In the United States there will always be an inherent conflict between the criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment

Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!

Question:

In the United States there will always be an inherent conflict between the criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial and the media's First Amendment freedom of press rights. The justice system has done a good job of attempting to balance these two competing interests, but as with much of the system, the attempts are not perfect. Since there is an inherent tension in high profile cases between the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial and the media's First Amendment right to freedom of the press, in your opinion, which right should win out? Obviously both rights are bedrock principles in our systems of government and justice, but sometimes rights infringe on one another. What are your thoughts on this important issue?

How do you see the media coverage and race intersect in this case? How about the media's role as informer to the public as it conflicts with the defendant's right to a fair trial? I'm interested to hear any thoughts you have on that topic as it relates to the media and media coverage of high-profile crimes.

2/ Also, charges, trial decisions, and sentencing often take into account a defendant's prior encounters with the criminal justice system. Did you discover any information about Mr. Bell's prior contacts with law enforcement in your research? Prior to this Jena 6 incident, Mr. Bell was on probation for a prior battery charge. While he was on probation for the prior battery offense he committed two additional violent crimes.See, Abby Brown,'Jena Six' Defendant's Criminal History Comes to Light; Bond Denied, The Shreveport Times (August 25, 2007).**Please note I will use Bluebook citation, the standard for legal citation, not APA; therefore, do not assume my citations are APA compliant.** Given this point, how would you respond to those who argue that the prosecutor's decisions to charge Bell as an adult and to "throw the book" at him by charging out more serious crimes were perfectly reasonable and ethical? Was it unethical to consider his prior contacts with law enforcement? If so, why? At what point should prosecutors begin to consider a defendant's prior criminal activity for charging, bail, or sentencing purposes?