Mattei Radu


This article will begin with a review of trial publicity rules from the earliest efforts to curb harmful statements of lawyers during trials to the promulgation of Model Rule 3.6 in 1983 by the American Bar Association. It will then examine Gentile, the main Supreme Court case in this area. The article will next consider the 1994 and 2002 amendments to Model Rule 3.6, which were inspired in part by the Court's ruling in Gentile. It will also look specifically at the trial publicity situation in North Carolina, where Durham District Attorney Michael B. Nifong has been charged with violating the relevant state trial publicity rule, as an example of a state rule virtually identical to Model Rule 3.6 in action. Finally, the article will offer critical comments on the Gentile decision and the current version of Model Rule 3.6.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.