On Monday morning, Oct. 22, former Barnes County jailer Moe Gibbs will be in the federal courthouse in Bismarck for his second murder trial. He is charged in the death of Valley City State University student Mindy Morgenstern. Gibbs has pleaded not guilty, and a Minot jury was unable to reach a verdict in his first murder trial in July.

The second trial was originally set for Grand Forks, but was moved to Bismarck after comments were made on a radio talk show in that city that brought into question the possibility of a fair trial taking place there. Security, or safety concerns, was also mentioned as a reason for moving the trial to the capital city.

Much has been said in this case about fair-trial rights. But what does "fair trial" actually mean? As this trial nears, it's worth taking a look at parts of the process in an effort to help ensure all things are done right.

First, the right to a fair trial is paramount in democratic societies. But location, which is often referenced in fair trial dialog, is only one element of consideration. A fair trial includes the sum of the guarantees that individuals have during the entire process. It is all about the treatment an accused person receives, based on a respect of human rights.

Second, the rights and sensitivities of Ms. Morgenstern, her family, friends and the state of North Dakota can't be forgotten in the fair-trial rights of this case. Let it be shouted from the highest of mountains that Mindy Morgenstern deserves justice. Someone took her life, and that person must be held responsible. The cost of justice, whatever it is, needs to be paid.

Nor can we forget the rights of the accused, including:

3 The right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty.

3 The right to legal counsel.

3 The right to be tried before a competent, independent and impartial tribunal.

3 The right to a public trial.

It's also worth remembering that the burden of proof of guilt - beyond a reasonable doubt - is on the prosecution; the defendant does not have to prove innocence, and any doubt between guilt and innocence should be resolved in favor of the defendant.

Publicity is sometimes listed as a main or contributing factor in an accused person getting a fair trial. It comes at an intersection that is narrow for some and wide for others between the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a fair trial.

An out-of-control media, an unusual occurrence, can be, and sometimes is, defined differently. Clearly, if the media references an accused person as "guilty as sin" or a "pathological liar" - or uses some other pejorative language in its news coverage - a fair trail is in jeopardy. But seldom is factual reporting or photographic recordings of what is taking place in proceedings a threat to a fair trial. Most court filings, testimony, arguments, examination, cross-examination and summations are already public. Reporting of such matters doesn't automatically jeopardize a fair trial.

Gag orders are another tactic used in the name of a fair trial, even though they infringe upon the First Amendment rights of those being gagged, be they attorneys, law enforcement members, the media or jurors. Many legal scholars will suggest gag orders should trump certain rights in an effort to maintain fair-trial rights. But the conflict comes in the definition of protection. Should a gag order be based on "reasonable likelihood" of presenting some prejudice, "substantial likelihood" of presenting prejudice or "serious and imminent threat" to a fair trail?

All of this will be, should be, considered by the courts on an ongoing basis. Certainly, efforts of a fair and public trial should be at play in the federal courthouse for the Gibbs trial in October. Everyone deserves nothing less.