Press needs more restraint in court

George Jeffries

Regarding the Daily Pilot’s coverage of the recent rape trial of Greg

Haidl, Kyle Nachreiner and Keith Spann:

Forty years ago, I was a young Orange County deputy district

attorney assigned to prosecute a Newport Beach physician and church

deacon. He was accused of non-consensual sexual intercourse (rape)

and related sexual acts with three sleeping female patients who were

under the influence of a self-administered anesthetic.

They had seen him to perform promised abortions, which were then

illegal. The doctor denied the allegations. It was big news in the

Pilot for months. My case at trial received good press, and the jury

convicted him.

Since that time, friends call occasionally after reading the

newspaper to solicit my opinion on the guilt or innocence of

defendants being prosecuted in the courtroom while also being tried

in the court of public opinion. I usually tell them this: No matter

how sensational the charges and the alleged supporting facts, the

defendant is presumed innocent (that is, not guilty of a crime) until

his guilt as to the alleged crime is established beyond a reasonable

doubt to 12 jurors, whose decision must be unanimous.

The question, in a criminal court, is not whether the accused did

the dastardly deed alleged, but whether the prosecution can meet the

high standard of proof required to protect the innocent.

One challenge for the media is to report the case fairly. In so

doing, reporters and editors are faced with an almost impossible

task. Journals publish only a very small fraction of the details that

may influence a jury. Significant evidence is often conflicting. Not

all testimony is truthful, but it may be reported as if it is.

Sensational testimony may be rebutted by unreported evidence days or

weeks later. The jurors are warned daily to reach no decision until

the case is submitted to them. Not so the reader. The reader, based

on limited and possibly erroneous coverage, has a much easier job of

deciding guilt or innocence. Headline summaries are taken as true.

Daily news reports on sensational happenings in court encourage

gossip and premature judgments, but do little to serve the public

interest. They do, however, tend to sell more papers.

Although journalists may be well-intentioned, it is not surprising

when the jury’s decision differs from that of a large number of

readers. In such cases, news reporting has not served the best

interests of journalism or the administration of justice. It has only

demeaned both institutions.

Editors of community newspapers should seriously consider turning

down the volume during the trial period while reporting with reserve

in the inner pages the respective contentions, which the jury and

judge must resolve. Among the dozens of criminal and civil cases

tried weekly in this county, editors should look to consider all

readership, including younger readers, when deciding which ones, if

any, should be emphasized before judgment by sensational headlines

and front-page reporting.

Editors are judges in the court of public opinion. They should ask

themselves, if one of their family members were similarly accused,

how would they want the community newspaper in his or her city to

cover the trial?

GEORGE JEFFRIES

Newport Beach