Criminal Defense and a Free Press
They teach us in school how the three branches of government in the Constitution check and balance one another. The Bill of Rights, however, has two other checks and balances in place: The First Amendment guarantees us the freedom of the press and the Sixth Amendment guarantees us the assistance of counsel in criminal prosecutions.
July 07, 2017 at 02:00 PM
3 minute read
They teach us in school how the three branches of government in the Constitution check and balance one another. The Bill of Rights, however, has two other checks and balances in place. Interestingly, they are in the private sector, not government. The First Amendment guarantees us the freedom of the press and the Sixth Amendment guarantees us the assistance of counsel in criminal prosecutions. These are important private sector jobs, so important they have constitutional significance and deserve special attention.
When formulating the Bill of Rights, the Founders must have realized that government cannot be counted on to check itself. They needed to go outside the three branches and enter the private sector. By establishing rights to a free press and the assistance of criminal defense counsel, regular private citizens could check all government officials on a daily basis.
A free press keeps the public informed. Without it, we could not effectively exercise our right to vote or hold elected officials accountable. It also shines a light on government fraud, waste and abuse. Whether you were a farmer, teacher or merchant in 1802 or 2002, you were busy. You needed the press to watch over government on your behalf. You could then use the information provided by the press to support your elected government officials, oppose them, or something in between. Regardless, without a free press, a majority of us would be clueless and a clueless electorate is no electorate at all. A free press also holds the judicial branch accountable, since the accused has the right to a public trial and the public has a presumptive First Amendment right of access to judicial proceedings and publicly filed court documents.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFor Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
4 minute readImpact of New NYS Workers’ Compensation Work-Related Stress Relief on Discrimination Claims
Justices Will Weigh Constitutionality of Law Allowing Terror Victims to Sue PLO
Are New York City Housing Providers Ready for the Fair Chance for Housing Act?
10 minute readTrending Stories
- 111th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 2Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 3'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 4Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
- 5On the Move and After Hours: Meyner and Landis; Cooper Levenson; Ogletree Deakins; Saiber
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250