News media barred from contacting jurors in murder case

By The Associated Press

11.15.01

Printer-friendly page

CAMDEN, N.J. — A day after she declared a mistrial in the capital murder trial of Cherry Hill Rabbi Fred J. Neulander, a judge upheld her order forbidding the news media from contacting jurors in the case or publishing their names.

NBC and its Philadelphia television station, WCAU-TV, asked state Superior Court Judge Linda G. Baxter yesterday to lift her restriction, which was unusual in that it applied after the jurors were dismissed.

Baxter said media access to jurors should be restricted because the case would be tried again. She did not say how she would have ruled had the six men and six women on the jury reached a verdict.

Neulander is charged with arranging his wife’s 1994 murder so he could carry on an affair with another woman. On Nov. 13, the jurors said they were hopelessly deadlocked, and Baxter declared a mistrial. If convicted of the most serious charges, he could have faced the death penalty.

“I don’t think any court has ever said the First Amendment is more important than the rights of a defendant in a death-penalty case,” Baxter said.

She said if jurors in the retrial knew their predecessors had been contacted by reporters, they might be reluctant to exchange ideas freely. Baxter also said it would be harder to find jurors.

Neulander’s lawyers opposed the news agencies’ motion. Prosecutors took no position.

Dennis Wixted, a lawyer for Neulander, said potential jurors in the trial fretted about the news media during the seven-week selection process.

“The one common fear almost all the jurors expressed,” Wixted said, “was they didn’t want to be bothered or hounded by the press. They want to be protected.”

Carolyn Short, a lawyer for NBC and WCAU, said she was considering filing an appeal.

She said the possibility of a potential juror in a new trial knowing that other jurors had been contacted does not outweigh the freedom the press is usually afforded.

Short said jurors should not expect to escape media scrutiny when deliberations are completed. “It is a matter of civic duty to serve as a juror,” Short said.

Ronald Kahn, a professor of law and politics at Oberlin College in Ohio, said federal law gives judges the legal authority to issue gag orders on the media — and judges have done so too often.

“Here’s a case where the judge may not have legally overstepped her bounds, but wasn’t solicitous enough with respect to the media’s right to free speech,” Kahn said.

Another First Amendment expert said Baxter lacks the authority to do what she did.

“I would drool at this one. This would not be a hard case to win,” said Jonathan Kotler, director of graduate programs at the University of Southern California and a lawyer who often represents the media.

He said a judge’s order would not pertain to reporters not in the courtroom when she made it — and media contact with jurors likely would not have as great an effect on a retrial as Baxter said it might.

The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Associated Press have filed a joint motion similar to the one denied yesterday. Warren Faulk, an attorney for the two news agencies, said yesterday’s ruling “kind of moots our application.” He said he and his clients had not decided what course to take.

Usually after high-profile cases, reporters approach jurors in the courthouse parking lot. On Nov. 13, a few stood near the lot but did not get near the jurors, who were escorted by sheriff’s officers.

But at least one journalist made some effort at contacting jurors.

In court yesterday, Baxter played a tape from her home answering machine in which a field producer from Philadelphia’s WPVI-TV said he was ordered by his news director to follow jurors home in a news van.

He said on the tape he was afraid of violating Baxter’s order and also of being fired if he didn’t.

Yesterday, the producer, Henry Veguilla, would not comment. “I think it’s pretty self-evident,” he said.

Dave Davis, WPVI-TV president and general manager, said the station had apologized to Baxter, but said his news staff did not violate the judge’s order.

“We did not contact, approach or attempt to speak with any jurors,” Davis said in statement.

One newspaper took a different approach. The Courier-Post of Cherry Hill published a newsroom phone number yesterday and invited jurors to call on their own to speak with an editor.

Update

Newspaper names juror, quotes another despite judge's order
Philadelphia Inquirer also has appealed ruling barring news media from contacting or naming jurors in New Jersey rabbi’s murder case.  11.19.01

Previous

Judge fends off effort to publish jurors' names in N.J. rabbi case
Two news outlets had asked for more public disclosure in case involving murder of wife of Rabbi Fred Neulander.  09.02.01

Related

Appeals panel rejects challenge to anonymous jury in Louisiana corruption trial
But federal court finds judge erred by telling news media not to ‘circumvent’ order keeping jurors’ names secret.  05.03.01

Utah could mask juror identity for five days after trials
Press fears Judicial Council rule will hinder timely newsgathering, undermine court credibility.  08.28.01

News groups fail to gain access to jurors
First Amendment experts say federal appeals panel’s ruling follows trend in 5th Circuit to restrict journalists’ newsgathering rights.  09.26.01

Reporter does not have to turn over notes, judge rules
Court rebuffs efforts by N.J. rabbi accused of arranging wife's murder to attain records from Philadelphia Inquirer journalist.  09.12.00