Does the Court have a duty to protect a defendant from prejudicial publicity?

It is of course true that a policy of our law demands that the public not unnecessarily be denied information relating to the functioning of government, including operation of the courts. But that policy must yield when it impinges upon the right of a criminally accused to a fair trial. As we said in Craemer v. Superior Court, supra, 265 Cal.App.2d 216, 225, 71 Cal.Rptr. 193, 201: '(I)t is clear that a judge has the duty to protect a defendant from inherently prejudicial publicity.' We observe that in a context such as this the public is not Denied information on the functioning of the court; the proceedings are recorded, and access to the information is merely delayed until the threat to the accused's fair trial has passed. And, of course, if the trial court's ruling allows the confession in evidence, it will become public information at the trial.