Presented in this section are direct quotations from a carefully selected collection of important supporting cases cited in the primary ones. For the most part, the supporting cases focus on the topics of contempt, access, due process, a free press, and the definition of an impartial jury.
Adams v. U.S., 317 U.S. 269, 87 L.Ed. 268, 63 S.Ct. 236 ( 1942).
But procedural devices rooted in experience were written into the Bill of Rights not as abstract rubrics in an elegant code but in order to assure fairness and justice before any person could be deprived of "life, liberty or property" (267). It is not asking too much that the burden of showing essential unfairness be sustained by him who claims such injustice and seeks to have the result set aside, and that it be sustained not as a matter of speculation but as a demonstrable reality (277).
Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 91 L.Ed. 1903, 67 S.Ct. 1672 ( 1947).
It is a settled law that the clause of the Fifth Amendment, protecting a person against being compelled to be a witness against himself, is not made effective by the Fourteenth Amendment as a protection against state action on the ground that freedom from testimonial compulsion is a right of national citizenship, or because it is a personal privilege or immunity secured by the Federal Constitution as one of the rights of man that are listed in the Bill of Rights (50, 51). As a matter of words, this [first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] leaves a state free to abridge, within the limits of the due process clause, the privileges and immunities flowing from state citizenship (52, 53). A right to a fair trial is a right admittedly protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (53). The purpose of due process is not to protect an accused against a proper conviction, but against an unfair conviction (57).
Aldridge v. U.S., 283 U.S. 308, 75 L.Ed. 1054, 51 S.Ct. 470 ( 1931).
In accordance with the existing practice, the questions to the prospective jurors were put by the court and the court had a broad discretion as to the