Document: 501 U.S. 1030 111 S.Ct. 2720 115 L.Ed.2d 888 Dominic P. GENTILE, Petitionerv.STATE BAR OF NEVADA. No. 89-1836. Argued April 15, 1991. Decided June 27, Syllabus Petitioner Gentile, an attorney, held a press conference the day after his client, Sanders, was indicted on criminal charges under Nevada law. Six months later, jury acquitted Sanders. Subsequently, respondent State Bar of filed complaint against alleging that statements he made during violated Supreme Court Rule 177, which prohibits lawyer from making extrajudicial to knows or reasonably should know will have "substantial likelihood materially prejudicing" adjudicative proceeding, 177(1), lists number are "ordinarily . likely" result in material prejudice, 177(2), and provides "may state without elaboration general nature defense" "[n]otwithstanding subsection 1 2(a-f)," 177(3). The Disciplinary Board found Gentile recommended be privately reprimanded. affirmed, rejecting contention right free speech. Held: judgment is reversed. 106 Nev. 60, 787 P.2d 386 (1990), Justice KENNEDY delivered opinion with respect Parts III VI, concluding that, as interpreted by Court, 177 void for vagueness. Its safe harbor provision, 177(3), misled into thinking could give fear discipline. Given Rule's grammatical structure absence clarifying interpretation court, fails provide fair notice those whom it directed so imprecise discriminatory enforcement real possibility. By necessary operation word "notwithstanding," contemplates describing "general" defense "elaboration" need no discipline even if statement substantial prejudicing proceeding. Both classic terms degree which, this context, settled usage tradition law, thus has principle determining when remarks pass permissible forbidden. A review conference—where only brief opening declined answer reporters' questions seeking more detailed comments—supports claim thought were protected. That violation Rules studying them conscious effort at compliance shows creates trap wary well unwary. Pp. 1048-1051. THE CHIEF JUSTICE I II, prejudice" test applied most other States satisfies First Amendment. 1065-1076. (a) speech lawyers representing clients pending cases may regulated less demanding standard than "clear present danger" actual prejudice imminent threat established regulation proceedings. See, e.g., Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 539, 96 2791, 49 683. lawyer's extremely circumscribed courtroom, see, Sacher United States, 343 1, 8, 72 451, 454, L.Ed. 717, and, case, limited outside courtroom well, Sheppard Maxwell, 384 333, 363, 86 1507, 1522, 16 600. Cf. Seattle Times Co. Rhinehart, 467 20, 104 2199, 81 17. Moreover, Court's decisions dealing Amendment solicit business advertise not suggested protected same extent engaged businesses, but balanced State's interest regulating specialized profession kind issue. Bates Arizona, 433 350, 97 2691, 53 810. 1065-1075. (b) constitutionally balance between rights attorneys trials. Lawyers such key participants justice system, demand some adherence system's precepts their conduct. Their pose proceeding's fairness, since they special access information through discovery client communication, likely received especially authoritative. designed protect integrity fairness judicial system imposes narrow limitations lawyers' Those aimed comments influence trial's outcome venire, untainted panel ultimately found. Few interests Constitution fundamental trial impartial jurors, preventing officers court imposing costs litigants arising measures, change venue, ensure trial. restraint narrowly tailored achieve these objectives, applies substantially prejudicial effect, neutral points view, merely postpones until 1075-1076. KENNEDY, J., announced MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined, I, IV, V, joined. REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, SCALIA, SOUTER, dissenting Part III, concurring opinion. Michael E. Tigar, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Robert H. Klonoff, respondent. V BLACKMUN STEVENS join. Hours charges, petitioner who member Nevada, conference. He prepared statement, we set forth Appendix opinion, then responded questions. We refer responses course our 2 Some six case tried all counts. rule governing pretrial publicity almost identical ABA Model Professional Conduct 3.6. full text B. 177(1) attorney "an reasonable person would expect disseminated means public communication proceeding." 177(2) prejudice. 177(3) listing can notwithstanding parts rule. 3 Following hearing, Southern had question concluded 177. board private reprimand. appealed waiving confidentiality disciplinary affirmed decision Board. 4 Nevada's application violates spoke time manner neither law nor fact created any client's its laws. Furthermore, appears permit question, spite provision raises concerns vagueness selective enforcement. 5 * matter before us does call constitutionality States' prohibitions upon attorney's proceeding," standard. On hand, one central point must dominate analysis: involves political reprimanded assertion, supported sketch defense, sought indictment conviction innocent man "scapegoat," "been honest enough indict people did it; police department, crooked cops." See infra, A. At issue here ban critical government officials. 6 Unlike Term direct target statute Barnes Glen Theatre, Inc., --- ----, 2456, ---- (1991) (ban nude barroom dancing); Leathers Medlock, 499 1438, 113 494 (sales tax cable satellite television), punishment pure forum. solicitation advertising practice, precedents colleagues discern diminished protection. His words officials conduct office. 7 There exercise power lies very center seeks punish dissemination relating alleged governmental misconduct, last described "speech traditionally been recognized lying core Amendment." Butterworth Smith, 110 1376, 1381, 108 572 (1990). 8 particular courts, play vital part democratic state, legitimate operations. Landmark Communications, Inc. Virginia, 435 829, 838-839, 98 1535, 1541-1542, 56 (1978). "[I]t difficult single out aspect higher concern importance trials conducted." Richmond Newspapers, 448 555, 575, 100 2814, 2826, 65 973 (1980). Public vigilance serves "[t]he knowledge every subject contemporaneous forum effective possible abuse power. Without publicity, checks insufficient; comparison small account." In re Oliver, 333 257, 270-271, 68 499, 506-507, 92 682 (1948). As said Bridges California, 314 252, 62 190, 192 (1941), limits comment about 9 "likely fall crucial important topics discussion. 10 "No suggestion freedom there guaranteed bears inverse ratio timeliness ideas expression." Id., 268-269, S.Ct., 196-197. 11 1515, 600 (1966), reminded guards miscarriage subjecting police, prosecutors, processes extensive scrutiny criticism." 12 awareness criticism greater where, here, allegations corruption, see 606, 2825, 683 (1976) (Brennan, judgment) ("commentary strong evidence implicating official activity goes matters concern"), also circumstance, elected prosecutor. Our grants prosecutors vast discretion stages process, Morrison Olson, 487 654, 727-728, 2597, 2637-2638, 101 569 (1988) (SCALIA, dissenting). responsible exercise. B 13 called determine 3.6 (1981), Nevada. 3.6's requirement necessarily flawed. Interpreted proper manner, instance, prevent record releasing grave eve selection, phrase might danger harm. speech, entitled constitutional protection, use order muster. 14 "Mr. Holmes' never intended 'to express technical legal doctrine convey formula adjudicating cases.' Pennekamp Florida, 328 331, 353 [66 1029, 1040, 90 1295 (1946) ] (Frankfurter, concurring). Properly applied, requires make own inquiry imminence magnitude flow utterance character evil, likelihood, unfettered expression. possibility measures serve weighed." supra, U.S., 842-843, 1543-1544. 15 drafters apparently formulation approximated clear test. Annotated 243 (1984) ("formulation incorporates approximating focusing injury substantiality"; citing 844, 1544; Wood Georgia, 370 375, 82 1364, (1962); 273, 198, guidance whether "poses sufficiently serious administration justice"); G. Hazard & W. Hodes, Law Lawyering: Handbook 397 (1985) ("To traditional terminology, proceeding both (material) (substantially likely)"); Hinds, N.J. 604, 622, 449 A.2d 483, 493 (1982) (substantial linguistic equivalent danger). difference rules common prove mere semantics. Each assessment proximity capable valid application. Under principles, nothing inherent review; demonstrates, conformance principles Court. II 17 Even accept respondent's argument participating proceedings subjected, consistent Amendment, restrictions imposed public, upheld. support conclusion knew known given meaningful content. 18 "in raising issues appellate obligation 'make independent examination whole record' sure 'the constitute forbidden intrusion field expression.' " Bose Corp. Consumers Union 466 485, 1949, 1958, 80 502 (quoting New York Sullivan, 376 254, 284-286, 84 710, 728-729, 686 (1964)). 19 Neither reviewing explain sense petitioner's causing videotape testimony hearing. Bar's rests made, justifications. Full deference factual findings justify abdication responsibility punished standards. Rather, 20 "compelled examine [itself] circumstances do carry impartiality good courts adopted Due Process Clause Fourteenth protect." 335, 66 1031, (1946). 21 'Whenever invaded, remain open defendant actually exist danger; danger, any, imminent; evil apprehended stringent restriction interposed legislature.' 1544 Whitney 274 357, 378-379, 47 641, 649-650, 71 1095 (1927) (Brandeis, concurring)). 22 Whether Communications lower find permissible, reveals basis court's presented 23 earlier Mu'Min 500 1899, (1991), pointed contrast case. There, community subjected barrage prior Mu'Min's capital murder. News stories appeared over several included, addition details crime itself, numerous items inadmissible Eight twelve individuals seated admitted exposure publicity. rise level requiring questioning individual jurors content light holding, abbreviated, is, say least, unconvincing. 24 Pre-Indictment Publicity. January 31, 1987, undercover Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Metro) reported large amounts cocaine (four kilograms) travelers' (almost $300,000) missing safety deposit vault Western Vault Corporation. drugs money used conducted Metro's Intelligence Bureau. Petitioner's Grady owned Vault. John Moran, sheriff, theft February 2, naming employees suspects. 25 Although two officers, Detective Steve Scholl Sargeant Ed Schaub, enjoyed box throughout period theft, log comings goings vault, series reports following year indicated investigators consider responsible. Instead, focused owner. Newspaper quoted sheriff high saying lost confidence "elite" From beginning, Sheriff Moran "complete faith trust" officers. App. 85. 26 media announcement others boxes come forward items. One claimed life savings $90,000. 89. suffered heavy losses customers terminated rentals, company soon went business. opened search items, seized $264,900 currency listed unrented. 27 Initial stated Sanders being cooperative; on, noted investigation failed identify culprit process elimination beginning toward Reports affidavit detective discredit records existence relation targets Metro probe. 28 Deputy Chief detectives "cleared" According unnamed "source close investigation," shifted idea thief planned theory unwittingly stolen police. "could reached comment." 93. 29 story took sensational turn suspects cleared passing lie detector tests. tests administered Ray Slaughter. But FBI arrested Slaughter distributing informant, Belinda Antal. It unrented stored suitcase Tammy Sue Markham. Markham "facing federal drug-related charges" Tucson, Arizona. three she rented Vault, Beatrice Connick who, according reports, Colombian national living San Diego "not facing drug related charges." (As turned out, impeached Connick's credibility laundering conviction.) taken passed substantiate her charges. 94-97. Finally, refused take polygraph examination. 41. suspected severely damaged relations Metro. 30 Conference. author articles procedure, former Associate Dean National College Criminal Defense Defenders. 36-38. Through leaks advance date returned monitored surrounding personally aware least major local newspapers, Sun Review-Journal, television news ensuing investigation. 38-39; Respondent's Exhibit A, Bd. determined, first career, formal blunder conference, acted considerable deliberation. 31 1. Motivation. explained board, primary motivation unless weaknesses potential venire poisoned repetition released repeated longer 40-42. Respondent distorts suggests explanation admits purpose proves Rule. indicate sway pool form trial, seek discuss counter already deemed prejudicial. attempted "(i) perceived adverse Mr. (ii) refute certain regarding media, (iii) fight back efforts prosecution poison prospective juror pool, (iv) publicly Sanders' side case." 3-4. 32 Far admission "materially prejudic[e] stop wave injuring reputation community. 33 gave second reason holding demonstrates additional value because toll client. health," having multiple open-heart surgeries events. And indictment, suspicion wrongdoing caused closure loss ground lease Atlantic City, Jersey property. Ibid. 34 An duties begin inside door. cannot ignore practical implications Just recommend plea bargain civil settlement avoid consequences too steps defend reduce face unjust commenced improper motives. pursue lawful strategies obtain dismissal reduction including attempt demonstrate deserve tried. 35 2. Investigation phrased what "knows know." evening spent hours researching obligations decided, held, Patton Yount, 1025, 2885, 847 (1984), timing application, accord, Stroble 181, 191-194, 599, 604-606, 872 (1952). 44. 36 Upon return August, 1988, future. knew, empaneled earliest, ever. recalled finding resulting "far worse" four proposed 37 reaches attention voir dire require continuance cause difficulties securing jury, complicate selection process. (timing significant factor seriousness threat). fading memory long date. 38 Clark County, population excess 600,000 persons. size drawn length damaging innocuous reinforces my conclusion. 39 3. Content Statement. disciplined effect (1) demonstrated innocence, (2) detective, Scholl, (3) victims credible, dealers convicted launderers, accused response pressure, "trying work themselves something." Infra, A; 2-3 (Findings Recommendation Board). strongly implied observed suffering symptoms use. Of course, fraction newspaper broadcasts. 40 mentioned Gentile's 127-129, 131-132; Bd.1 District Attorney bring beyond doubt. 128-129. Sullivan "We satisfied (Scholl Sgt. Schaub) other. They above reproach. veteran dedicated enforcement." context awareness, repetitive investigation, remained favor prosecution. 41 Much provided published another, obviating (extent circulated prejudice). remainder, provide, available journalist willing little bit investigative work. 42 lacks obvious bases except confirm submitted polygraph; confessions, searches results; elaborate charge so-called pressured testify trouble, asserted claims collect insurance money. 43 C. Events vindicated events While true 177's controlling judged ex post probative cases. Here, where purports demand, requires, consideration harm heightened occurrence, altogether devoid facts follow 44 place schedule request either party venue continuance. apparent difficulty. judge questioned many vague recollections operation, feared, remembered suspicion, recollection 48-49; B, 45 motives supposed testified Scholl's ingestion operations (in order, testified, gain suspects). 47. "when next week foreman phoned me verdict guilt proven guilty doubt." 47-48. 46 indeed sufficient vagueness, event, 177(3)(a) defense." Statements 2(a-f)." "general "without elaboration" discipline, character, credibility, witness," [the statement] 48 structure, absent 'fair [it] directed.' Grayned City Rockford, 408 104, 112, 2294, 2301, 222 (1972). avail himself 177(3)' § protection guess contours. insufficient degree. us, sea elaborated. 59. supports claim. occasions comments. illustrative exchange obey rule: 50 "QUESTION FROM FLOOR: Dominick, you mention witnesses, named indictment. 51 "Can go backgrounds, interests— 52 "MR. GENTILE: can't ethics prohibit doing so. "Last night decided going look professional responsibility. things can't. Okay? 54 "I name backgrounds. I'm guys just work." 11a (emphasis added).2 55 Nevertheless, "went scope permitted SCR 177(3)," 5, rejection based terse, Pet. Cert. 4a. prohibition regulations eliminate impermissible risk enforcement, Kolender Lawson, 461 352, 357-358, 361, 103 1855, 1858-1859, 1860, 75 903 (1983); Smith Goguen, 415 566, 572-573, 94 1242, 1246-1247, 605 (1974), history suppressed speaker message enforce occurred assume not, relevance classes affected bar, mission challenge actions State. Petitioner, succeeded involved government. IV 57 analysis resolves usual discussion end here. Five members however, endorse extended concludes interpret deferential concerned. necessary, therefore, objections reasoning underlies it. 58 argues others, assessed balancing weighs cited balancing, 810 (1977), Peel Registration Comm'n Illinois, 496 2281, 83 Ohralik Ohio Assn., 436 447, 1912, 444 (1978), commercial release categories, underlying justified creation, implicated proclaimed misuse prosecutorial powers. Wide-open appropriate context. 59 limitation "lawyers information, confidential obtained negotiations" "are authoritative." Brief 22. reflect confidences, gained discovery, proprietary information. upheld "only virtue processes." 32, 2207. Similar maintain confidences. 1.6 (1981). 60 This rationale Times. included explicit reference inference reports. learned revealed afforded attorneys, outset participation presiding misused access. waived event. attorneys. Cf., ----. far this. 61 relies obiter dicta Sawyer, 360 79 1473 (1959), (1976), proposition ongoing pervasive adjudication Sawyer Act prosecutions rather involved, sanctionable applicable Canon Ethics quite apart resort principles. considered barring reporting defendant's Sixth right, counsel. overturned circus, stars. Dr. Sheppard's traced principal irresponsibility failure control courthouse environment. release, none confronted scope. recognize survives swore practice Primus, 412, 1893, 417 (1978); supra. recent years accepted colleagues' brings comprehensive restrictions, defer bodies impinge freedoms. justifications put suffice sanction abandonment normal 63 correct, "whether 'practice [furthers] unrelated suppression expression' freedoms [is] essential involved,' Times, 2207 Procunier Martinez, 416 396, 413, 1800, 1811, 224 (1974)), searching required precedents. 64 Only occasional presents Empirical research few instances exposed able disregard base court. generally Simon, Does Decision Association Fit Research Evidence Impact Jurors Coverage?, Stan.L.Rev. 515 (1977); Drechsel, Alternative View Media-Judiciary Relations: What Non-Legal Suggests About Fair Trial-Free Issue, Hofstra L.Rev. (1989). Voir role reminding aside out-of-court decide All factors weigh affording protections. historical survey notwithstanding, restricting scrutiny. Still justification exists prosecutor attorney. amici example managed state's discounting lack topic—the difficulty appealing acquittal—the anecdotal much-studied area remarkable. various bar association advisory commission resulted promulgation sources cite, convincing Swift, 3.6: Unconstitutional Regulation Trial Publicity, Boston U.L.Rev. 1003, 1031-1049 (summarizing studies empirical publicity); ("data showing reliance journalists confirms appropriateness attempting pre-trial publicity"). prosecution, officials, hold innumerable avenues defendant, within regulation. contrast, speak incriminating defendants retain team counsel sole countering statements. These underscore blanket careful 67 uses "officer court" label imply contact somehow inimical role. posits inconsistency discussions press. permits "a articulate reconciled how Because participate trained complexities, unique qualifications source "Since credible regard litigation knowledgeable positions, opinion." Chicago Council Bauer, 522 F.2d 242, 250 (CA7 1975). To rely well-informed, bar. If dangers arise persuasiveness, ability proceedings, believed, sort validate restrictions. command assent. 69 concede nonparticipant, duty cooperate him taking intent frustrate subjects fiduciary parties. position added obstruct well-timed press, though debate violating duties. cooperation nonparticipants. weighing occurs forces burdensome sequestration, continuance, venue. 70 regular raised innocuous, 177(3)'s begrudging, force arguments different setting. instant poor vehicle defining precision outer regulate represents interest, gravity, imminence, likelihood. vigorous advocacy takes neutral, dispassionate system. Though cost delays undermine cases, American remains purest, rational forums determination disputes. pride traditions disserved skills insight untested instead courtroom. constraints societal disapproval act safeguards courts. specific Amendment.3 VI 73 Reversed. APPENDIX A—Petitioner's Opening Remarks Conference 1988. 8a-9a. 74 want start off think event evolution sophistication Vegas, nature, exactly happened French connection Miami cases—at there—have cities cops. "When develops, you're leveled him, money, Express Travelers' checks, Scholl. 76 "There establish human being. 77 "And feel scapegoat try cover up Attorney's 78 "Now, contained victims, sit today tell one, two—four launderers dealers; didn't anything approached trouble trying something. moment, started along wanted say, incredible liars now believe them. "Another problem develop counts, this, c[h]ecks missing. "Many contracts show contract $100,000 contents box. "If closely, $100,000. "Finally, came '87, something dealt we're essentially ever 85 "That's say." [Questions floor followed.] 87 B—Nevada 88 "Trial Publicity 89 "1. shall "2. referred ordinarily refers triable matter, incarceration, relates to: 91 "(a) party, suspect witness, identity expected witness; "(b) offense confession, admission, person's refusal statement; 93 "(c) performance results submit test, physical presented; "(d) innocence incarceration; 95 "(e) disclosed create trial; "(f) charged crime, therein explaining accusation presumed guilty. "3. Notwithstanding 2(a-f), elaboration: defense; record; 99 progress, prohibited persons involved; scheduling step litigation; assistance obtaining thereto; 102 warning concerning behavior interest; "(g) case: identity, residence, occupation family status accused; 105 "(ii) apprehended, aid apprehension person; "(iii) fact, arrest; 107 "(iv) investigating arresting agencies investigation." REHNQUIST SOUTER 109 represented defendant. Bar, review, Nonetheless, contends stricter met disciplined: "actual trial." 15. conclude states highly publicized indicted. among statements: 112 being." 114 ". them." 27-28. 116 press: 117 stigma attaches accused—okay—I represent man. you, let talk told dismissed was. 118 don't cheap shots like guy. right? 119 120 "[The police] playing fast loose. We've got video tapes them, I'll what, [Detective Scholl] hell cold seen better doctor." 28. 121 Articles newspapers approximately although empaneling coverage 122 perpetrating abusing witness believed characterized witnesses. calling statements, timing, purpose, 123 Board's decision, "knew 386, 387 "highly publicized"; arraignment, "timed maximum impact"; "related witnesses." "absence prejudice." 124 asserts restraints publication pendency whose suppress commentary evidentiary matters, "further unchecked, distort views would, instructions, fulfill sworn render exclusively court." 569, 2807. Respondent, sharply distinguished parties proceeding: "Collaboration affecting regulation, censurable worthy measures." 1522. 125 evaluate opposing contentions, 126 historically exercised authority disbar departed prescribed "Membership privilege burdened conditions," oft-repeated Cardozo, Rouss, 221 N.Y. 81, 84, N.E. 782, 783 (1917), Theard 354 278, 281, 1274, 1276, 1342 (1957). 127 More century ago, code promulgated country, Alabama Code 1887, warned "Avoid Discussion Legal Matters," "[n]ewspaper publications merits anticipated tend otherwise due justice." Drinker, 23, 356 (1953). 1908, code, "Canons Ethics." Many thereafter Canons jurisdictions. stated: 128 "Newspaper interfere Courts justice. Generally condemned. extreme unprofessional anonymously. parte quotation papers file court; statement." quarter-century, reviewed ethical interpreting Responsibility recommendations Advisory Committee Free (Advisory Committee), 1964 recommendation Warren Commission. Commission's report assassination President Kennedy 129 "representatives associations, together standards collection presentation interference investigations, 130 Report President's Commission Assassination (1964), Ainsworth, "Fair Press," F.R.D. (1968). developed Standards Relating Press, guidelines disclosure relied 1968 formulating identified 362-363, 1522-1523. 1966, Judicial authorized "Special Subcommittee Implement Maxwell proceed study necessity promulgating corrective action shield juries Operation Jury System "Free Press-Fair Trial" 391, 404-407 Courts, responding report, proceeded enact incorporating standards, "reasonable trial" majority federal, Sheppard. Ten amended guidelines, likelihood" changed Standard 8-1.1 (as 1978) (2d ed. 1980, Supp.1986). 131 When drafted early 1980's, revised giving precedence implicated, Currently, adopted—either verbatim insignificant variations—Rule ABA's Rules.1 Eleven 7-107 Responsibility, protective 3.6, standard.2 State, explicitly standard, while Columbia arguably approximate danger."3 132 maintains, threat" initiates here.4 (1946), Craig Harney, 331 367, 1249, 1546 (1947), position. punish, contempt power, publishing editorials, cartoons, judges punishments "some substantive avert." 270, 197. (1962), criticizing judge's grand jury. 133 Holmes, Patterson Colorado, 205 463, 556, 558, 879 (1907), "[w]hen finished, people, propriety premature intimidation hardly denied." similar Bridges, 271, 197: 134 "The 'trial' connotes properly advanced elections, won meeting-hall, radio, newspaper." 135 positions illustrate dilemmas adjudication. quotes epitomize founded: Extrajudicial of, version obviously threaten basic tenet. 136 time, larger wish informed happenings changes way acquire media. protections above, malfunction insist pronouncements penalize lesser showing. 137 unquestionable whatever "free speech" circumscribed. conduct, resist ruling preserve appeal. 717 (1952) (criminal trial); Fisher Pace, 336 155, 425, (1949) (civil trial). separate opinions ordinary citizen be. affirming suspension attack judge. plurality improper, impugned integrity. Stewart, fifth vote reversal sanction, join "intimation invoke immunize evenhanded unethical conduct." 646, 1388. "[o]bedience abstention speech." 646-647, 1388-1389. Justices sustained said: "Of castigate actively particularly emotionally lawyer. 138 139 "He intimate trusted machinery justice, 'officer court' compelling sense." 666, 668, 1398, 1399 dissenting, joined Clark, Harlan, Whittaker, JJ.). 140 Likewise, denied new remedy 141 "we remember reversals palliatives; cure remedial inception. interferences. accused, staff coming jurisdiction function. Collaboration 1522 added). 142 expressly contemplated limited.5 distinction strangers brought sharp relief (1984). unanimously newspaper, itself libel action, restrained plaintiffs supporters court-ordered discovery. "[a]lthough 'surrender door,' subordinated setting," id., 32-33, n. 18, 2207-2208, (citation omitted), "on [we have] approved communications defendant." 143 advertise, contrary ethics, businesses. (1990); each long-established Cohen, N.Y.2d 488, 495, 199 N.Y.S.2d 658, 661, 166 N.E.2d 672, 675 (1960): 144 "Appellant citizens. stood Appellate Division another capacity, also. 'an officer instrument .' (Quoted Cohen Hurley, 366 117, 126, 954, 959, 156 (1961)). 145 plainly preceded Brennan Stewart Marshall, "[a]s personnel engage redound detriment 601, 2823, 27. communications, 627, (statements knowledgeable, reliable true" attorneys' information); Rachmiel, 656, 505, 511 (N.J.1982) (attorneys' advocates gives "extraordinary destroy efficacy system"). agree constitutes 146 implicates rights, question. embodied analysis, evils: Few, "impartial" violate right. Sheppard, 350-351, 1515-1516; Turner Louisiana, 379 466, 473, 546, 550, 424 (1965) (evidence solely stand protections). ensured dire, device, entail Extensive filter effects increasingly widespread trials, undo lawyers, litigants. 147 objectives. limited—it effect; applying equally case; integrity, 148 assist deciding problematic, sets Contrary contention, presumptions. derived, specifically categorical Evaluation Standards, Conduct, Notes Comments 143-144 (Proposed Final Draft, May 30, 1981) Draft). closely track list outlined Sheppard: 149 aggravates action. Effective sources—concededly prevented divulgence inaccurate rumors, accusations much inflammatory 150 "More specifically, proscribed lawyer, divulged interrogation tests; officials; witnesses probable testimony; belief innocence; Van Duyne, 369, 389, 204 841, 852 Association's statements." 1521. 151 overbroad, unconstitutional face, goals. "overbreadth" enactment "prohibits 114, 2302, unconstitutional, overbreadth "substantial." Trustees University Fox, 492 469, 3028, 3037, 388 broader interests. issue, bench still violated. rarely trier often discount For reasons face. 152 adequate void-for-vagueness concerned runs afoul (1974); Colten Kentucky, 407 110, 1953, 1957, 584 compilation posing unacceptable Proposed Draft 143. complain notice, objective prohibition—to upcoming influencing jurors. clearly forbidden, advisory, certainly effect. 153 agrees victim relationship subsections (see 1033-1034). Subsection allows "the examples true, combined sentence 3, definite contain No sensible elaboration": Scholl"; "there being"; "[Detective cold, doctor"; launderers." exception provisions read sections. negate wholesale, simply "safe harbor" doubt covered disciplined; "[i]n sufficiency examined charged." Dairy Products Corp., 372 29, 33, 594, 598, 561 (1963). 154 strongest taint panel. inflammatory—they portrayed users dealers, launderers—but timed impact, height immediately Reviewing independently entire record, convinced "substantially pro con point, persuasive venire. risk, succeed. 155 ourselves, highest respectful conclusion." findings, appreciate apply presumptions, trial,6 cannot, mistaken. Gypsum Co., 364, 394-396, 525, 541-542, 746 Several argue disciplined. stating heretofore decline adopt objection adopted, flagrant if, wholly reasons, insulated government, comments, dismiss reached. culpable mandate fortuitous difference. 157 oath recited support, abide hereafter ." 73, (1991). excuse obligation, forbid 158 affirm 159 concurring. 160 JUSTICE's particular, readily such, legitimately keep engaging 1388-1389, (1959) (Stewart, result). mean, forfeit applies. articulated passes Accordingly, 161 KENNEDY's provision. "notwithstanding" prohibitory language located elsewhere rule, [t]he stay boundaries harbor." rough trial—i.e., stole traveler's checks. asked details, declined, compelled Ante, 1049. sanctioned because, side, view guidance. correctly offends deter Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Haslip, 1032, 1056, (O'CONNOR, reverse basis. summary follows: "2-5-88: "GENTILE NEWS CONFERENCE STORY. GENTILE COMPARES VAULT BURGLARY TO FRENCH CONNECTION CASE IN WHICH BAD GUYS WERE COPS. SAYS EVIDENCE IS CIRCUMSTANTIAL AND THAT COPS SEEM MORE LIKELY CULPRITS, DET. SCHOLL HAS SHOWN SIGNS DRUG USE, OTHER CUSTOMERS PRESSURED INTO COMPLAINING BY METRO, THOSE ARE KNOWN DEALERS, AGENCIES HAVE OPERATED OUT WITHOUT HAVING SIMILAR PROBLEMS. METRO SULLIVAN EXPLAINS OFFICERS INVOLVED BEEN CLEARED POLYGRAPH TESTS. STORY MENTIONS POLYGRAPHER WAS RAY SLAUGHTER, UNUSUAL BECAUSE SLAUGHTER PRIVATE EXAMINER, NOT EXAMINER. REPORTER DETAILS SLAUGHTER'S BACKGROUND, INCLUDING HIS TEST JOHN MORAN REGARDING SPILOTRO CONTRIBUTIONS. ALSO BUST, SPECULATES ABOUT WHETHER IT SETUP FBI. QUOTES AS SAYING TWO CASES DEFINITELY RELATED." 131-132 Other Do disappearance dope and— Let this: proof things. reluctant slander somebody, guy that? proof? It'll out; it'll out." 9a. seems lines do. Well, couldn't more. it? Yes do; again, Dan, now. "All interesting develops." 10a. Did cops polygraph? Slaughter's get anybody themselves. there's connection? Absolutely. it, it's intertwined great deal, think. true. anything. legitimate—legitimately tests? reasons: "Number wouldn't liar "But, secondly, [Sanders] one? Yes. No, polygraph. you? disclose now." 12a-13a. overbreadth. interprets providing "presumptively regardless 48. 177(2)'s establishing presumption, "assist lawyer" compliance. 28, address reading plausible, treatise reading. 398-399 (analogous presumption find, arguments. Arkansas, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, West Wyoming verbatim. Delaware, Montana, Hampshire, Jersey, York, Oklahoma, Dakota, Texas, Wisconsin minor modifications irrelevant Michigan Washington Minnesota "pending trial[s]." Utah employing influencing" Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Ohio, Tennessee, Vermont North Carolina prejudic[e]" 7.7 Illinois (1990) ("serious proceeding"); Maine 3.7(j) ("substantial Dakota Oregon DR fact-finding acts indifference effect"); 7-101 (Supp.1991) jury"). disagree "does states' 'substantial proceeding,' standard." Supra, 1034. challenged contending Press. Petr.'s Br. 27-31. validity has, consistently nonlawyers. made. note cites supporting non-third county instructions technically position, determined capacity citizen, 393, 1374. petitioner, furtherance contend favorable side. prejudicial, despite affirmatively biased place, difficult, impossible, apply. fundamentally, misconceives "juror lay impression Court." Murphy 421 794, 800, 2031, 2036, 589 (1975). initially swayed open-mindedness rendered fit service bombarded premise suits 197; Patterson, 462, 558. by, grounds. abuses self-help similarly counsel, disciplining

Category: 2