Effects of Pretrial Publicity

Pretrial Publicity allows for the media to put out information about a person on trial before the case even takes place. This type of publicity can be very effective, but it can also be an invasion of personal rights. In the case of pretrial publicity there are conflicting rights such as freedom of press and the right to a fair trial. These rights are essentially equal, but does the freedom of press impose on the right to a fair trial? Jurors are people from the public, who are not to have any prior knowledge of a trail, but when the media decides to cover a case before the trial even takes place then the public already has preconceptions. These preconceptions can influence the public and make it hard to find reliable jurors that are not already emotionally invested in the case. For example, pretrial publicity was at play a lot in the case of Casey Anthony, who was accused of murdering her daughter. Casey Anthony was bombarded by the media long before her trial began. The public instantly developed their own opinions on this case because it involved the murder of a two year old child. The media chose to cover this case immensely, “such as when Headline News anchor Nancy Grace took on the Casey Anthony trial as a personal cause to see justice done for a murdered child. And sometimes there is no apparent reason other than a slow news day for a case to suddenly attract great media attention” (7). When cases like the Casey Anthony one, are on the news and in the papers every single day for a very long period of time it is hard to believe that a reliable jury could be found. It seems perfectly okay that these trials are constantly followed because of freedom of press, but then the amount of people that can be part of the jury are limited. Just like everyone else, Casey Anthony deserved a fair trial, one in which the jurors were not influenced by the press that already surrounded the case before the trial even happened. In order to find jurors who are unbiased, a questionnaire could be administered or the location of the trial could be changed. Does either of these actually eliminate the effects of pretrial publicity? In the instance of the Casey Anthony case, the trial was moved from Florida to Ohio. It seems that the public of Ohio would not be as partial as the people in Florida but who is to say that the people in Ohio are unbiased? The news is shown throughout the entire country, in every state, on every news station. Changing the location of a trial may lessen the effects of pretrial publicity, but it will not solve the issue completely. As far as a questionnaire goes, a juror might lie and say that, “he/she can set aside any prejudicial information learned from journalists before the case even began but juror’s assurances are not necessarily believable when pretrial publicity is intense and widespread” (Strandler, 17). The first amendment seems to override the right to a fair trial at times and it is because the media has so much to relate to the public. The media can be extremely powerful and influential, especially during times of huge trials. The media knows the public wants as much information as the media can give them. The media wants to do their job, attracting more viewers to television programs and selling more newspapers. Not only does this affect the people of the public, who have the potential to be in the jury, but it also affects the judges. High Profile trials are the cases that cause the most difficulty for judges, as well as lawyers. Another example of a case effected by pretrial publicity is the O.J. Simpson trial. This was about the famous football player who was arrested for the murder of his ex-wife and her boyfriend. "Not only was the Simpson trial the most heavily covered legal case of all time, it may have been the most widely cover media event ever" (Bruschke, 2) The Simpson trial began in January 1995, and then was finally given to the jury towards the end of September in 1995. This trial got so much attention, CNBC network had a television program every weekday night of a panel discussing the ins and outs of the case. The judge felt that because of the amount of media attention the jurors were sequestered. This means to be separate or apart from the world, this is quite common in high profile criminal prosecution cases. The jurors are sent to stay in a hotel room without access to news media and the public, and they are only allowed to see their families under tight supervision. As far as the Simpson trial goes, the jurors were sequestered for 265 days. The judge of the case, Supreme Court Judge Lance Ito, said "We will try to make this something less than . . . an experience of incarceration, but it won't be a picnic." The jurors took four hours to deliberate till reaching their decision. It can be said that this was indeed a fair trial; however, extensive measures did have to be taken because of the media. There are different degrees of information that is presented which makes it hard to distinguish that line between news reporting and entertainment, or also fiction and reality. What occurs in the courtroom and what the public hears is the different sides in which this line is met. There are a number of cases in history where convictions were thrown out in the court room due to extensive pretrial publicity which have cause people to try and control that publicity. However, how do you measure extensive publicity? Journalists have a job, and that is to deliver the information the public wants. That is why pretrial publicity is important to some people, it gives many a better understanding of our judicial system. The only defense mechanism that could be used is, is that coverage over cases are not evenly distributed, only certain cases are put into the media light. Those trials that catch the attention of the public take on an important role simply because they spark a interest in the people and create this public opinion. A good point is that "Although there could be much discussion on social science in the courtroom, there is little doubt that pretrial publicity questions turn on empirical knowledge" (Bruschke, 8). Whether this publicity is creating a mindset for jurors or not, this legal debate divides opinion on how research in the courtroom should be evaluated. The evolution of media in society, as well as social media, has effected out judicial system. Laws have been passed such as the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Sheppard vs. Maxwell trial in 1966. Sheppard convictions were dismissed due to the fact that pretrial publicity had been precluded. It is instructed that judges control their court room and make sure that pretrial publicity does not affect the outcome of a case. With the way technology is changing, this rapid spread of information may evolve even more. Till then Courts have found a may to control the media publicity effects with in the courtroom in respect towards the First and Sixth Amendment.