Date of Examination: December 12, 1994 Professor J.R. PIELEMEIER
CODE OF CONDUCT
Violations of the Code of Conduct include: (1) unauthorized conversation among students concerning the examination; (2) giving, receiving, or soliciting unauthorized aid; (3) using materials which are not specifically permitted by the written examination instruction; (4) exceeding the examination time limit; or (5) any other dishonest conduct in connection with the examination.
INSTRUCTIONS
a. This examination consists of two questions for which the recommended time is 15 minutes each, and one question for which the recommended time is 90 minutes. The total amount of recommended times is two hours, which is the total amount of time permitted for the exam.
b. An answer containing only your conclusions will receive little credit. With respect to Question III, state fully the reasons supporting your conclusions. In addition, discuss all issues reasonably raised by the question, even though your resolution of one issue may seem to render the others moot.
c. The fact scenario for Question III is not set in any particular state. You should discuss all issues reasonably raised based on the general principles of law that were discussed in the course.
d. Contrary to what you might otherwise conclude, Question III is not based totally on the perverse desires of your Professor to think up a difficult question. It is based in large part on a case recently decided by a federal district court. If you would like the citation for the case after the examination, feel free to ask.
The Political Editorial Rules of the Federal Communications Commission require essentially that when a broadcast licensee, in an editorial, endorses or opposes a legally qualified candidate for political office, the licensee afford the candidates for the same office, or the candidate opposed, a reasonable opportunity to respond over the licensee's facilities.
In recent years, there has been no reported formal challenge to the constitutional validity of these rules. Taking into account the amount of time suggested for this question, briefly sketch arguments that might reasonably be made in support of and in opposition to the conclusion that the rules are constitutionally permissible.
In handling criminal trials, courts have available various mechanisms to avoid pretrial publicity that might adversely affect a criminal defendant's 6th Amendment right to a fair trial. These mechanisms may include restraining the media from reporting on pretrial events, closing the courtroom to the media and the public, and restraining attorneys and other trial participants from making extrajudicial comments to the media.
Taking into account the amount of time suggested for this question, briefly describe the legal standards under which courts may constitutionally employ these three mechanisms, concluding with a brief statement of your view of the propriety of the law in this area (preferably with a sentence or two explaining your reasoning).
In early 1994, TV station WWWW aired "The Other Coach's Wife" on one of its television programs with a newsmagazine format. The broadcast told the story of the October 1992 disappearance of Mary Brown from the small city of Bridgeport.
Mary Brown was the wife of Bill Brown, a physical education teacher and Assistant Tennis Coach at one of the two public high schools in Bridgeport. The Program's title, "The Other Coach's Wife," referred to the coincidence that Helen Craft, who was married to John Craft, the head football coach at the same high school, had disappeared from Bridgeport just a few month's before Mary Brown's disappearance. The broadcast accurately reported that fragments of Helen Craft's body were found in a nearby river. Her husband, John, had evidently put her body through a woodchipping machine. John Craft was subsequently convicted of the murder of Helen Craft. Mary Brown's disappearance, however, remains unsolved.
The broadcast was divided into three parts. The first began by focusing on Helen Craft's disappearance and her husband's conviction for murder, and included closeups of the woodchipping machine he apparently used to dispose of the body.
The first segment then presented the Browns, through a series of photographs from Mary Brown's parents, as a happy couple with three charming children, an attractive house, and a seemingly upbeat lifestyle. The segment ended, however, by accurately noting that shortly before Mary's disappearance, things had deteriorated and she had filed for divorce. It ended with the re-enactment of a telephone call that Mary had made to a friend one day before her disappearance. In this call, Mary asked her friend to telephone her at her parents' house in two days. Mary then stated, "If I'm not there by then, Bill will have done to me what he promised to do to me."
The second segment of the program devoted itself primarily to the investigation of Mary's whereabouts by the Bridgeport police department, and to the divorce trial that was held subsequent to Mary's disappearance. The portion covering the police investigation made it clear that no forensic evidence was found tying Bill Brown to Mary's disappearance. This portion did include, however, the videotaped statement of the Bridgeport police chief stating, "I think that Mr. Brown knows more about the disappearance of his wife than he is letting on."
The second segment concluded by quoting brief portions of the written decision by the court that granted the divorce and awarded custody of the children to Mary's parents. The quoted portions were to the effect that the testimony established that Mary had been physically and mentally abused by Bill Brown, and that she would never voluntarily leave her children and fail to communicate with them were she able to do so.
The third portion of the program began with a view of the real Bill Brown opening the door of his home in response to the knocks of a WWWW reporter. In this scene, Brown was obviously intoxicated, but invited the reporter, who properly identified himself, to come in for a moment. The reporter then asked Brown if he would consent to an on camera interview about his former wife's disappearance. Brown abruptly said no and asked the reporter to leave, which he did. This portion of the program was shot with a hidden camera in the clothing of the reporter, and included a shot of several empty liquor bottles in the room where this conversation took place.
The third portion ended with videotaped interviews of Mary's parents, who were now raising the Browns' three children in another state. In these interviews, Mary's father stated, "I feel like Mary is dead, and Bill killed her--or had her killed." After this statement, the WWWW reporter stood before the camera and said, "The other coach's wife--just an unexplained disappearance? You be the judge."
Shortly after this program was broadcast, Bill Brown consulted an attorney, who called a news conference at which Bill Brown strongly denied any knowledge of Mary's whereabouts and any involvement in her disappearance. His attorney also announced plans to file suit against WWWW as a result of the broadcast.
Discuss all reasonable potential theories of liability in a suit by Bill Brown againt WWWW, and their likelihood of success, taking into account all pertinent defenses. Assume that in preparing the program, WWWW's producers reviewed or talked with only those sources noted in the question. Also assume that they will testify at trial that they believe, based on those sources, that Bill Brown murdered Mary Brown. Finally, assume that the state whose law would apply has no statutes pertaining to retraction.