Article on this subject, but here's the summary:
A year ago, 8-year-old Sandra Cantu of Tracy, California, was killed and her body found in a suitcase in a pond. Her neighbor eventually confessed to the murder, and entered a guilty plea this month. She is expected to be sentenced to life without parole in a few weeks.
During the entire trial, the details of the case - including how the girl died - have been withheld from the public. The judge has ordered that information will be held at least until after sentencing.
News organizations are fighting the order, claiming that the public should know in advance of the sentencing how the plea deal was made. I've seen other quotes from people in Tracy saying they want to understand "how it happened".
Naturally the child's family do not want any information released as they feel it will cause them additional suffering.
I think the approach taken by the judge is fair, since even if it were reported on the public is not going to follow everything that occurred at the trial. However, since this is not always the case, it tends to make us imagine the crime to be worse than it may be. I agree that the public should have access to the information at some point, but I don't see the point in making a spectacle of the courtroom.
In this or other cases - where should the line be drawn? Should there be continuous coverage during the trial? Do some crimes (say, against children) warrant never releasing the details?