Publicity’s Role in the Hells Angel Case
The first amendment supports the freedom of the press to report on issues such as criminal cases. However, it is quite a sensitive topic since people are entitled to privacy as well. The witnesses who come before to testify on court cases need assurance that their personal lives or work will not be affected by their testimony. The jury, as well should not be biased by media reports that are ongoing during a court case. In the case of The United States vs. Ralph Hubert Barger took place In the 1980s whereby members of the motorcycle gangs were prosecuted. The Hells Angels who in this case are under Barger et al., were charged with conspiracies to use bombs against the Outlaws as well as possession of firearms. They wanted to revenge on the outlaws for killing Webb on August 12, 1986, who was a Hells Angel’s member. The jury convicted Sonny Barger, but he appealed. The FBI within the 1980s continued to hunt down motorcycle gangs since they were considered as an organized crime rather than an organization. The publicity during the case affected the jury and the public’s perception of the Hells angel, which led to consequences against the members of the gang. In some countries, court proceedings are reported before the session and after. Also, the amount of information released to the public is limited, depending on the sensitivity of the case. However, this was not the case with Hells Angels. Publicity in the Hubert Barger case played a role within influencing the decisions in court and the environment surrounding members of the gang.
First of all, the public was outraged to find out that some of the witnesses used were criminals. And to make matters worse, they were also members of the Hells Angel club. The use of these witnesses that had already been granted immunity was not well received by the public. An example is a former member of the club who had killed six people. He had received protection alongside $54000 from government agencies (Turner 1981). This information was released to the public instead of it being made private while the court proceedings continued. Such an instance only reflected poorly to the reputation of the hells angel. The jury itself was under a lot of pressure from the general public. Sherloc sites that, “Media reports at the time state that jurors in both trials who acquitted those at that time said they were troubled by being asked to convict an organization, the motorcycle club” (UNODC). During the first and second trials, which both ended up in mistrials, the jury had biased decisions due to the impact of the media. They faced a challenge where they were being forced to sentence the whole organization. The fact that the witnesses and the defendants were all criminals of the same club made a point of organized crime clearer. The media influenced the case such that the jury’s decision was not out of the free will. The United States posed a dilemma for the case since press coverage is supported by the constitution. Instead of viewing Hubert Barger and the 21 defendants as the group being accused, the whole Hells Angels motorcycles club was viewed as a group of criminals.
The media helped the Hells Angels score a publicity coup by hyping the activities of the members. The attorney general at the time gave reports to the newspapers exaggerating the dealings of the motorcycle club, which led to headlines that were captivating to the reader. The news led to members of the gang to show up to interviews to claim or deny the reports by the attorney. Their appearance on national television, made the community judge them. During this period of the Hubert case, most of the members had well-paying jobs. However, this came to an end as their employers laid them off (Abadinsky 2013). The publicity surrounding the case influenced society to fear members of motorcycle clubs due to how they were portrayed by the media. The media chose to interview the members that had an outrageous dressing that was fit for television. Even though the media was gaining viewers, the members of the Hells Angels suffered from discrimination due to bad publicity. In this situation, the media caused intentional infliction of emotional distress (Johnson 2017). The first amendment alone should not be used as the basis for rights since other rights apply as well. The press, therefore, was liable for the loss of jobs of the Hells Angels as well as how the public perceived them. They contributed to the public judgment of the organization as well as making every member seem like a member of organized crime. Media, in this case, used the identity of the members to make credit for themselves without copyright authority. Even though the first amendment advocates for creativity, there is also the right to be secure from an appropriation of one’s likeness.
In conclusion, the publicity surrounding the U.S vs. Hubert Barger et al. case posed a negative role towards the Hells Angels. Publicity in the courtroom should have been made more private as the discussion of the proceedings only left pressure on the jury. They were not able to make a clear judgment since they were being forced to view Hubert Barger as organized crime. The details of the witnesses should have been kept private since it led to the public, not believing that the jury would make the right decision. They felt that all of Hells Angels members were guilty of crimes. The role of publicity made the case vulnerable to fact-finding as all information was made public, making it easy to alter future evidence or judgment. Their right to trial by an impartial jury was no longer viable as the news were all over. Using the Hells Angels story to their advantage, the media ended up tarnishing the image of the members to the public. This led to the loss of their jobs and bad perception from the public. The environmental surrounding of the members was intolerable due to exaggerations by the media. They were now seen as a sect that needed to be feared. On the other hand, the members ended up being discriminated. The dilemma of publicity continues to exist within the United States. As seen in the Hubert Barger case, it was impossible to see where the line is drawn between the public’s right to free press and the defendants’ right to a jury that is free from bias. It is of concern if the jury is biased by publicity, thus delivering an unfair verdict. Despite the right to fair judgment, it seems that in America, the right to publicity overshadows the rights of the defendants.
References
Abadinsky, H. (2013). Organised Crime (10th ed., p. 233). Belmont: Cengage.
Johnson, E. (2017). DISENTANGLING THE RIGHT OF PUBLICITY. North Western University Law Review, 111(4), 891-943.
Turner, W. (1981). PROSECUTION OF HELLS ANGELS IS DROPPED AFTER 2D MISTRIAL. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/1981/02/26/us/prosecution-of-hells-angels-is-dropped-after-2d-mistrial.html
UNODC. United States of America v. Ralph Hubert Barger 931 F.2d 359. Retrieved from https://sherloc.unodc.org/cld/case-law-doc/criminalgroupcrimetype/usa/1991/united_states_of_america_v._ralph_hubert_barger_931_f.2d_359.html
