In what ways might pretrial news coverage be damaging to the objective outcome of a criminal trial? According to research conducted on over 300 murder cases by Bruschke and William E. of Oregon University, pretrial publicity does not produce bias. The research refuted previously held notion that the negative light cast by media coverage on felony murders and robbery cases could have adverse effects on the cases as compared to those that received no public ("Pretrial Publicity: Does it Impact Verdicts?," n.d.). What is certain however is that different cases such rape trials being covered by the media could potentially be damaging. Such coverage could expose victim’s private life which can cause prejudice against the victim ("Pretrial Publicity:
The Casey Anthony trial has been arguably the most controversial case since the trial of O.J. Simpson and has been speculated over ever since the verdict had been given in July of 2011. It was decided by a jury of her peers that Anthony was not guilty of murder, for the death of her daughter Caylee. Many believe that Anthony should have been found guilty however, very little Americans actually comprehend the justice system.
Starting on the day of the murder, the media began to attack Sheppard on any occasion they could. Stories were obtained in unethical, and nearly unlawful ways. Even though they were permitted to do so by the courts, going into Sheppard's house and looking through his belongings was not the most ethical practice. Also, though the courts also allowed them to witness the testimony of Sheppard about his wife's death, they really shouldn't have agreed. Stories were written in an unscrupulous manner. The "trial before the trial" was a meeting between the coroner, Samuel Gerber, and Sheppard, in which Gerber fired questions at Sheppard in front of the entire community -- without Sheppard's lawyer present. The media was allowed to sit in on ...
Patty Hearst was a normal 19 year old girl, living in an apartment with her fiance and attending university in Berkeley, California, until one day her life, and the lives of everyone around her changed forever. On the evening of February 4, 1974, some members of the left-wing radical group called the Symbionese Liberation Army barged into Hearst’s home armed with guns, and beat up her fiance before kidnapping Hearst and bringing her to their house where she was kept blindfolded in a closet for 59 days. While locked in the closet, Patty Hearst was verbally and sexually abused and she was denied the use of even a toilet or toothbrush if she didn’t tell them that she agreed with the group’s ideas and beliefs. It is believed that while being locked in the closet like this, Patty was being brainwashed by the SLA and that she may have even developed Stockholm Syndrome, a condition in which a person who was kidnapped starts to empathise with their captor, and even starts defending them. This is how the Symbionese Liberation Army convinced Patty Hearst to join their group. They released an audio tape to the public in which Patty Hearst said she was changing her name to Tania and that she had decided to join the SLA. She then helped the SLA rob a bank and steal an ammunition belt from a sports store. After this, she started travelling around the country with two members of the SLA named John and Emily Harris, to try avoid being captured by the police. During this time, the police found a house where some members of the SLA were hiding out. Attempts to make the SLA members surrender ended up in a massive gunfight, ultimately ending up in the deaths of 6 SLA members. The FBI eventually found and arrested Patty Hearst on September 18, 1975. T...
The way the media portrays a trial influences many people’s views of the trial, such as the George Zimmerman trial. Racial profiling is based on the way a person looks or acts. The way some media portrayed George Zimmerman was as an innocent white man who shot Trayvon Martin as an act of self-defense. Other media such as NBC portrayed him as a racist. The way these two media portrayed him influenced many Americans to determine a verdict without hearing the trial. In the article “The Quiet Racism in the Zimmerman Trial” by Steven Mazie, he implies ...
Through the past 50 years the television camera has become a part of human nature. Each channel is there to represent a different aspect of society. It has given society the ability to witness traumatic world events, infamous police investigations and debates in the House of Commons from the comfort of their own home. The question remains unanswered, why is the public not able to observe a courtroom trial on television? Some claim that the media would distort the whole process having a negative impact on jury, however, if certain protocols are followed there would be no conflicts concerning cameras in the courtroom. The media should be able to film trials in the courtroom as it would create a better society.
The trial of O.J Simpson, an infamous case that had america glued to their Tv’s. Tensions were high as 11 months passed as the verdict was nearing. The case goes as following, O.J was accused of the murder of his ex wife Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman. On June 13, 1994 Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman were found dead around midnight near the entryway of Nicole’s apartment complex. The crime was heinous for the times and took America by storm. With O.J being a famous main suspect, the media wanted to give as much insight about the trial to the people watching at home and the first amendment gives them that right to gather intel. At first the media was not allowed to share what was happening in the trial. But later on, judge Ito later gave the media permission to cover the trial as long as the media does not disclose the insight of the grand jury. To coincide with this, the media wanted access to the preliminary hearings. Several news organizations requested access to photographs of the crime and transcripts of conferences held in the judge’s office. A lot of this information was sensitive material that was still being decided upon whether to reveal to the jury, but the media still wanted to have
The issue of pretrial publicity is a maze of overlapping attentions and interwoven interests. Lawyers decry pretrial publicity while simultaneously raising their own career stock and hourly fee by accumulating more if it. The media both perpetrate and comment on the frenzy -- newspapers and television stations generate the publicity in the first place and then actively comment on the likely effect that the coverage will have on the trial. When a high profile case is brought to trial, many media outlets report not only on the details of the trial, but also details about the persons involved, in particular the defendant. Much of the information reported regarding the case is released before the trial starts. Furthermore, media outlets may not only report facts, but also present the information in a way that projects the culpability of the defendant. By allowing pretrial publicity of court cases, potential jurors are given information that could sway their opinion of the defendant even before the trial begins, and how they interpret the evidence given during the trial. The right of a criminal defendant to receive a fair trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The right of the press, print and electronic media, to publish information about the defendant and the alleged criminal acts is guaranteed by the First Amendment. These two constitutional safeguards come into conflict when pretrial publicity threatens to deprive the defendant of an impartial jury. However, there is a compromise between these two Constitutional rights, which would allow for the selection of an impartial jury and allow the media to report on the details of the case. The media should only be able to report information once the trial has...
conflicts to try to understand why the media showed such strong interest in the trial. We found that the media recognized this case as a perfect way to bring these conflicts to the forefront of the American mind. By doing this, the ideas and beliefs of modernists could be showcased and possibly validated. This was a way to indirectly force change and
Mostly the people who supported R. Kelly information was selected for the news media and the information from the nonsupporters were not selected by the news media. In this case the information was bias to supporting R. Kelly even though he had film a sex tape urinating on a fourteen year old girl. It was ironic that the people would still support R. Kelly after such an incident, but his case was viewed on a racial manner rather than having sex with an underage teenager. The news media was able to view the lawyer sly ways of dealing with the jury to help R. Kelly win his case.
Convictions. Now Juries Expect the Same Thing – and That's a Big Problem.” U.S. News
in Houck). Jurors who are influenced by the CSI Effect tend to have biased opinions because CSI shows are the basis for their knowledge. Rather than simply acknowledging courtroom expectations by deliberating based on only the facts presented in the courtroom, jurors are asking for more evidence than that is provided or necessary because jurors are comparing forensic evidence used to convict on television to real life cases. Thus, jurors are not impartial to the case because they have a prenotion of what information they require to convict, such as fingerprints in burglaries and blood analysis in murder cases. Smith et all reports that viewers of CSI-type shows and other similar shows have “inflated perceptions of accuracy, reliability, and usefulness of forensic evidence (but not ‘nonscientific’ evidence)” (qtd. in Stinson et all). As CSI-type shows emphasize the collection, analysis, and presentation of forensic evidence during court proceedings more so than other types of
Fairchild, H. & Cowan, G (1997). Journal of Social Issues. The O.J. Simpson Trial: Challenges to Science and Society.
Research also suggests that the media is a major decider in what crime cases get chosen to air on the news. While it was previously thought that what went on the news was arbitrarily picked or based on the most interesting cases, it turns out that it is not quite the case. J...
...publication was merely reporting and comment based from the witness’ testimony and not his personal opinion. Nevertheless, if it is that the accused is suppressed of a fair trial due to prejudicial publicity, then the case may be dismissed and if the accused was guilty, he could walk free.
The courts have the function of giving the public a chance to present themselves whether to prosecute or defend themselves if any disputes against them rise. It is known to everyone that a court is a place where disputes can be settled while using the right and proper procedures. In the Criminal court is the luxury of going through a tedious process of breaking a law. Once you have been arrested and have to go to court because of the arrest, you now have a criminal case appointed against you. The court is also the place where a just, fair and unbiased trial can be heard so that it would not cause any disadvantage to either of the party involved in the dispute. The parties are given a chance to represent themselves or to choose to have a legal representative, which is mostly preferred by many.