United States v. Charles v. Harrelson v. El Paso Times, Inc., Movants-Appellants. In Re El Paso Times, Inc., the Associated Press and Patrick Wier

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that the trial judge did not need to hold a hearing merely to confirm matters of common knowledge
• noting that in connection with preventing the substantial threat to the administration of justice, “jurors, even after completing their service, are entitled to privacy and to protection against harassment”
• noting that juror who changes his mind remains free to initiate an interview
• that the court held no unnecessary hearing to establish that the press is “tenacious in pursuing information” did not render invalid the order restricting press interviews of jurors
• ban on \repeated requests\ for interviews
• ban on “repeated requests” for interviews

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).