The Gag Order and the OJ Simpson Case

Gag Order
Name
Institution
Gag Order
Abstract
A gag order refers to an act that is taken by judges in high profile cases barring participants in the case from divulging information about the case. In most cases, a gag order is issued by a court judge to compel people taking part in a civil or criminal court proceeding to desist from making public certain news to the public, or to the media. Gag orders are usually directed to lawyers, witnesses or even the media during high profile cases. Gags are usually a means of ensuring that people get fair treatment, protect an organization’s business secrets, or to protect the confidentiality of minors and victims. One of the cases that publicized gag orders was the OJ Simpson case where Judge Fujisaki barred anyone involved in the case from discussing any details regarding it.
Introduction
A gag order otherwise referred to as “suppression order” is a term that was coined in 1976 to refer to an order that is made by a court judge barring certain information from becoming public knowledge. In most cases, a gag order is issued by a court judge to compel people taking part in a civil or criminal court proceeding to desist from making public certain news to the public, or to the media. Gag orders are usually directed to lawyers, witnesses or even the media during high profile cases. Gags are often meant to ensure that people get fair treatment, protect an organization’s business secrets, or to protect the confidentiality of minors and victims. One of the cases that publicized gag orders was the OJ Simpson case where Judge Fujisaki barred anyone involved in the case from discussing any details regarding it (Dershowitz, 2007).
One of the most memorable things about the Simpson case was the gag order issued by Judge Fujisaki. Over the course of the court proceedings, Judge Lance Ito had repeatedly warned that he would silence the lawyers and other participants taking part in the case. However, he refused to take any action towards this direction despite the repeated threats. Majority of lawyers involved in the case took this opportunity at inaction to discuss details about the case. However, it is not clear whether it was the media focus or the extrajudicial comments that helped in shaping public opinion (Dershowitz, 2007).
In the entire duration of the court proceedings, the parties and their lawyers continued to air their opinions to the media throughout the discovery stage of the case. During important depositions, mostly that of Simpson, the society would get news sound alerts from the lawyers and parties, mostly the petitioners regarding the importance of the testimony. The deposition discussions became the basis of major discussions in newspaper articles during the trial. Although the civil proceedings against Simpson did not elicit much emotion as the criminal trial, the civil case still generated huge media frenzy (Hoffman, 2002). The judicial leniency ended abruptly on August 13, 1996 when Judge Fujisaki issued a radical gag order directed against all participants to the case barring them from discussing anything about the case. This gag order incensed civil liberties activists and the media at large. A section of the media was angered by this decision while others applauded it.
In the civil case against Simpson, the case was concerned that any discussion of the court proceedings would lead to a prejudicial trial and hence the need for the gag order. In nearly all the court cases where gag orders are issued, the major drive is usually to ensure that there is a fair trial. There are even suggestions that the issuance of gag orders should be increased to ensure that court cases are tried fairly. Just like in the Simpson case where the gag orders were overturned to exclude the media, majority of the gag orders today only target the lawyers and parties. The gagging of lawyers is further justified by the opinion that attorneys are officials of the court and should therefore be included in the court restrictions to ensure that there is a fair trial (Bugliosi, 1997).
Just like in the Simpson case where the gag orders were strongly castigated, today’s gag orders are termed to be unconstitutional. The major reason why such orders are termed as unconstitutional is because they are founded on a hypothesis that is unverified and most likely unsustainabl...