373 U.S. 723 (1963)
On the evening of February 16, 1961, a man robbed a bank in Lake Charles, Louisiana, kidnapped three of the bank’s employees, and killed one of them. A few hours later the petitioner, Wilbert Rideau, was apprehended by the police and lodged in the Calcasieu Parish jail in Lake Charles.1
The next morning a moving picture film with a sound track was made of an interview in the jail between Rideau and the Sheriff of Calcasieu Parish. This interview lasted approximately 20 minutes and consisted of interrogation by the sheriff and admissions by Rideau that he had perpetrated the bank robbery, kidnapping, and murder.2 Later the same day the filmed interview was broadcast over a television station in Lake Charles, and some 24,000 people in the community saw and heard it on television. The sound film was again shown on television the next day to an estimated audience of 53,000 people. The following day the film was again broadcast by the same television station, and this time approximately 29,000 people saw and heard the interview on their television sets. Calcasieu Parish has a population of approximately 150,000 people.3
Some two weeks later, Rideau was arraigned on charges of armed robbery, kidnapping, and murder, and two lawyers were appointed to represent him. His lawyers promptly filed a motion for a change of venue.4 The motion asserted that forcing Rideau to trial in Calcasieu Parish after the three television broadcasts of his interview with the sheriff would deprive him of rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.5
After a hearing, the motion for change of venue was denied, and Rideau was accordingly convicted and sentenced to death on the murder charge in the Calcasieu Parish trial court.6 Three members of the jury which convicted him had stated on voir dire that they had seen and heard Rideau’s televised interview with the sheriff on at least one occasion. Two members of the jury were deputy sheriffs of Calcasieu Parish. Rideau’s counsel had requested that these jurors be excused for cause, having exhausted all of their peremptory challenges, but these challenges for cause had been denied by the trial judge.7
The judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Louisiana, 242 La. 431, 137 So. 2d 283, and the case reached the Supreme Court of the United States on a writ of certiorari.8
Whether the denial of Rideau's motion for a change of venue after three local television broadcasts of his filmed jailhouse interview with the sheriff deprived him of due process of law?9
The Due Process Clause guarantees an accused the right to a trial before a jury drawn from a community whose members have not been exposed repeatedly to a televised confession to the crimes charged.10 When law enforcement participates in broadcasting a detailed jailhouse confession that reaches tens of thousands of local viewers, any subsequent trial in that community becomes a hollow formality.11
Yes. The filmed interview was broadcast three times over two weeks to audiences of approximately 24,000, 53,000, and 29,000 viewers in a parish of 150,000 people.12 Rideau was shown admitting in detail to the robbery, kidnapping, and murder while flanked by the sheriff and state troopers.13 Three members of the jury that convicted him had viewed the interview, two jurors were deputy sheriffs, and the trial court denied the change-of-venue motion after hearing.14 These exposures turned the televised confession into Rideau's effective trial, rendering any later proceedings in the same community constitutionally inadequate.15
The rule requires reversal because the community had already witnessed Rideau pleading guilty under sheriff questioning without counsel, and the voir dire could not cure the pervasive prejudice created by the broadcasts.16
The denial of the motion for change of venue deprived Rideau of due process of law.17
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Mr. Justice Harlan
Justice Clark dissented.18 He maintained that no constitutional deprivation occurred because the record failed to show a substantial nexus between the February broadcasts and the April trial.19 Clark observed that only three jurors had seen the interview.20
Each of those jurors affirmed the ability to set aside any impression and decide the case solely on the evidence presented in court.21 He further noted that twenty-nine witnesses at the venue hearing believed a fair trial possible in the parish.22 Clark concluded that the petitioner had not carried the burden of demonstrating essential unfairness sufficient to override the trial judge's assessment of juror impartiality.23