York's Strange Silence

The prosecution's case was weak, and after 20 minutes of deliberation, a jury in York, Pa., acquitted James Howard of the mutilation-murder of another York man. Within hours the case against a co-defendant was discontinued for lack of evidence. Thus ended a proceeding that had caused a sensation in the old, placid factory town (pop. 50,335) just west of the Susquehanna.

Yet York's 30-member press corps was bitterly divided last week over coverage--or non-coverage--of the trial. Despite the absence of a court order, the town's two dailies, two papers in nearby Harrisburg that share a bureau in York, and seven radio and television stations in the area agreed to suppress all news of the trial until its conclusion. They also failed to report that they were participating in the highly unusual blackout. Reporters were present in the courtroom and took notes, but not a word about the case was printed or broadcast until the verdict was in.

No Objection. A week before the trial, the presiding judge, James E. Buckingham, called in local newspaper editors and informed them that lawyers for the defense had succeeded in hav ing the cases of the two defendants separated. Therefore, said the judge, two juries would be hearing the same evidence, one after the other, and coverage should be deferred. The request was then relayed to broadcasters. "We didn't want the second group of jurors reading the newspapers about the first case," Buckingham explained last week. "We have no desire to muzzle the press in any way. We just asked the editors, and they had no objection."

Robert J. Seymour, executive editor of the Harrisburg Patriot (circ. 47,866) and Evening News (circ. 71,893), defended the decision: "We felt our readers would best be served by a full and complete story at the end rather than by whatever bits and pieces we could have picked up at the time." Many of his colleagues disagree sharply. Jim Snavely, a reporter for the Daily Record (circ. 36,001) and president of the Newspaper Guild local, is asking his membership for a resolution condemning the blackout. Daily Record Managing Editor Eli F. Sliver, one of those present when the judge made his extraordinary request, was especially contrite: "I am sorry I made the agreement. I was ashamed of myself the minute after I walked out of the judge's chambers." Record Publisher J.D. Scoggins blamed himself for not taking a firmer stand. "It's a terribly dangerous precedent," he said.

One of the dangers is that a blackout, though it ostensibly protects defendants' rights, can suppress news about shoddy courtroom tactics. Agreeing to silence in one case can also encourage demands for noncoverage of other sensitive proceedings. Pennsylvania has a rule that empowers judges to order restrictions on news coverage of sensational trials. But Buckingham did not threaten to issue such an order, which itself could have been challenged in a higher court. One alternative--a change of venue for the second trial--was not requested. The judge did not even close the courtroom to the public; indeed, hundreds of spectators were present at one time or another, including a number of elementary school classes.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.