THE SUB JUDICE RULE

Rule 13.02

CANON 13 - A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS OF HIS CAUSE AND REFRAIN
FROM ANY IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE, OR GIVES THE APPEARANCE
OF INFLUENCING THE COURT.
Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case
tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.

I. What is the Sub Judice Rule?

The term sub judice is latin for ―under judicial consideration.‖ In law, sub judice is a
matter that is still under consideration by a court or still subject to active litigation.1
In essence, the sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to pending
judicial proceedings.2 It means that when a legal matter or controversy has come under the
jurisdiction of a court (sub judice), nobody, including the press and other media should interfere
by publication or public clamor with the court‘s proper handling of the proceeding.3
The rule applies where court proceedings are ongoing, and through all stages of appeal
until the matter is completed. It may also apply where court proceedings have not yet been
started, but are imminent.
The sub judice rule is a foreign legal concept. It originated in countries whose justice
systems have adopted trial by jury, such as the United States.4
Philippine laws have no direct mention of the sub judice rule but it is contained in Rule
13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, supported by Section 3(d) of Rule 71 of the
Rules of Court.5

1
Duhaime, L. (n.d.). Duhaime's Legal Dictionary. Retrieved November 24, 2017, from
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/SubJudice.aspx
2
Lejano vs. People, G.R. No. 176389 (December 14, 2010). Separate Opinion of J. Brion.
3
The Judicial Right To Know Act, S. 1357, 14th Cong.,
http://www.senate.gov.ph/lis/bill_res.aspx?congress=14&q=SBN-1357 (2007).
4
Id.
5
Lejano, supra.

1
 II. What are the purposes of the Sub Judice Rule?

The sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to judicial proceedings
to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the administration of justice.6
As highlighted in criminal cases, the sub judice rule prevents the possibility of undue
influence that could prejudice the accused‘s constitutional right to a fair trial. The principal
purpose of the sub judice rule is to preserve the impartiality of the judicial system by protecting it
from undue influence by published materials or public clamor.
The rationale for the rule, to the Court, had been stated thus: ―[I]t is a traditional
conviction of civilized society everywhere that courts and juries, in the decision of issues of fact
and law should be immune from every extraneous influence; that facts should be decided upon
evidence produced in court; and that the determination of such facts should be uninfluenced by
bias, prejudice or sympathies.‖7
The right to a fair trial is an adjunct of the accused‘s right to due process which
"guarantees [him] a presumption of innocence until the contrary is proved in a trial x x x where
the conclusions reached are induced not by any outside force or influence but only by evidence
and argument given in open court, where fitting dignity and calm ambiance is demanded."
If the jury decides in accordance with an outcome promoted by the media, it will appear
as if the jurors were swayed by the media. By the same token, if the jury‘s decision does not
accord with media opinion, it may appear as if they were deliberately reacting against it. Either
way, it may appear that the jury‘s decision was not impartial and based on the evidence
presented in court, even if it was. Whatever the results may be, doubts will linger about the real
merits of the case due to the inordinate media campaign that transpired.
Justice Brion, in his supplemental opinion on the case of Lejano vs. People, rationalized
that the fact that the jury system is not adopted in this jurisdiction is not an argument against the
observance of the sub judice rule; justices and judges are no different from members of the jury,
they are not immune from the pervasive effects of media. "It might be farcical to build around
them an impregnable armor against the influence of the most powerful media of public opinion."
Even those who are determined, in their conscious minds, to avoid bias may be affected.
In sum, the court, in a pending litigation, must be shielded from embarrassment or
influence in its all-important duty of deciding the case.

6
Id.
7
Id.

2
 III. Who can violate the Sub Judice Rule?

Lawyers are subject to the sub judice rule. It is the duty of a lawyer to respect the courts
where proceedings must be conducted in decency for the proper administration of justice until
their final adjudication. The restriction applies not only to participants in the pending case, i.e., to
members of the bar and bench, and to litigants and witnesses, but also to the public in general,
which necessarily includes statements by public officials and the media.8 As stated in Sheppard
v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, (1966): ―Collaboration between the counsel and the press as to
information affecting the fairness of a criminal trial is not only subject to regulation, but worthy of
disciplinary measures.‖
The sub judice rule may be breached by public statements that risk prejudging matters or
issues that are before the courts. In determining whether any particular statement raises sub
judice concerns, we should look into the statement‘s nature, the case involved and other
circumstances. For instance, a breach of the sub judice rule can include statements urging the
court to reach a particular result in a matter, comments on the strength or weakness of a party's
case or particular issue, or comments on witnesses or evidence in a case. It is the concept of
prejudging that is central to the rule.
Nonetheless, the sub judice rule does not prohibit fair and accurate reporting of the
factual content of ongoing judicial proceedings by the media, as long as the report does not
usurp the court's role by prejudging the case or its legal issues.
Any publication pending a suit, reflecting upon the court, the parties, the officers of the
court, the counsel, etc., with reference to the suit, or tending to influence the decision of the
controversy, is contempt of court and is punishable.

IV. What is the penalty for the violation of the Sub Judice Rule?

Anyone violating the sub judice rule can be cited for indirect contempt of court under
Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.
Firstly, the Court defined contempt, in the case of Lorenzo Shipping Corp. v Distribution
Management Assoc. Of the Phil., as read below:
In its broad sense, contempt is a disregard of, or disobedience to, the rules or orders of
a legislative or judicial body or an interruption of its proceedings by disorderly behavior or

8
Sub Judice Rule. (n.d.). Retrieved November 24, 2017, from
https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/legis/subjudicerule.php

3
insolent language in its presence or so near thereto as to disturb its proceedings or to impair the
respect due to such a body. In its restricted and more usual sense, contempt comprehends a
despising of the authority, justice, or dignity of a court.9
Hereafter, the two classifications of contempt were also distinguished by the Court in the
same case as:
1. Direct Contempt - Which is committed in the presence of or so near the judge as to
obstruct him in the administration of justice10
2. Indirect Contempt - Which consists of willful disobedience of the lawful process or
order of the court11
Correspondingly, Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court is defined as:

RULE 71
Contempt
Section 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. — After a charge in
writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon within
such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty
of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect contempt;
(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade
the administration of justice; x x x12

The penalty imposed for direct contempt is generally summary and immediate, and no
process or evidence is necessary because the act is committed in facie curiae. This is provided
in Rule 71 of the Rules of Court as amended in Administrative Circular 22-95. The amended
provision reads as:
"Section 1. Direct Contempt Punished Summarily. – A person guilty of misbehavior in
the presence of or so near a court or judge as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the
same, including disrespect toward the court or judge, offensive personalities toward others, or
refusal to be sworn or to answer as witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or disposition when
lawfully required to do so, may be summarily adjudged in contempt by such court or judge and
punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding ten (10)

9
Contempt definition and classification in Lorenzo Shipping Corporation, Oceanic Container Lines, Inc.,
Solid Shipping Lines Corporation, Sulpicio Lines, Inc., et al.,v Distribution Management Association of the
Philippines, Lorenzo Cinco, and Cora Curay, G.R. No. 155849, 31 August 2011
10
Id.
11
Id.
12
Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court

4
days, or both, if it be a superior court, or a judge thereof, or by a fine not exceeding two hundred
pesos or imprisonment not exceeding one (1) day, or both, if it be an inferior court."
Contrastingly, indirect contempt usually requires proceedings less summary than the
first. The proceedings for the punishment of the contumacious act committed outside the
personal knowledge of the judge generally need the observance of all the elements of due
process of law.
Section 3, Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court provides for the following requisites
prior to conviction of indirect contempt: (a) a charge in writing to be filed, (b) an opportunity
given to the respondent to comment thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court
and (c) to be heard by himself or counsel.
The penalty for indirect contempt is stated as well in Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of
Court. It is read as:
―Section 7.Punishment for indirect contempt. — If the respondent is adjudged guilty of
indirect contempt committed against a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher
rank, he may be punished by a fine not exceeding thirty thousand pesos or imprisonment not
exceeding six (6) months, or both. If he is adjudged guilty of contempt committed against a
lower court, he may be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos or imprisonment
not exceeding one (1) month, or both. If the contempt consists in the violation of a writ of
injunction, temporary restraining order or status quo order, he may also be ordered to make
complete restitution to the party injured by such violation of the property involved or such
amount as may be alleged and proved. The writ of execution, as in ordinary civil actions, shall
issue for the enforcement of a judgment imposing a fine unless the court otherwise provides.
(6a)‖

V. What are the defenses invoked by persons charged of indirect contempt for
violation of the Sub Judice Rule?

Persons facing charges for indirect contempt for violation of the sub judice rule often
invoke as defense their right to free speech and claim that the citation for contempt constitutes a
form of impermissible subsequent punishment.

5
 A. Freedom of Speech under Section 4, Article III of the 1987 Constitution
Section 4, Article III of the Constitution states that:
Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of
the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government
for redress of grievances.
However, it has been long recognized in our jurisdiction that the freedom of speech
stated in the above provision is not absolute.13
14
In Vicente v. Majaducon, the Court declared that ―[the freedom of speech] needs on
occasion to be adjusted to and accommodated with the requirements of equally important public
interests such as the maintenance of the integrity of courts and orderly functioning of the
administration of justice.‖
Accordingly, while the sub judice rule may be considered as a [temporary] curtailment of
the right to free speech, it is necessary and justified by the more compelling interests to ensure
the fairly and orderly administration of justice and to uphold the rights of the accused to a fair
trial." 15

B. Publicized Speech
Justice Brion clarified that sub judice is not imposed on all forms of speech, but only on
publicized speech. Publicized speech should be understood to be limited to those aired or
printed in the various forms of media such as television, radio, newspapers, magazines, and
internet, and excludes discussions, in public or in private, between and among ordinary citizens.
The Constitution does give the citizens the right to speech, but not the right to unrestricted
publicized speech.16
Insofar as criminal proceedings are concerned, two classes of publicized speech made
during the pendency of the proceedings can be considered as contemptuous: first, comments
on the merits of the case, and second, intemperate and unreasonable comments on the conduct
of the courts with respect to the case.17
Comments on the merits of the case may refer to the credibility of witnesses, the
character of the accused, the soundness of the alibis offered, the relevance of the evidence
presented, and generally any other comment bearing on the guilt or innocence of the accused.

13
Lejano, supra.
14
Vicente v. Majaducon, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1698, June 23, 2005, 461 SCRA 12
15
Lejano, supra.
16
Id.
17
Id.

6
 Comment on the conduct of the courts with respect to the case becomes subject to a
contempt proceeding when it is intemperate, is contumacious, and unduly impairs upon the
dignity of the court. A comment that impairs of the dignity of the court "excites in the mind of the
people a general dissatisfaction with all judicial determinations, and indisposes their minds to
obey them[.]" If the speech tends to undermine the confidence of the people in the honesty and
integrity of the court and its members, and lowers or degrades the administration of justice, then
the speech constitutes contempt. 18
"Unwarranted attacks on the dignity of the courts cannot be disguised as free speech, for
the exercise of said right cannot be used to impair the independence and efficiency of courts or
public respect therefore and confidence therein." Without the sub judice rule and the contempt
power, the courts will be powerless to protect their integrity and independence that are essential
in the orderly and effective dispensation and administration of justice.19

C. Principle of Open Justice

A fundamental principle in our democratic society is the principle of open justice. It states
that proceedings ought to be open to the public, including the contents of court files and public
viewing of trials.20 Nonetheless, it further ensures that (a) there is a safeguard against judicial
arbitrariness or idiosyncrasy, and that (b) the public‘s confidence in the administration of justice
is maintained. 21
Accordingly, Justice Brion makes clear that while courts are protected from criticism, the
sub judice rule is not meant to deter criticisms against the courts. The people still possess the
freedom to criticize the government, and this necessarily includes the right to criticize the courts,
their proceedings and decisions. The Court, as the third branch of government, remains
accountable to the people. The criticism must, however, be fair, made in good faith, and "not
spill over the walls of decency and propriety."22

18
Lejano, supra.
19
Id.
20
Duhaime‘s Law Dictionary
21
Lejano, supra.
22
Id.

7
 VI. What are the contentions against the Sub Judice Rule?

A. The Judicial Right To Know Act proposed by Miriam Defensor Santiago (Senate
Bill 1357, 14th Congress), Villar Jr., Manuel B. Villar Jr. (Senate Bill No. 789, 13th
Congress), and Antonio "Sonny" F. Trillanes (Senate Bill No. 651, 16th Congress;
and Senate Bill No. 487, 17th Congress)23
Senate bills entitled ―AN ACT PROHIBITING COURT ORDERS, WRITS AND
INJUNCTIONS WHICH PREVENT MEDIA REPORTS AND COMMENTARIES ON, OR
PUBLICATION OF, PROCEEDINGS SUB JUDICE, EXCEPT UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES‖ or ―The Judicial Right to Know Act‖ has been continually proposed by
various senators of congress, but has, however, also been constantly rejected.
The said bills contain the same contentions. The sub judice rule originated from
countries adopting a trial by jury. But, there is no trial by jury in the Philippines, there are no
panel of jurors which need to be impaneled and sequestered from widespread publicity
surrounding a court trial. The courts apply the sub judice rule to isolate jury members from being
influenced by the prejudicial publicity, notwithstanding the obvious differences between a jury system
and the Philippine court system.
The proponents of the bills submit that the sub judice rule has endeared itself as a
reasonable restriction on the constitutional guarantees of free press and of the people‘s right to
petition and information on matters of public concern.
In the United States, the sub judice rule also used to be seen as a reasonable restriction
on the freedom of the press. However, today, most U.S. Supreme Court decisions regard it as
an unconstitutional impairment of the latter. The trend in America is decidedly a welcome
improvement on the sub judice rule. It affirms and supports that idea that a people‘s liberty
depends on the freedom of the press which cannot be limited without being lost.
Therefore, it is proposed that if Philippine courts have transplanted the sub judice rule
into local jurisprudence, perhaps then, it is also high time that they improve on it in such a way
that any attempt at ―freezing‖ them, with gag orders or other forms of prior restraint, must be
shown to be necessitated by an interest more substantial than the guarantees themselves.
Absent such a showing, the sub judice rule must be acknowledged by Philippine courts as an
impermissible incursion on the salutary constitutional precept that discussion of public affairs in
a free society cannot depend on the preliminary grace of judicial censors.

23
(n.d.). Retrieved November 24, 2017, from
http://www.senate.gov.ph/lis/bill_res.aspx?congress=14&q=SBN-1357

8
 Ultimately, the bill provides for the elimination of the sub judice rule.

B. Opinion of Former Justice Isagani Cruz24

The late Justice Isagani Cruz, in an opinion, stated that he can understand punishing
indirect contempt when it consists of, say, disobedience to a court decision or order as this is a
clear defiance of lawful processes, however, he had second thoughts about considering as
indirect contempt criticisms tending to degrade the administration of justice.
He laid down his contentions as follows: First, he did not see why public comment on a
pending case will obstruct or impede the administration of justice. By punishing the indiscreet
critic, the judge is impliedly admitting that he may be influenced by the irrelevant remarks
although he is supposed to be removed from popular passions or persuasions and to decide
only according to his own lights.
Second, he did not see why judges, as public officials, should be handled with kid gloves
when their colleagues in the public service, including the president of the Philippines himself
and the members of the Congress, can be criticized with impunity and without liability. The
reason for the special rule is the need to preserve the people‘s faith in the judiciary. But don‘t we
also have to preserve the people‘s faith in the president of the Philippine and Congress? Is it not
necessary to preserve the people‘s faith not only in the Supreme Court and the other courts, but
in the whole Republic?
And third, he also noticed how an act is punishable if it ―tends‖ to directly or indirectly
impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice. Under the rule now observed by the
Supreme Court, an act may be punished only if it results in clear and present danger to society
and not if it only tends toward that evil. However, the dangerous tendency rule as a test of free
speech was already abandoned by the Supreme Court in 1947.

C. Opinion of Former FEU Law Dean Andy Bautista25

Juan Andrés "Andy" D. Bautista is the former chairman of the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) of the Philippines and former dean of the Institute of Law of Far Eastern University.
In his column on the Philippine Star entitled ―My Four Centavos,‖ he tackled the sub judice rule
in lieu of a recent gag order issued by the Sandiganbayan on the parties in respect of the

24
Posts about Sub Judice rule on Justice Isagani A. Cruz. (n.d.). Retrieved November 24, 2017, from
https://separateopinion.wordpress.com/tag/sub-judice
25
Bautista, D. A. (n.d.). Sub judice. Retrieved November 24, 2017, from
http://www.philstar.com/opinion/647890/sub-judice

9
validity of the Garcia plea bargain and a show cause order issued by the Supreme Court against
the ―UP 37‖ law professors regarding comments made by the latter in a pending proceeding.
According to him, while Western democracies generally use a jury system, our jurisdiction
relies on a judge who is both a trier of fact and decider of the law. And there lies the difference.
Verily, one of the main objectives of the sub judice rule is to prevent the back door entry of
inadmissible evidence thru exposure to mass media. In theory, a judge who is trained in the
rudiments of law is enabled to properly screen out such evidence. Unlike lay jurors who may be
swayed by public opinion, a judge is supposed to display the trait of an impartial yet skilled arbiter.
Hence, the threat of such evidence being introduced and having any bearing on the judge‘s decision
is supposed to be minimized.
Of course, this is the legal theory. Bautista acknowledged how judges are also humans who
are susceptible to influence. Nonetheless, he reiterated that in trying to strike a balance among the
competing values involved, what is important is that we formulate a rule that will not unduly restrict
freedoms of speech and of the press more than is necessary to ensure a fair trial.
With this regard, he suggested a serious reconsideration of the bill filed by Senator Miriam
Defensor-Santiago entitled the ―Judicial Right to Know Act,‖ which essentially prohibits ―court orders,
writs and injunctions which prevent media reports and commentaries on, or publications of,
proceedings sub judice, except under certain circumstances.‖
The only practical problem that he saw was that the bill may be seen as an intrusion into the
Supreme Court‘s turf of promulgating rules ―concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice and procedure in all courts.‖ And to this he recommended
that the practical solution would be for the two co-equal branches to sit down and hammer out a rule
that would serve their interests and, at the same time, strengthen our democratic set-up.

D. Opinion of Atty. Theodore Te26

An article of the Philippine Daily Inquirer entitled ―Both Side in Webb Case ‗equally at
fault‘‖ by Nikko Dizon covered Associate Justice Arturo Brion‘s supplemental opinion to the
tribunal‘s acquittal of Hubert Webb, et. al., in connection with the 1991 Vizconde Massacre. To
this they were able to get human rights lawyer, now Supreme Court Spokesperson, Atty.
Theodore Te‘s interpretation of Justice Brion‘s opinion.
Answering through a text message, Atty. Te told the Inquirer that he interpreted the
opinion as a warning from the Justice that violation of the sub judice rule will be met with
contempt. Nonetheless, he further stated that he disagreed with the sub judice rule because it

26
Law and Justice. (n.d.). Retrieved November 24, 2017, from
http://bustthefacts.blogspot.com/2010/12/sub-judice-vs-free-speech-webb-case.html

10
―stifles free expression,‖ and it‘s premised on a jury system we don‘t have. According to him,
even with discussion on pending cases, judges are expected to be independent enough to not
be influenced by what is popular or notorious.

VII. Related Supreme Court Cases

A. Lejano vs. People, G.R. No. 176389, December 14, 2010.

Dubbed as the Vizconde Massacre case, this particular case has garnered unwarranted
attention from the media due to the commission of the crime and the personalities involved.
According to the state witness Alfaro, the suspects raped and murdered Carmela. The latter‘s
mother and sister were also brutally slain in their family home. One of the suspects, Webb,
questioned the credibility and authenticity of Alfaro and her testimony. He presented a
documented alibi which impeached Alfaro‘s testimony. Moreover, the Court held that there
were discrepancies in the testimonies presented by the state witness (agreeing to an
acquaintance orders, being able to carry out and remember details of the events that transpired
while intoxicated with prohibited drugs, etc.). Thus, the Court reversed and set aside the CA‘s
resolution thereby acquitting the suspects of the crime rape with homicide.
In Justice Brion‘s supplemental opinion, the pointed out his concern for the disregard
and non-compliance to the sub judice rule. He explained that the sub judice rule prohibits
comments and disclosure of lis pendes cases. The scope of this restriction is not only limited to
the participants of the pending case but also the public in general. Violation of the
aforementioned rule equates to contempt of the court. This is to ensure that the accused is
given fair trial and the conclusion of the case be obtained through the litigation procedure and
outcome, not by external force or influence. This constitutional right27 does not go against the
freedom of speech28 as the latter is not absolute. Brion explained that in criminal cases, sub
judice rule is imposed to two (2) forms of publicized speech: (a) comments on the merits on the
merits of the case and, (b) intemperate and unreasonable comments of the conduct of the
courts with respect to the case. These comments pose the pending case and the courts as it
may impose undue influence which may be prejudicial to the accused right to fair trial and impair
the dignity of the courts.

27
CONST. Art. III, Sec. 14, Par. (2).
28
CONST. Art. III, Sec. 4.

11
 B. Marantan vs. Diokno, G.R. No. 205956, February 12, 2014.
During the pendency of G.R. No. 19946229, Marantan accused La‘O and her counsel, Atty.
Diokno, of violating the sub judice rule for their contemptuous statements and improper conduct
tending to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice. This was allegedly
conducted during the press conference held by the aforementioned which was broadcasted in
TV Patrol wherein they expressed their opinion, desires, and hopes with regards to the Ortigas
incident30. He alleged that they were riding on the unpopularity of the Antimonan incident31. Atty.
Diokno responded by stating that their statements were legitimate expression of their
sentiments which was taken out of context.
The Court ruled in favor of Atty. Diokno explaining that the latter‘s comments and
statements were merely reiteration of their position in G.R. 199462. Further, the Court held that
no malice in the aforementioned thus no clear and present danger can be induced. It explained
that ―‗clear and present danger‘ rule means that the evil consequence of the comment must be
"extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high" before an utterance can be
punished.‖32

C. Romero vs. Estrada, G.R. No. 174105, April 2, 2009.

A senate investigation was held in connection to the Overseas Workers Welfare
Administration in connection to its investment on the Smokey Mountain project. An invitation
was given to Reghis Romero II to join the legislative investigation with the purpose of enhancing
the Migrant‘s Welfare Act in relation to the erroneous investment. Romero declined investigation
even after subpoenas wherein filed against him. He argues that the subject matter of the
investigation was subjudice owing to the pendency of the Chavez33 case. The Court held that
the contentions assailed by the aforementioned is erroneous as the same issued an en banc
resolution which denied with finality the petition for reconsideration of Chavez. The case was no
longer sub judice.

29
People v. Marantan, RTC (Pasig City, Br. 265) Crim. Case R-1681. Criminal case involving the
shooting and killing of Cu-Unjieng, Manzano, and Dulay by police officers which was captured a television
crew (UNTV).
30
Id.
31
A shooting incident in Quezon province wherein Marantan was the ground commander in a police-
military team. The incident resulted to thirteen (13) deaths. Jan. 6, 2013
32
Marantan v. Diokno & Cu-Unjieng La’O. G.R. No. 205956, February 12, 2014.
33
Chavez v. National Housing Authority, G.R. No. 164527, August 15, 2007.

12
 D. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 US 3333 (1966)
This case followed the murder of Marilyn Sheppard who was bludgeoned to death. Samuel
Sheppard, the husband of the deceased, was convicted over the death of the aforementioned.
During the pendency of the Marilyn death case, Samuel bombarded with unwarranted attention
and criticism from the public media. Samuel assailed his conviction stating that the trial judge
failed to protect him from massive, pervasive, and prejudicial publicity.
The Court held that the trial court indeed failed to deliver ro Samuel fair trial. The publicity
garnered during prosecution influenced the decision with regards to his conviction. Further, the
Court stated that the trial court should have either postponed the hearing or transferred to a
different venue. Consequently, the Court reversed the conviction and ordered his release.
Samuel may be taken to custody if there he was reasonable cause.

E. Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 US 1030 (1991)

Criminal defense lawyer, Dominic Gentile, held a press conference wherein he professed
his client‘s innocence and stated the the police were the actual suspects. This action prompted
the State Bar of Nevada to file a disciplinary action against Gentile. The Supreme Court held
that the State Supreme Court of Nevada did not err in conviction of Gentile. There should exist a
regulation of attorney‘s speech due to the judicial process and dangers of an attorney‘s speech
which may affect the trial process.

13