An analysis of trial fairness in the case of R. v Taylor (1994) 98 Cr. App. R. 361. Did media coverage affect the trial?
Media coverage of trials in the digital age has become a considerable issue in the UK and traditional legal remedies to reduce the influence of the press on jurors’ bias appear to be inefficient. In recent years, the discussion of fair trial and free press has been raised due to the fact that in some criminal cases especially high profile criminal cases, the right of defendants has been infringed. High profile criminal case can be loosely described as a case of the suspect who is a well-known person such as a celebrity, an actor, and a businessman as well as a case, which receives massive attention even though the accused
…show more content…
It is stated that “the true injustice of exaggerated publicity is its ability to present unsupported views which may affect the trial in unchangeable ways” (Breheny and Kelly, 2012: 377-378) which means the publicity prejudice causes partial trials without verified evidence and exploits the defendants’ rights. In addition, the unproven opinion usually spreads extensively and rapidly which is true, for instance the Taylor sisters were prosecuted by media they were already believed to be killers and this belief still haunted them despite the fact that they were released. Furthermore, although other features have a significant part in biased jury, prejudicial publicity is the most influent cause of bias (Geragos, 2006). The harmful effect of press disclosure resulting in cases R. v Taylor (1994) was the publication of the still from victim’s wedding video in newspapers and the headlines of newspapers, yet it was never revealed in the courtroom; therefore, during the appeal, the convictions were considered as unsafe and unsatisfied because the clarification of witness’ statement was failed. Nonetheless, Carey (1985), suggests that from the analysis of practical observes on public prejudice reveals that the juries’ decisions based on the information in courtrooms rather that on the external data from the media. As well as Frasca (1988, cited in Geragos, 2006) who implies that there are only a few cases have the press disclosure problem, conversely Geragos (2006: 1178) argues that “the problem is qualitative, rather than quantitative”. Frasca (1988)’s argument is insufficient for the media coverage issue due to concentration only on the number of cases; in contrast, Gerogos (2006)’s argument focuses on the cruelty of the problem which nobody should deserve and also suggests that the method to deal with those remarkable cases is what correctly
Publication bans have been a part of the Criminal Code since 1988. A publication ban is a court law that prohibits trial information from leaving the case. Since these bans were first introduced in Canada, they have become a very useful tool in Common Law. These bans have been frequently used over the years for many purposes including avoiding the risk of adverse consequences to participants and for more accurate trial procedures. Having publication bans are beneficial, in every which-way, than not. These bans contribute positively to the environment of law and most importantly, the society within. This essay will outline why the court should have the right to impose a publication ban in Canada. It will support the debate that if Canada wishes to build towards a reputation of having trials handled efficiently, then it should not change the nature of these publication bans. It will portray the importance of these bans through a thorough explanation of how the bans work, and two solid arguments of the cause on the society and environment. First, this essay will discuss basics of publication bans and how they work. Then, this essay will point out how publication bans contribute to trial fairness in the court. Finally, this essay will touch upon how publication bans protect victims and those involved in the trials.
Hariman, R. “Performing the Laws: Popular Trials and Social Knowledge” from Popular Trials: Rhetoric, Mass Media, and the Law, Robert Hariman, ed(s)., University of Alabama Press, 1990. 17-30.
The Leopold and Loeb case quickly became one of the most well known case around the nations in the 1920’s and is still a well known case today. The Murder of a dead young wealthy boy by two young wealthy men. The Murder of little Robert Franks seemed completely random. Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb knew exactly what they were doing the day they planned their murder, they just didn't know who they were going to kill. Somebody they knew that would trust them and only if they had a perfect opportunity. When that opportunity arose it was Robert Franks a boy who knew the two men and even had been to the Loeb house to play tennis became the selected victim while walking home alone that day.This case from any other once the media found how wealthy the primary suspects were. These two young boys were caught and confessed within days. The real significance to the case was the plea.. Guilty. Not only did they admit the murder and plead guilty but they decided to go straight to the judge and have no jury. Through out the years Major court cases that involve the wealthy or famous normally are put to the top of the media’s priority. The media controls and attempts to persuade our view by showing the people what they want to. This affects our perspective of what crimes shown by the media, how the law is interpreted ,and also commercial culture in all that it is.
At trial, your life is in the palms of strangers who decide your fate to walk free or be sentenced and charged with a crime. Juries and judges are the main components of trials and differ at both the state and federal level. A respectable citizen selected for jury duty can determine whether the evidence presented was doubtfully valid enough to convict someone without full knowledge of the criminal justice system or the elements of a trial. In this paper, juries and their powers will be analyzed, relevant cases pertaining to jury nullification will be expanded and evaluated, the media’s part on juries discretion, and finally the instructions judges give or may not include for juries in the court. Introduction Juries are a vital object to the legal system and are prioritized as the most democratic element in our society, aside from voting, in our society today.
The New York Times bestseller book titled Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case examines the O.J. Simpson criminal trial of the mid-1990s. The author, Alan M. Dershowitz, relates the Simpson case to the broad functions and perspectives of the American criminal justice system as a whole. A Harvard law school teacher at the time and one of the most renowned legal minds in the country, Dershowitz served as one of O.J. Simpson’s twelve defense lawyers during the trial. Dershowitz utilizes the Simpson case to illustrate how today’s criminal justice system operates and relates it to the misperceptions of the public. Many outside spectators of the case firmly believed that Simpson committed the crimes for which he was charged for. Therefore, much of the public was simply dumbfounded when Simpson was acquitted. Dershowitz attempts to explain why the jury acquitted Simpson by examining the entire American criminal justice system as a whole.
Viewing a judge's sentence creates a divide in society. Will the accused be offered a fair trial? Could t...
There were three main issues behind the wrongful conviction of David Milgaard, each playing their own role in the ruling. Pre-existing views and perceptions of deviance placed Milgaard among the socially marginalized, making him an easy target for police and public allegations. The broadcast media had a huge impact on public awareness and police actions, presenting a problem with jury discrimination and witness testimony. Finally, and perhaps most inexcusably, misconduct on the part of the Canadian Criminal Justice System in both the investigation and prosecution of the case caused the trial to end in a guilty verdict. If any or all of these factors were more closely investigated or realized at the time, David Milgaard, may not have lost 23 years of his life and this senseless tragedy could have been prevented.
“In matters of truth and justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same”.(Albert Einstein).Many people have different points of view of what is justice of what happens in the courtroom. Opinions have been heard of whether or not DNA evidence should be admissible in murder trials. Not only have people try to introduce this kind of evidence in their case, but some have been trying to avoid of DNA evidence in their case. Like any important matter they all have their own pros and cons to conclude whether or not it’s worth presenting to a courtroom full of juries. It takes hard workers to give background information
The media plays a big role in shaping the people’s perceptions about the court system. Without media we would remain uneducated to the occurrences outside our social groups. Media and especially news coverage provide us with important point of contact with the rest of society. In debunking popular myths about our court system we will look at the “facts” (the truth, the actual event, a real thing). With a myth being based upon “exaggeration” or heightening of “ordinary” event in life. Myths become a convenient mortar to fill gaps in knowledge and to provide answers to questions social science either cannot answer or has failed to address. Myths tend to provide the necessary information for the construction
Johnson, J., Keyzer, P., Holland, G., Pearson, M., Rodrick, S., & Wallace, A 2011, Juries and social media, Victorian Department of Justice, viewed 8 May 2014, < http://www.sclj.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/sclj/documents/pdf/juries%20and%20social%20media%20-%20final.pdf>.
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...
A jury is a panel of citizens, selected randomly from the electoral role, whose job it is to determine guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented. The Jury Act 1977 (NSW) stipulates the purpose of juries and some of the legal aspects, such as verdicts and the right of the defence and prosecution to challenge jurors. The jury system is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society as members of the community ultimately decide whether the person is guilty or innocent. The creation of the Jury Amendment Act 2006 (NSW) enabled the criminal trial process to better represent the standards of society as it allowed majority verdicts of 11-1 or 10-2, which also allowed the courts to be more resource efficient. Majority verdicts still ensure that a just outcome is reached as they are only used if there is a hung jury and there has been considerable deliberation. However, the role of the media is often criticized in relation to ensuring that the jurors remain unbiased as highlighted in the media article “Independent Juries” (SMH, 2001), and the wide reporting of R v Gittany 2013 supports the arguments raised in the media article. Hence, the jury system is moderately effective in reflecting the moral and ethical standards of society, as it resource efficient and achieves just outcomes, but the influence of the media reduces the effectiveness.
From conception in the Magna Carta 1215, juries have become a sacred constitutional right in the UK’s justice system, with the independence of the jury from the judge established in the R v. Bushel’s case 1670. Although viewed by some as a bothersome and an unwelcomed duty, by others it is perceived to be a prized and inalienable right, and as Lord Devlin comments ‘ trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution : it is the lamp that shows freedom lives.’ It is arguable that juries bring a ‘unique legitimacy’ to the judicial process, but recently it seems that their abolition may be the next step forward for the UK in modernising and making the judicial system more effective. Many argue that jurors lack the expertise and knowledge to make informed verdicts, along with views that external forces are now influencing juries more heavily, especially after the emergence of the internet and the heavy presence it now has on our lives. Yet, corruption within the jury system is also internal, in that professionals and academics may ‘steamroll’ others during deliberations about the case. These factors, coupled with the exorbitant costs that come along with jury trials creates a solid case for the abolition of juries. On the other hand though, the jury system carries many loyal supporters who fear its abolition may be detrimental to society. Academics and professionals such as John Morris QC state that; 'it may well not be the perfect machine, but it is a system that has stood the test of time.’ Juries ensure fair-practice within the courtroom, and although controversial, they have the power to rule on moral and social grounds, rather than just legal pre...
For my research paper I decided to observe at the North Justice Center in Fullerton, CA for the morning session. My goal entering there was to watch the process of a criminal trial since I felt that would be the most interesting and would allow me the opportunity to witness all the working parts of our justice system in action. While waiting for the criminal trial to open its doors and start, I managed to come across a post- arraignment court, where I was able to watch a different side of our criminal justice system. This is the side that enforces the punishment and makes sure that restitution is paid for whatever crime was committed. By far the most interesting thing I took from this experience was the differences in how the judges conducted themselves in their courtrooms and the amount of discretion that they were allowed to use. For this paper I will be going over what I observed in both the post-arraignment court and the criminal trial and analyze my findings in a sociological context.
Convictions. Now Juries Expect the Same Thing – and That's a Big Problem.” U.S. News