While the public deserves basic information about high-profile criminal cases, media outlets often provide extensive coverage of crimes, which can present problems for prosecutors, defendants, and defense attorneys.
The United States federal justice system relies on the principle of fair trials. Under the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution Bill of Rights, every criminal in federal court has the right to a speedy trial with an impartial jury. While the Constitution does not define this concept, it has evolved through tradition and case law to mean that jurors do not enter the case with a preconceived bias against the defendant.
What role does media coverage play in the selection of an impartial jury? A prospective juror who has read or heard extensively about the case will likely have formed an opinion, consciously or unconsciously. The more media coverage a case has received, the more trouble attorneys may have in selecting a jury without prejudice or bias.
Attorneys for the defense and prosecution aim to weed out impartial jurors during voir dire, which is the process of selecting jurors from a larger pool. To identify and eliminate biased jurors, attorneys ask numerous questions about their ability to follow a judge’s instructions, their personal beliefs, and their exposure to pre-trial publicity.
According to research, media exposure does affect jurors’ opinions, although they are typically unaware of their biases. Capital cases attract more extensive and emotional media coverage than other cases, which makes jury selection more challenging. Media coverage also affects judges. A Stanford University study found that elected judges give harsher sentences to defendants in cases that receive significant media coverage compared to similar cases with less coverage.
Along with an impartial jury, defendants have a right to due process of law, which outlines a formal procedure of investigation and trial. This broad right extends to many legal issues and aims to prevent a government from unilaterally removing an individual’s rights. According to the Supreme Court, due process in criminal trials might be compromised if an action “fatally inflicts the trial.” An example is if an accused individual appears in court in prison clothing, as this can have an impact on jurors’ perception of innocence.
Media coverage can impact due process in many ways. While public interest trials have always been open to the public, this previously meant people could attend trials in person. Now, television broadcasts and Internet streaming mean that millions of people can watch a public trial in real-time.
The presence of cameras in a courtroom may influence witnesses to alter their testimony. For example, if the witness to a gang-related crime knew that other gang members could watch the testimony online, they might change their testimony for fear of retaliation. Similarly, jurors might fear public retribution for making an unpopular decision.
Supreme Court Justices have long differed in their opinions about cameras in the courtroom. Some believe it encourages transparency and accountability, while others are concerned that trials will become salacious entertainment.
The courts have several tools at their disposal to limit the influence of the media. A defense attorney can ask for a change of venue to move the trial from the jurisdiction where the crime took place, or the judge might postpone trial proceedings until publicity dies down.
