ON JUNE 30, 1976, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DECIDED THAT THE EFFORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA TO SECURE A FAIR TRIAL FOR ERWIN CHARLES SIMANTS WERE UNNECESSARY AND THAT THE RIGHT OF THE NEWS MEDIA TO DEPRIVE HIM OF A FAIR TRIAL WAS MANDATED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT. THE COURT ARGUED THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE, JUDGE STUART, HAD NUMEROUS OTHER OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO PROTECT SIMANTS' RIGHT TO AN IMPARTIAL JURY AND THAT THE RESTRICTIVE ORDER IMPOSED ON THE PRESS WAS NOT ONLY VIOLATIVE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT BUT WAS ALSO UNNECESSARY. THE AUTHOR OF THIS COMMENT MAINTAINS THAT THE PREMISE OF PETITIONERS AND THE U.S. SUPREME COURT THAT OTHER OPTIONS WERE AVAILABLE TO PROTECT SIMANTS WAS INCORRECT. HE STATES THAT THE CONFLICT IN THIS CASE DID NOT STEM FROM THE OPPOSING RIGHT TO A FREE PRESS AND SIMANTS' RIGHT TO AN IMPARTIAL JURY; RATHER, IT EVOLVED FROM THE PECULIAR AND APPARENTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATIVE RESTRAINTS THAT WERE PLACED ON JUDGE STUART. THE RELEVANT NEBRASKA STATUTES, COUPLED WITH THE VAGARIES OF VOIR DIRE, DEPRIVED THE TRIAL JUDGE OF THE OPTIONS THAT PETITIONERS AND THE JUSTICES OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ASSUMED HE POSSESSED. THE AUTHOR STATES THAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, HAVING FOCUSED ON THE SUFFICIENCY IN PRINCIPLE OF ALTERNATIVE, NON-PRESS-RESTRICTIVE MEANS OF ASSURING A FAIR TRIAL, SHOULD HAVE TAKEN STEPS AND ANALYZED THE SUFFICIENCY IN FACT OF THOSE MEANS UNDER NEBRASKA LAW. THE AUTHOR CLAIMS THAT HAD SUCH A REVIEW BEEN MADE, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE REALIZED THAT A FAIR TRIAL COULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED WITHOUT GOVERNMENT-INDUCED SILENCE ON THE PART OF THE PRESS; THUS SIMANTS' CONVICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN REVERSED. THE AUTHOR ALSO DISCUSSES THE IMPACT OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTES ON SIMANTS' WAIVER OF IMPORTANT RIGHTS IN AN EFFORT TO SECURE A FAIR TRIAL. FOR ALL ARTICLES IN THE SYMPOSIUM, SEE NCJ-41564 TO NCJ-41574. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED) ...DMC