Pictures and the Perp Walk: Prejudicial or Proper?

[WSJ Law Blog]

Huh. We thought this issue had been settled long ago. Maybe not. In any event, it’s interesting enough to toss your way, LBers.

The question: should a newspaper be enjoined from publishing photos of a criminal defendant in handcuffs for fear that such pictures might prejudice a jury?

The issue is playing out out on Long Island. U.S. District Judge Arthur Spatt said on Wednesday he would hold a hearing to determine whether to bar the newspaper Newsday from continuing to publish, and a television station from broadcasting pictures of, Long Island legislator Roger Corbin in handcuffs because the actions would prejudice his chance for a fair trial. Click here for the story, from Newsday itself.

The hearing was granted following a motion by Corbin’s attorney, Thomas Liotti, who said Newsday had printed about eight similar pictures of Corbin with his hands behind his back, apparently handcuffed.

Roger Corbin was arrested earlier this month on federal charges that he evaded taxes on money he took from the developer of a New Cassel housing project and lied to federal agents about it.

Corbin has maintained his innocence since his arrest and has vowed to continue his reelection bid.

Spatt called it “especially troubling to me” that the pictures of Corbin handcuffed were used in the days following his arrest when Newsday and a television station could have used other pictures taken during Corbin’s long legislative career.

In arguing that Spatt should throw out Liotti’s request for a hearing, David Schulz, attorney for Newsday and the television station, said that never in U.S. history has the U.S. Supreme Court or the Second Circuit allowed a judge to restrain news organizations before publication.

“Courts do not get [into] telling the media what to publish,” Schulz said.

Spatt replied that as strong as the First Amendment protections are, they are not absolute. For instance, the government could restrain the publication of child pornography, Spatt said.

Deidra Parrish Williams, spokeswoman for Newsday, said last night: “It is our right and obligation to report the news completely and we will continue to uphold this commitment to our readers.”

Any First Amendment scholars or practitioners out there who might be able to shed some light on this?

hmmm...i think it is legal these days...