Socratics

Socratic Law Issue 7

Mass Communication Law

10/18/06

I believe that it is the responsibility of the courts to guarantee that potential jurors are not contaminated by pre-trial publicity. Today prejudicial news comment on pending trials has become widespread. Due process requires that the accused receive a fair trial by an impartial jury free from outside influences. Because of the extensive coverage that the news media gives to trials, it is up to the courts to ensure that jurors are impartial.

The Sixth Amendment gives criminal defendants the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. An impartial juror gives full and unbiased attention, and delivers a verdict on the basis of evidence presented in court. The problem is that, as the news makes clear daily, criminal trials do not exist in a vacuum. Some of the citizens immersed in the media coverage of a crime may be called upon as jurors.

In the mid-1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down two decisions recognizing the potential harms in media publicity. In Estes v. Texas, the court said that televised coverage of the criminal trial of Texas financier Billie Sol Estes was prejudicial. The court said intensive broadcast coverage of the trial altered juror perceptions and constituted a form of harassment of the defendant.

In the second case, Sheppard v. Maxwell, the Supreme Court severely criticized a judge who had allowed extensive pre-trial and trial publicity of a high profile murder case. In overturning the conviction in Sheppard, the Supreme Court said that judges must protect the fair trial rights of the defendant from media by controlling the participants and the process of the trial.

Media coverage of a crime can be extensive and sometimes the information presented may be incorrect. The publicity caused by the media can result in a biased jury and an unfair trial. For these reasons, it is the responsibility of the courts to make sure that prospective jurors are not affected by prejudicial pre-trial publicity.