Gannett Co. v. DePasquale - Significance, Impact, Guarantee To A Public Trial
Gannett Co., Inc.
Daniel A. DePasquale, Seneca County Court Judge
That exclusion of the press from a pretrial hearing was tantamount to denying a public right of access to trials and violated the First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Robert C. Bernius
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Justices for the Court
Warren E. Burger, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, Potter Stewart (writing for the Court), John Paul Stevens
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Byron R. White
Date of Decision
2 July 1979
Closure of pretrial hearings to journalistic media was held acceptable.
- Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965).
- Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966).
- Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976).
- United States v. Cianfrani, 573 F.2d 835 (1978).
- Richmond Newspapers Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980).
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984).
Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the Supreme Court, Vol. 1. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1997.
- Lassiter, Christo. "TV or Not TV--That is the Question." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, spring 1996, p. 928.
- LIDB Online (Louisiana Indigent Defender Board Online Information Center) "Controlling Prejudicial Publicity." JLAMANUAL, 1997. http://www.lidb.com/manuals/jlamanua.htm
- Gary Mark Gilmore Trial: 1976 - No Defense
- Fullilove v. Klutznick - The Facts Of The Case, The Supreme Court Decides, The Dissenting Opinion, Public Works Employment Act
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale - Significance
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale - Impact
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale - Guarantee To A Public Trial
- Other Free Encyclopedias