The Press: A Blow at Freedom?

In the case of Minot (“Mickey”) Jelke III, 23, newsmen from papers all over the world had a story made for them. Jelke, a socialite heir to a multimillion dollar fortune, was accused of managing a circle of glamorous prostitutes who operated in Manhattan’s glossiest nightspots and, for that matter, around the world (TIME, Feb. 2). This week, as the press warmed up for the first headline-making days of the trial, reporters got an unexpected and bitter piece of news.

In an order without precedent in Manhattan, General Sessions Judge Francis L. Valente, 47, banned the press from the trial, in the interests of “public decency.” Said Valente: “I have watched with growing uneasiness the mushrooming public anticipation of lurid and salacious details . . . The press of three continents was on hand to report the trial . . . Frankly, the reaction to this symptom of social illness is revolting nausea.”

The ban was vehemently opposed by the defense and also by Manhattan papers and wire services, who pointed out that it would “set a dangerous precedent.” “We believe,” said the petition the city editors filed with the court, “that open testimony is in the public interest.”

The ban was suggested by the lawyer for the prosecution’s key witness, red-haired Pat Ward, 19, who said she was prepared to testify on how she supposedly made between $10,000 and $15,000 in about 20 weeks as a prostitute working for Jelke. She announced, after her lawyer’s plea for a closed trial, that she would go to jail before telling in open court a story that might “destroy the thinking and morals of millions of children all over the world.”

Judge Valente banned the press only from the prosecution’s presentation of the case against Jelke. Since newsmen will be free to print any details they can pick up about the closed testimony, the effect of the ruling will be not to shut off news of the trial, but merely to make reporting inaccurate and unchecked. Summed up New York Times Lawyer Thomas F. Daly: the ban was an infringement of freedom of the press and could lead to “star chamber proceedings,” violating the American principle of open and public trial.