Question

Please Help me Answer The 3 questions on the Last Page Now !!!!!

One more viewpoint of the 6th Amendment to tie it back to the Ist! Amendment from last week. Look at the case summary and facts for Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70,127 S. Ct. 649 (2006) A defendant in a murder trial is not deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury if courtroom spectators wear buttons showing a picture of the deceased. Facts Matthew Musladin was on trial for the murder of Tom Strudder in California. At his trial, members of the Strudder family wore buttons with a picture of Strudder on them. They sat in the seating area reserved for the public. The buttons were about two to four inches in diameter and were visible to the judge, jury, prosecutor, defense lawyers, and the defendant. The trial judge denied a defense motion to order the members of the family to remove the buttons, arguing that they could be used to unfairly prejudice the jury, and thus deny Musladin a fair trial by an impartial jury as required by the Sixth Amendment, as incorporated to the states via the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Procedure Musladin was convicted, and his conviction was upheld by the California state courts. Musladin then filed a habeas corpus suit in appropriate U.S. District Court. A habeas corpus suit allows a defendant to sue the government, arguing that the government has violated the defendant's rights. If the court agrees, it releases the defendant. The U.S. District Court rejected the defendant's argument, but the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the buttons could have prejudiced the jury. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear this case.

Answer 1

1. Should the victim's interests prevail over the defendant's right to a Fair Trial.

Yes,

victim's interests prevail over the defendant's right,
Because the victim's interests should prevail. The victims had a right to express their anguish and stipulate justice by wearing buttons with a picture of murder of beloved once. In this case they were not being disruptive in the courtroom, and even they were not trying to pressure the jury. Here defendant's rights do not trump the spectator's rights in this case because guilt of defendant's is determined by the evidence presented at trial, not on the actions of spectators.

No, The defendant's rights should prevail.
As judicial system is based on the rule of law and not emotion so Victims' rights cannot be used as a means to undermine a defendant's constitutional rights in a fair criminal trial. Even though victims of violent crime have a right to grieve, and express this anguish and stipulate justice in appropriate ways, they do not have a right to influence the outcome of a murder trial.

2. Should the spectators have been allowed to wear the lapel pins in court?

Yes,
Here spectators' actions will not come as a surprise because jury knows the facts of the case and the identity of the victim.Even there is no evidence that proves they mere wearing of buttons showing the picture of a murder victim during the alleged murderer's trial and for sure it will prejudice the jury.Things that can not be ignored is thar jurors have taken an oath to judge as their judgement solely based on the testimony presented at the fair trial not on the stimulating acts.
No,
Given the circumstances spectators were members of the victim's family,and they were intended to remind the jury by wearing the buttons showing a picture of the victim that their beloved one was murdered and they want justice. as a precautionary measure, court should have ordered the
removal of the buttons because even the juries as a human being have emotional bounding that main influence their judgement.

3. Should the First Amendment be applied in this case?

Yes.
The First Amendment is still relevant, as if now we didn't see serious arguments that the First Amendment protects the right of spectators and disrupt a judicial proceeding. But it didn't protect "nondisruptive" behaviors, such as stipulate justice by wearing buttons with a picture of murder of beloved once.
No,
This case mainly runs behind the sixth amendment we don't get to see serious discussion of first amendment and it will not be a part of judgement.