Estes v. Texas

Last night, the defense raised the issue of publishing admissions by the defendant or confessions.

They cited to one sentence from the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Estes v. Texas that relies on Riddell v. Louisiana case.

And that one sentence in Estes had no precedential value on the issue that's before the court today.

as decided to the dissenting opinion in Riddell, which is very curious because that dissenting opinion, Riddell, was a change of venue case.

Last night, the defense raised the issue of publishing admissions by the defendant or confessions.

They cited to one sentence from the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Estes v. Texas that relies on Riddell v. Louisiana case, and that one sentence in Estes had no precedential value on the issue that's before the court today.

Estes cited to the dissenting opinion in Riddell, which is very curious because that dissenting opinion, Riddell, was a change of venue case.

And what the dissenting opinion held is that the court properly refused to change venue in that case, even though the defendant's confession had been televised multiple times.

We previously cited, and the reason why I'm saying this again is not to reiterate something, just because if you say it twice, it means something different, but because my colleagues have suggested that maybe my argument earlier was not clear enough, and so I want to make sure it's clear so that the court makes a decision based on the arguments of counsel.

The United States Supreme Court said in Estes v. Texas 381 U.S. 532 the following, In Riddell v. Louisiana, and that's Riddell, R-I-D-E-A-U, this court constructed a rule that the televising of a defendant in the act of confessing to a crime was inherently invalid under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, even without a showing of prejudice or a demonstration of the nexus between the televised confession and the trial.

I'm not calling the statements of Mr. Robinson confessions.

But that is what the state will call them, and so there are portions of this exhibit and the other exhibits that I've referred to which implicate Mr. Robinson's right not to have what the state calls a confession televised.

That's another piece of the same problem.

So this is all simplified by the court being extra cautious about Mr. Robinson's constitutional rights.

Considering these exhibits to the extent the court deems that they're admissible and portions of them are relevant and not further televising them in this proceeding in a manner which we think is inconsistent with the Supreme Court said in Estes v. Texas.

Judge Graff, alright, I appreciate that, Ms. Novak, Ms.

We previously cited, and the reason why I'm saying this again is not to reiterate something, just because if you say it twice, it means something different, but because my colleagues have suggested that maybe my argument earlier was not clear enough, and so I want to make sure it's clear so that the court makes a decision based on the arguments of counsel.

The United States Supreme Court said in Estes v. Texas 381 U.S. 532 the following.

In Riddell v. Louisiana, and that's Riddell, R-I-D-E-A-U, this court constructed a rule that the televising of a defendant in the act of confessing to a crime was inherently invalid under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, even without a showing of prejudice or a demonstration of the nexus between the televised confession and the trial.

I'm not calling the statements of Mr. Robinson confessions, but that is what the state will call them.

That's another piece of the same problem.

So this is all simplified by the court being extra cautious about Mr. Robinson's constitutional rights.

Considering these exhibits, to the extent the court deems that they're admissible and portions of them are relevant and not further televising them in this proceeding in a manner which we think is inconsistent with the Supreme Court said in Estes v. Texas.

Judge Graff, all right.