been tried,

And the answer remains the same, no.

Isn’t the police dept. supposed to be impartial rather than take sides?

To a great extent, yes. But, they can still express an opinion unless ordered not to. It might not be wise, it might be unprofessional in some cases, but it is rarely going to be unlawful.

I have seen many instances where politicians, prosecutors and even police officials have inserted their foot in their mouth in such circumstances. But, all that happened is the defense had a heyday.

There can be a vast gulf between what someone SHOULD do and what they are legally permitted to do. It might not be wise to talk about a case in any great detail before it goes to trial, but it is also not likely unlawful.