Opinion ID: 379224
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Officials' Role in Publicity

Text: 25 Mayola argues that the conscious involvement of government officials in generating the prejudicial pretrial publicity should constitute an independent basis for overturning his conviction. 8 Without question, some of the most damaging information published by the News and Post-Herald, much of which (such as the content of Mayola's confessions) could and should have remained confidential, emanated from official sources. The conduct of the Blount County Sheriff's Department in allowing a News reporter to accompany officers on the extradition of Mayola from Maryland and to question him extensively on the return trip was particularly outrageous. 26 Such antics are certainly worthy of censure and disciplinary action, and we would echo Mr. Justice Frankfurter's castigation of the State's making itself a conscious participant in trial by newspaper, instead of by those methods which centuries of experience have shown to be indispensable to the fair administration of justice. Stroble v. California, 343 U.S. 181, 201, 72 S.Ct. 599, 609, 96 L.Ed.2d 872 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). Nonetheless, absent some proof that such conduct or publicity actually prejudiced petitioner's right to a fair trial, we can perceive no deprivation of due process such as would justify the overturning of his conviction. 9 Nor, even assuming that we have the power to do so, are we prepared today to announce as a prophylactic in aid of due process and against such future misconduct by police, a rule that would require the abrogation of a conviction arrived at by a process not shown actually to have been unfair in any respect. The cost to society is simply too great. 27 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.