COURTS - JUDICIAL ETHICS - BROADCAST OF MURDER TRIAL

Authors

Michigan Law Review, University of Michigan Law School

Abstract

A microphone was installed in a court room with consent of the trial judge and counsel, for a direct broadcast of a murder trial. Prisoner's counsel, in his argument to the jury, made certain remarks concerning the plaintiff, state's witness, which the latter claimed were libelous per se. Joining as defendants the trial judge, counsel for the alleged felon, and the director of the radio station, plaintiff asserted that the installation of the equipment was an "extrajudicial and illegal" act. Defendant trial judge's motion for non-suit was granted at the close of plaintiff's case, The case was submitted to the jury, under proper instructions as to the other defendants; the jury returned a verdict for the defendants. On appeal, with one justice dissenting, it was held that the order of non-suit as to the judge was properly granted and that the judgment in favor of the defendant would not be disturbed. Counsel was not liable because of privilege, hence the broadcasters were likewise privileged. Irwin v. Ashurst, (Ore. 1938) 74 P. (2d) 1127.

Recommended Citation

Michigan Law Review, COURTS - JUDICIAL ETHICS - BROADCAST OF MURDER TRIAL, 36 Mich. L. Rev. 1386 (1938).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol36/iss8/14