Bakhshay, Shirin, Haney, Craig. The influence of the media on the right to a fair trial: an analysis of the content of pre-trial public relations in capital cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol 24(3), August 2018, 326-340 After their conviction, the defendants claimed that television coverage denied them a fair and impartial trial. The Supreme Court has ruled that without a constitutional ban on such reporting, states should be allowed to experiment with it, even if a defendant objects to it. In addition, it held that an absolute ban on reporting and broadcasting court hearings could only be justified if it could be shown that the reports were prejudicial to a fair trial. The second principle is that the prosecution and the defence are entitled to a fair opportunity to consider all the evidence considered by the jury in reaching its verdict. This possibility is at the heart of the concept of a fair trial in British and Australian law. As the Lord Chief Justice of England noted: Problems caused by the public before trial can be resolved by the court in a variety of ways. Despite the biased effect of the public before the trial, the Supreme Court ruled that courts cannot prevent the press from publishing truthful information about criminal proceedings, as this would violate the right to press freedom. Since the public cannot be prevented before trial, courts must find ways to minimize their impact on trial fairness. How can fair trials be guaranteed? Do we eliminate all jurors who have heard of a case? How can we ensure that a jury is impartial? The courts have been grappling with these issues for years.
(b) The trial judge should respond promptly to specific requests from detainees and, if warranted, conduct an investigation or take other action. (b) The trial judge should consider postponing the decision of contempt for wilful misconduct of an accused, lawyer or witness until the end of the trial and postponing such proceedings, unless immediate punishment is justified. (a) The trial judge shall maintain order and decency in judicial proceedings. The trial judge is required to use his or her judicial power to prevent distractions and disruptions to the proceedings. 1. Changes in the place of jurisdiction. The defendant may request a change of jurisdiction. If confirmed, the judge will move the trial from the area where the crime took place (and where heavy media coverage took place) to one in another part of the state.
This may work in situations where only local interest is high, but it would not be effective in widespread cases like O.J. Simpson. Judges rarely grant venue changes because they are expensive to arrange and impractical for everyone involved. Even in big cities, most judges believe they can find impartial jurors among the diverse population. Problems in high-profile cases Another worrying aspect of this case is the involvement of law enforcement authorities in the media. Three police officers were relieved of their duties because they had signed contracts to be part of a major Wuornos film. Officials said they were “tricked into selling their version of the case out of pure intent” to put the money into a victims` compensation fund. This called into question the credibility of some of their statements, which may have been influenced by the money they received for their role in the case and their subsequent film contract.
It later emerged that Wuornos` lawyer, Steven Glazer, who had no criminal experience, accepted his case for self-promotion, knowing how much media coverage the case received. Deputy Public Defender Tricia Jenkins said: “[Glazer] told me he was only taking care of the case because he needed media exposure.” Glazer demanded $25,000 in exchange for speaking to documentary filmmaker Nick Broomfield and discussing Wuornos` case. Wuornos had no money to pay him, so his remuneration came from interviews. He did not investigate the officers who made money from their film business and advised Wuornos to plead guilty due to his limited legal experience and lack of resources at his disposal. While there has been little debate about Wuornos` guilt, media coverage likely played a role in his death sentence for his crimes. The trial judge has a duty to ensure that he or she draws up true, complete and accurate records of all proceedings. The judge should at all times respect the professional independence of the rapporteur, but may challenge the accuracy of the procedural file of the judge-rapporteur. The trial judge should not change the protocol without notifying the prosecution, the defence and the journalist to be heard. The trial judge should take steps to ensure that the rapporteur`s obligation to provide minutes of hearings is fulfilled without delay.
Under the Sixth Amendment, every defendant has the right to be tried by an impartial jury of peers. Due to extensive media coverage, jury selection can be extremely difficult in a high-profile case. The jury will likely have developed prejudices against the case, based on the media coverage they were exposed to. The impartiality of potential judges is assessed during voir dire, the process of selecting judges from the pool of potential judges. Defense and prosecution lawyers question jury members on many topics, including their exposure to the public before trial and their ability to make impartial decisions and follow the judge`s instructions. Social science research found that “exposure to different media had a detrimental effect on people because they were not aware of their biases.” (Ogloff and Vidmar, 1994) Even potential jurors who say they were not biased by public exposure might actually have been biased. Juries that say they cannot set aside bias in a case or follow a judge`s instructions are eliminated “for cause.” Other jurors can be eliminated by lawyers using “peremptory strikes” (or “peremptory challenges”) that allow each side to eliminate a certain number of jurors for no reason. The decision to resolve this dilemma by preventing the press from publishing the information it possesses has been advocated in some countries. In England and some other British Commonwealth countries, it is only before the trial that the press can report with certainty the essential facts of the arrest and prosecution and give a balanced and objective account of the basic procedure during the trial. If you do more, you risk a citation of non-compliance and a fine or even jail time if the accounts represent a reasonable chance to influence the investigator. In rare cases, the press may even be prevented by a court order from publishing accurate factual documents that would otherwise be published without sanctions. The trial judge should insist that neither the prosecutor, nor defence counsel, nor any other person discuss a pending case ex parte with the judge, unless all other parties are duly informed or where permitted by law or in accordance with established practice.
The judge should ensure that all such ex parte communications are subsequently recorded. First, a rigorous approach whereby a jury “should not be allowed to present entirely new evidence if neither party has had an opportunity to consider it.” The convictions were overturned and wrongdoing was declared when it was discovered that jurors had accessed information on the Internet that had not been presented in court (in Rv Karakaya, UK, as well as in a homicide trial in the US and a paedophilia case in the US). Media coverage of criminal cases poses a dilemma. Press attention in criminal matters sometimes has significant advantages.