Impartial Trial

Media coverage of news events can be disseminated to the general public in any number of different ways and media biases often “reflects certain organizational and/or professional preferences or values” (Bennett 2011, 173). In fact, Lundman (2003) points out “that journalists assess the newsworthiness of homicides occurrences using the relative frequency of particular types of murders and how well specific murder occurrences mesh with stereotypical race and gender typifications (357).” In addition, Johnson (2012) felt that the real job of media was to “create a message that…grabs public attention (62).” In other words, can the media grab the public’s attention and hold it?

Grimes, J. N. (2010 January-December). The social construction of social problems: "Three Strikes and You 're Out" in the mass media. Journal of Criminal Justice and Law, 2(1-2), 39-56. doi:Ebscohost database

Criminology is continuously changing and developing. Advances of technology have made media our primary news source for crime. We believe the stories told by our local news media, not doubting a word because these sources are supposedly reliable. Nevertheless, they sometimes do spread false information. It may be intentional or unintentional. According to Cohen, media presence amplifies a problem which did not previously exist (Steeves and Milford, 2015) thus creating a moral panic. As media influence increases, it is necessary for criminologists to study moral panics, such as the Columbine School shootings or the Hurricane Katrina aftermath.

For those who do make it to trial a crucial step to having a fair trial is to have an unbiased jury, before the trial begins the prosecutor, judge, and defense attorney interview members of the jury pool in a process called voir dire. During voir dire the attorneys are given an unlimited amount of challenges for cause, which helps eliminate people who show a bias for one side or the other, for example the defendant’s sibling would not be allowed to serve on the jury because they are too closely related and would have a

This paper goes over the effects the media had on the O.J. Simpson case and how the media interfered. The O.J. Simpson murder case is touted as the most televised criminal trial in history and from the second the murders were discovered there was a media frenzy. On the night of June 12, 1994 the bodies of Nicole Brown and her waiter Ronald Goldman were found outside of Nicole’s condo both stabbed to death. The suspect, former athlete, icon, and actor Orenthal James (O.J.) Simpson was the main suspect of the crime. On June 16th, 1994 the LAPD pressed murder charges against him and placed a warrant for his arrest

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

Policing the Media: A literature review of the Role the Media Plays in the Public’s Perception of Law Enforcement and the Criminal Justice System.

The first phase of a criminal jury trial is focused on selecting specific jurors, which is accomplished through a process referred to as 'voir dire' which is a screening of potential jurors. In the criminal trial involving an offense categorized as a felony "12 jurors and up to six alternate jurors may be chosen." (3rd Judicial District, ) Voir dire of the jury involves the prosecuting and defense attorneys questioning the potential jurors and

Under the 6th amendment, defendants have the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury during criminal prosecutions. Beginning in the mid-19th century, a jury was given the full responsibility to decide on the facts of the case (Sparf and Hansen v. United States), leaving the jury with the authority of determining whether a defendant is guilty or innocent of the charges placed upon him/her and the judge with the authority of determining the law (Lippman, p.279). This juries the jurisdiction of ultimate adjudication without court interference when deliberating. Jury nullification derives from this right protected by the 6th amendment. Defined, it is the voluntary decision and act of a jury to knowingly reject the evidence of a

Every second, there are millions of lawsuits taking places in the United States. There is a question that always needed to be asked: is it a fair trial? The answer depends on all kinds of variables, such as race, education, poverty, age, gender and so on. A jury selection always needs to consider and assess different variables. In addition, in a jury selection, the lawyers and the judge need to eliminate different bias in order to proceed with a fair trail. In the legal system, a jury selection is also referred as voir dire process, which originally translated to an oath taken by jurors to tell the truth. According to the Sixth Amendment, the Constitution provides the defendant in a criminal trial with the right to “ an impartial jury” (Benforado

As old as the birth of our nation, the political controversy that raises the question whether judicial elections are inconsistent with impartial justice is an ongoing debate that is especially important because more than ninety percent of U.S. judicial business is carried out by state courts, and approximately nine in ten of all state court judges face the voters in some type of popular election. In the recent landmark Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar (2015) decision, the Court found that a state has a compelling interest in preserving public confidence in the integrity of its judiciary system. The authority of the court relies solely on the willingness of the people to abide by its decisions. By constitutional principles, proposed by Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist No. 78, the court has no way to persuade the public by either the purse, as in our legislative branch, nor by the sword, as in our executive branch.

Molly Fosco, a writer and a lifestyle blogger, says “Most of us have never even been in a courtroom, let alone a murder trial, and our knowledge of the legal system doesn’t encompass much more than a few episodes of Law and Order or The Good Wife.” Until we actually go into a courtroom or experience a murder trial, our knowledge about the subject remains limited. By hearing and learning about different crime scenarios through the news or other forms of communication, it gives us a way to educate ourselves on the legal system without actually becoming involved with it. Along with that, “the public's appetite for stories about a flawed criminal justice system is growing” and this makes the people more hungry for any sort of news they can get their hands on about the legal system

Different forms of media, such as television, films, books, and newspapers, have similar ways of portraying the criminal justice system. The media constructs representations of crime and justice and in doing this, it presents an often dramatized representation of the criminal justice system; and this does not just influence on the public’s lay view of crime but also for criminal justice experts (Marsh, 2014). In the media it is commonly known that they are a business, and businesses need to make a profit. Because of this, the media’s portrayal of the criminal justice system has been very negative. With the news, their main purpose is to produce what sells. So many of them would edit the information they have gathered and make a story that will sell. Also the media does not show the full process of the criminal justice as a quick process, while in fact it is not. For example, last year, Netflix released a short series called “Making A Murderer”. Most people claimed that they feel like they can solve a crime when they finished watching a series. While that series is very factual, it does not hit every single step of the criminal justice process.

When the media hears about crime committed, the first thing they like to do is discuss the incident on the television. That, however, could get out of hand at times because of the ratings. The ratings, at times, have the ability to go up or go down. As much as the media would like the ratings to remain high at all times, unfortunately that doesn’t always happen. The media may face conflicts when it comes to ratings and will do whatever that’s needed to lure the viewers (Beale, 2006). That being said, the media may go to the extent of following the juror in an attempt to attract viewers despite the unethical nature of the act. Despite the benefit of having high ratings, the Code of Practice requires that the media don’t harass journalist in any shape or form when they are told to stay away from their territory (“How the PCC Can Help You,” 2016). Just because the Code of Practice is enforced in a daily basis among journalist, it doesn’t mean that every journalist will follow it. Due to all the danger that jurors are exposed to before and after a criminal proceeding, I believe that they should be given a choice whether or not their personal information should be exposed to

Although I don’t believe that all forms of media are attempting to influence public perception on court cases, there are certainly “bad actors” that place a higher emphasis on certain cases in an effort to strengthen the narrative of a “clash of cultures”