29 Stan. L. Rev. 621 (1976-1977)
Of Babies and Bathwater

handle is hein.journals/stflr29 and id is 641 raw text is: VI. AFTERWORD
Of Babies and
John Kaplan*
Reading over the various contributions to this Symposium on Nebraska
Press Association v. Stuart,1 I was struck by how historical and personal
experiences color our views of legal and constitutional issues. Of course, we
do not need the Symposium to tell us that. We could look, for example, to
the history of the privilege against self-incrimination, and our inquiry
would reveal just how directly the establishment of that constitutional
right grew out of the peculiarities of English history under the Tudors and
the Stuarts.2 The focus might have been different. The means most
resented in eliciting unfavorable evidence during those times might have
been spies, informers and agents provocateur rather than the compulsory
oath. And quite different language might have been placed in the Magna
Carta to be pressed into service as a battle cry for a later generation. We
then might not have had the constitutional privilege at all, but rather
might have had rigid rules on the employment of spies and informers. In
that case, of course, modern courts would be struggling with issues of the
extent to which an accused can be expected to cooperate in his own
prosecution. 3
The relevance of all this is first that most of the contributors' views on
the fair trial/free press controversy, as Professor Franklin notes in his
Foreword, are strongly colored by their experiences and their perceptions
of history. Moreover, although I think that certain matters receive in-
sufficient emphasis in the preceding Comments, I do not share Professor
Franklin's conviction that the solution to the controversy must await more
systematic empirical data. On the contrary, my view is that, with proper
emphases, the fair trial/free press issue is a relatively easy one and this view
is at least partially dependent both on my personal experience as a trial
lawyer-which we will come to later--and on what I perceive as one of the
* A.B. '95, LL.B. 1954, Harvard University. Jackson Eli Reynolds Professor of Law,
Stanford University.
1. 96 S. Ct. 2791 (1976).
2. See generally L. LEvY, ORIGINS OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT (1963).
3. See Damaska, Evidentiary Barriers to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure: A
Comparative Study, 121 U. PA. L. REV. 507 (1973).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 2,700 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.

Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?