Reader Ad Slot
Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Atlanta Child Murders — Part 21
Page 32
32 / 101
weet ee a wo
& rn At.
FILESrIN OF FICE.
TR THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FOLTOd COUNTY
. . ; AUS2T 181
STATE OF GEORGIA Lit Adem on
a GEORG LA ry SUPER
STATE OF GEQRGLA, } FULTON. EXKIMTT GLORGIA
Flaintify
Todictment Mo. A- SE/SL
WAYNE B, WILLIAMS,
: Da fendant.
meet et ere et te Heat a
‘
ORDER RESTRICTING ‘EXTRA JODICIAL STATEMENTS BY
-<..43, - TRE PROSECUTION, COUNSEL TOR THE DEFENSE, POTENT TAL
_ WITHESGES , COURT FPERSGRNEL AND MEMBERS OF THE
we) BRECLAL TASK Force INVEETIGATING THE Teorry-LIGHT
yo. CAILD SLAYING Cages. Es
ar ; ‘seg 3 ate 7 .
; zaving noted through the news media the names of tee
potential prosecetion witnerses welt az statements made by
then regarding mattera pertinent to the upcaming trial of 7
Wayne B. Willians, the Court, of its own‘motion, hae ‘weighed and
considered its impact on ‘tha Befendant's Co netitutional right te
a fsiz and fepertial trie]. Since it is the trial judge's ©
ity te eontrel prejudielel pretrial publicity and the
eae ecinne
. Befendant's right to = fair trial, ‘the Court Lindis it absolutely
neceseary to prevent 3 2 recurrence of such: publicity by vestrict-
ing comments te the media by the prosecution, Counsel for the
befense, potential witnesses, court peraonhel and members OF
the Special Pelies Tack Force: including the Comuissioner of
Public Safety, the Birecter of the Bureav of Police Services or
enyone affilieted with Jaw enforcement. oo ,
Said restriotions ate being jmposed in keeping with the
0.48, Supreme Court rulings in Sheppard V. Maxwell] 384 0.8. 333
(1976) and Rebroske Press Association v. Stuart 427 0.5. $39
(1966), In Sheppard v, Maxweji, the 9,5, Bupreme Court focused ©
om the trial court's duty te pretest the Pefendant’s congstttn-
tional yight to a fair trial, as follows:
“Due process requires thee the accused receiva a trial by
impartial jury free from putside influences. Given the
pervasiveness of modern communications and the difficulty
acing prejudicial publicity tro
jurors, the trial court must take strong measures to
@nsure that the balence is never weighed ageinat the
E
|
ae ob a as EL oe pepe A,
a
“
la
Bete ee oe ie
me,
MTR
fyheRieaniy
‘ayo
au
ere uit oi eh
ape CE Go
fat ee os
ae ae
Moe
tnt te
wig
Se ee a ee a
Pll
ef
Reveal the original PDF page, then click a word to highlight the OCR text.
Community corrections
No user corrections yet.
Comments
No comments on this document yet.
Bottom Reader Ad Slot
Bottom Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Continue Exploring
Agency Collection
Explore This Archive Cluster
Broad Topic Hub
Topic Hub
Related subtopics
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic