stuff i have to go. >> anybody in particular? i just finished day book today called missing person i love anything that is well written i love recently of book this is where i leave you the first 25 pages have seen is hilarious you have to be a of a guy to appreciate that but but those that i always go back to our hemingway or john mcdonald i liked ross

macdonald i loved and all so read the dark scandinavian detective stories and i just read this creepy mystery as a great friend of mine says he doesn't know how to kill people. [laughter] you really know how to write the narrative you know, what his other books are if they are not on your shelf you should not be here. thank you for coming. [applause] >> on behalf of the

printer's row that fast 84 attending and erik larson will sign books outside in the lobby. >> the case is a landmark supreme court decision in

the field of first demand rights and addresses the question of the journalism profession balance the impeding interest when refined day confrontation than the fifth amendment is a fair trial by the impartial jury these are too complex or to interest coming into conflict and have paid to do with that balancing act. >> that case originates traveling to western nebraska to be killed six

members of a local family in the most heinous way. he killed henry and kelly in their son david did the three grandchildren ages 10, seven, and five. in the atmosphere and a geographic area that were relatively isolated late depopulated so his arrest and prosecution created as huge a whirlwind of press attention regional and local and national hundreds of journalists would descend upon north platte which is the county seat to cover the

investigation and the prosecution. and old somali in order to control pretrial publicity about the case, the local trial courts place to a gag order of the press to prohibit them from publishing certain information about the crimes and sideman's involvement. and that collision occurred and altman made the case makes its way to the supreme court. but to get to the essence the was the first heard the case of the county court judge and the district court

judge who alternately you heard the case to preside over the trial but to protect the impartial jury of what had become a very feverish and emotional they were concerned the jury pool would be tainted by all the information that was flooding the region and it would be impossible to seat the jury of those who did not have so much information that he might somehow could escape conviction and that is what they were concerned about as they would issue the gag order on the press the very un ashley various

press organizations were involved were alarmed or outraged at the idea of the restraint of what they could or could not report especially relating to information that would otherwise was easily obtainable from public records from zero when the court proceedings that were required to be open. and public records the prosecution in a complaint all of these were analogies and public records to say they you could not print it was a warm -- alarming and they decided to challenge of a constitutional gag order

under the legal means. >> the process the press went through true protest the constitutionality of the gag rule it was very convoluted and rightfully so where they wanted to challenge the propriety of the order but there were not parties to the criminal prosecution. it became very tricky and complex that ultimately they decided to try to intervene into the criminal prosecution which was extremely unusual but it worked initially judge stuart did try to intervene

so within the of litigation they could make their arguments ejido ought not to do what he alternated to oppose a gag order on the press to the nebraska supreme court they did not get action from the nebraska supreme court in the timeframe that they hoped they wanted this to be expedited and heard immediately because of the continuing nature of the violation of their constitutional rights but the nebraska supreme court reasons of its own decided it could not hear the case for what turned out to be one month from the time the appeal was brought to them in the meantime the nebraska press not satisfied with the

delay we get from the nebraska supreme court decided to file a motion with united states supreme court to take action and that matter was heard by the supreme court justice where the courts are located and ultimately the judge got into ways backed with the nebraska supreme court where he was church gave the supreme court to move forward in the expeditious manner they would be their resisting so the justice ultimately issued the decision of where he partially invalidated judge

stewarts order. this got the attention of the supreme court who then issued its own gag order in the case of the third or possibly the fourth but the point is none of the courts up to that time had complete the invalidated the order that was placed on the press. even though later chords had reduced the breadth and depth of the nature they still left in place and is still prevented the plant -- the press that they felt they had every right to publish. they ask the supreme court to handle in the expedited

manner with that request was denied in the spring of 1976 so via judicial standard it is going pretty quickly the cry is october occurred in the supreme court the following april so it is still pretty quick in judicial time but for the press every day this remains in effect was another constitutional deprivation that the decision to invalidate the gag order with judge stuart to place on the press and to say it

was addressing the gag order of judge stuart was not entirely accurate to as the male respondents 2.0 there really should have been the supreme court because it was their order that was the third incarnation of the gag order but it was the final stakeholder but the decision ones the order even as modified was still overly broad and excessive and constitutionally infirm and was overturned. but for all intents and purposes there have been very few any further attempts by and local trial

courts at any level anywhere to place direct a gag order on the press on with a key and/or cannot publish but more specifically the decision made it clear any such effort by the trial court's to stifle the press are presumptively unconstitutional with an overwhelmingly high standard to withstand judicial scrutiny and the standard set for a permissible gag order it eliminates them for all time so that is the most important aspect to be extremely important

pronouncement of the sixth amendment balancing act. >> all the parties involved did their best to represent the constitutional interest that they represented and i think it is a story that makes is human and personality with constitutional history as an important part of the story of the first amendment and a story that brings those issues together that i hope is it a relatable sort of way. . .