Trial of Hauptmann: Media Intimidation & Coercion Lead to Injustice

Introduction

Despite the fact that during the trial Judge Trenchard tried to minimize the influence of the media on the jury members there were too many lapses that led to intimidation and coercion by the media. The decision by the jury members although having been in accordance of the law based on the charges that were facing Hauptmann it was clear that the case could have ended differently based on the available evidence and the defense of Hauptmann. The sensational coverage of the crime and trial led public rage and intimidation which was directed towards Hauptmann (Mitchell, 2006). The public had already reached their conclusions on the case despite sufficient evidence that exonerated Hauptmann from the murder. Besides, the crime scene had already been tampered with by crowds of spectators who went to see the crime scene due to Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh social status. In this case, since, Colonel Lindbergh was a public sensation and regarded a hero Hauptmann who was a carpenter was not able to voice his defense to the jury members who were under the pressure of the public who demanded a quick trial (Mitchell, 2006).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Measures That Could Have Been Used to Ensure Fair Trial for Hauptmann

Minimization of Media and Public Presence in the Court

The media and public presence in the court during the trial posed a significant influence on the jury who were being followed by the media people. The Newsboys revealed what was going on in the public sphere and the public expectations of the case which significantly influenced the final decision of the jury. Denying the public presence during the trial and also reporting on the case before the trial had been concluded could have eased the tension on the jury which could have ensured that all the required proceedings and considerations were made before the sentencing (Kulwin, 1977).

Conclusive Investigations and Fair Access to Defense LawyersThe investigators and the defense could have been given more time to make conclusive investigations into the case especially the money found in Hauptmann garage and also consider Mrs. Hauptmann claim that his husband was with him at the time the crime was committed. The investigations were hurried and in most cases the only evidence that was used to tie Hauptmann with the crime is the money found in his garage which was not enough for a crime of such magnitude. Besides, the defense was not given enough time to prepare for the case due to the public pressure to reach a conclusion on the case. Mr. Hauptmann defense lawyer was paid by a media company with the aim of gaining exclusive rights to interview the accused. In this case, making the defense lawyers affordable and available for the accused improves their defense which could have increased fairness in the case.

Live TV in the Courtroom

Live TV in the courtroom is not necessarily a bad thing because it promotes transparency and ensuring that the jury make judgements based on the law. Live TVs improves the performance and conduct of the jurors and ensuring fairness by making the public the judge of the judges. However, allowing media in the court rooms poses a threat to justice because the media and the judges interpretation of the law can differ which can lead to potential public uproar and mistrust of the judicial system (Kulwin, 1977).

Assignment 2: Double Jeopardy

Double jeopardy refers to a procedural defense under the Fifth Amendment which is opposed to the use of multiple forms of prosecution by the state (Rudstein, 2005). Double jeopardy rule holds that a suspect cannot be tried two times for the same crime and conduct. For instance, one cannot be tried for murder and manslaughter. Double jeopardy rule does not apply in civil proceedings and when one was tried for a criminal offense and later proceeding are civil in nature because of the different legal standards and principles. Besides, double jeopardy does not apply in hung jury which does not reach a judgement and also when more than one government has the ability to file a law suit against a complainant (Rudstein, 2005).

Assignment 3: Hearsay and its Exceptions

The rule against hearsay seeks to prevent out of court statements that can be used as evidence in court proceedings mainly due to their unreliability and potential bias. Hearsay rule has exceptions such as excited utterance which means that the statement is made by the declarant under stress (Richter, 2017). Another key exception is when the hearsay statement is made based on the existing mental, emotional or physical condition such as pain, hate and bodily health. Lastly, medical diagnosis statement, recorded recollection, official records, dying declarations and a regular conducted activity such as an event, condition, and diagnosis are exception from the hearsay rule (Richter, 2017). Therefore, all the above hearsay exceptions can be used as evidence during court proceedings.

References

Kulwin, S. B. (1977). Televised Trials: Constitutional Constraints, Practical Implications, and State Experimentation. Loy. U. Chi. LJ, 9, 910. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/12ed/9676a4d4b300675d2b662424feab95be07dc.pdf

Mitchell, R. (2006). Bruno or Richard Hauptmann: Representations of a Conviction in the Lindbergh Kidnapping Case. Crim. L. Brief, 2, 36. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1ed2/5246002b03e583bdc5cbf12c55163f8eb65b.pdf

Richter, L. L. (2017). Goldilocks and the Rule 803 Hearsay Exceptions. Wm. & Mary L. Rev., 59, 897. Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3735&context=wmlr

Rudstein, D. S. (2005). A brief history of the Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy. Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J., 14, 193. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/73965739.pdf