Ideology, Gentile and Pretrial Attorney Speech: A Response to Professor Tarkington

66 Fla. L. Rev. Forum 35 (2015)

9 Pages Posted: 23 Sep 2016

See all articles by Kenneth B. Nunn

Kenneth B. Nunn

University of Florida Levin College of Law

Date Written: 2015

Abstract

In this brief response to Professor Margaret Tarkington’s article Lost in the Compromise: Free Speech, Criminal Justice, and Attorney Pretrial Publicity, (66 Fla. L. Rev. 1873 (2014)), I will sketch out an argument that the allocation of free speech rights between prosecutors and defenders, as well as the balance struck between the right of free speech and right to a fair trial, is determined chiefly by ideology and political considerations. In Part I, I will review Professor Tarkington’s description of the problems posed by current approaches used to regulate attorney pretrial speech. In Part Two, I will examine Professor Tarkington’s solution to these problems. In Part III, I will discuss why ideology trumps doctrine when it comes to attorney speech regulation in the criminal justice context. Finally, I conclude that any successful attempt to reform laws regulating attorney speech must expressly confront the ideological considerations that shape them.

Suggested Citation

Nunn, Kenneth B., Ideology, Gentile and Pretrial Attorney Speech: A Response to Professor Tarkington (2015). 66 Fla. L. Rev. Forum 35 (2015), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2842396 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2842396

Kenneth B. Nunn (Contact Author)

University of Florida Levin College of Law ( email )

P.O. Box 117625
Gainesville, FL 32611-7625
United States
352-392-2211 (Phone)

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
18
Abstract Views
290
PlumX Metrics