Court Opinion

ID: 9667612
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:50:49.34658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:39.292659
License: Public Domain

Danhof, C.J.
(concurring). I concur with the result reached by the majority and their analysis. As stated therein, it is unfortunate that defendant should obtain a retrial because the evidence against him was overwhelming and his guilt cannot be doubted. However, this case illustrates what *754can sometimes result from the combined effect of the constitutional right of freedom of the press and a defendant’s right to trial before a fair and impartial jury.
The crime was certainly a newsworthy event at the time of its occurrence, as was the subsequent apprehension of the suspects. However, the various elements of the news media were not content to simply report the incident. Instead, they engaged in an almost frenzied competition to see who could put forth the most sensational story. The publicity subsided after defendant’s apprehension, but then it seemed to rise to fever pitch again at the time the trial began. Indeed, at the very time the prospective jurors were being interviewed at the voir dire examination, they were subjected to the glare of télevision lights and cameras which were stationed in the hallway outside the judge’s chambers where the examination was being conducted.1 This additional publicity was recognized by the trial judge when he transferred the trial of the codefendant to another jurisdiciton.2
I believe that this case is an example of what can transpire when those who enjoy the benefit of the First Amendment fail to accept the responsibilities that go with it._

 Voir dire transcript, p 136.

 Codefendant Ricky Newell was convicted by a jury of three counts of first-degree murder and this Court affirmed the conviction in People v Newell (Docket No. 78-4640, decided November 6, 1980 [unreported]).