The judge in the upcoming murder trial of Casey Anthony, Belvin Perry, Jr.,  is refusing to reveal the location where jury selection will take place on Monday, May 9. This is a brilliant decision. If the press had access to the voir dire proceedings, it would serve no purpose other than to expose prospective jurors to public ridicule. It would also guarantee that the press would hound the jurors after the trial and that the losing attorneys would use press reports to find ways to accuse the jurors of misconduct.

Sidebar: If you have any doubt that jurors in a high-profile trial televised nationwide are subject to hounding by the press, you should hear what happened to the foreman of the jury in O. J. Simpson’s recent Nevada trial. I will be blogging about his story soon.

Naturally, a number of media outlets have appealed Judge Perry’s ruling, and if the appeals court can’t rule before Monday, the press will have managed to delay the trial. Clearly the media haven’t heard that justice delayed is justice denied.

Judge Perry has also restricted public demonstrations around the courthouse to specific areas.

Both these issues are being labeled First Amendment issues in the press. They point out that Florida also has “sunshine” laws, which permit the press and public extensive access to courtroom proceedings.

Maybe, its time for the Supreme Court to revisit the issues raised by the murder trial of Sam Sheppard. In 1966 the Supreme Court reversed Sheppard’s conviction because of the circus atmosphere in which the trial was conducted:

From the cases coming here we note that unfair and prejudicial news comment on pending trials has become increasingly prevalent. Due process requires that the accused receive a trial by an impartial jury free from outside influences. Given the pervasiveness of modern communications and the difficulty of effacing prejudicial publicity from the minds of the jurors, the trial courts must take strong measures to ensure that the balance is never weighed against the accused. And appellate tribunals have the duty to make an independent evaluation of the circumstances. Of course, there is nothing that proscribes the press from reporting events that transpire in the courtroom. But where there is a reasonable likelihood that prejudicial news prior to trial will prevent a fair trial, the judge should continue the case until the threat abates, or transfer it to another county not so permeated with publicity. In addition, sequestration of the jury was something the judge should have raised sua sponte with counsel. If publicity during the proceedings threatens the fairness of the trial, a new trial should be ordered. But we must remember that reversals are but palliatives; the cure lies in those remedial measures that will prevent the prejudice at its inception. The courts must take such steps by rule and regulation that will protect their processes from prejudicial outside interferences. Neither prosecutors, counsel for defense, the accused, witnesses, court staff nor enforcement officers coming under the jurisdiction of the court should be permitted to frustrate its function. Collaboration between counsel and the press as to information affecting the fairness of a criminal trial is not only subject to regulation, but is highly censurable and worthy of disciplinary measures.

Of course, a change of venue in Casey Anthony’s trial now can’t fix the problem. And even less-noteworthy crimes and trials than Casey Anthony’s are covered nation-wide.

Maybe its time to remove cameras and microphones from courtrooms when notorious defendants are being tried.