CHANDLER V. FLORIDA 449 U.S. 560 (1981) CASE BRIEF

CHANDLER V. FLORIDA

449 U.S. 560 (1981)

NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a trial for conspiracy to commit burglary, grand larceny, and possession of burglary tools where Chandler (D) objected over the televising of the trial as it denied them a fair and impartial trial.

FACTS: The ABA proposed revised standards that included a provision permitting courtroom coverage by the electronic media under conditions to be established by local rule and under the control of the trial judge, but only if such coverage was carried out unobtrusively and without affecting the conduct of the trial. The Florida Supreme Court announced an experimental program and eventually a set of rules for dealing with televising trials. In July 1977, Chandler (Ds) were charged with conspiracy to commit burglary, grand larceny, and possession of burglary tools. At the time of their arrest, Ds were Miami Beach policemen. The State's principal witness was John Sion, an amateur radio operator who, by sheer chance, had overheard and recorded conversations between Ds over their police walkie-talkie radios during the burglary. Ds sought to have experimental Canon 3A (7) declared unconstitutional on its face and as applied. The trial court denied relief but certified the issue to the Florida Supreme Court. The Supreme Court declined to rule on the question. After several additional fruitless attempts by the appellants to prevent electronic coverage of the trial, the jury was selected. At voir dire, Ds' counsel asked each prospective juror whether he or she would be able to be 'fair and impartial' despite the presence of a television camera during some, or all, of the trial. Each juror selected responded that such coverage would not affect his or her consideration in any way. A television camera recorded the voir dire. A defense motion to sequester the jury because of the television coverage was denied by the trial judge. The court instructed the jury not to watch or read anything about the case in the media and suggested that jurors 'avoid the local news and watch only the national news on television.' Subsequently, D requested that the witnesses be instructed not to watch any television accounts of testimony presented at trial. The trial court declined to give such an instruction. Ds were convicted and moved for a new trial, claiming that because of the television coverage, they had been denied a fair and impartial trial. No evidence of specific prejudice was tendered. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions. The Florida Supreme Court denied review. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner