Positive and Negative Publicity in a Case Trial

The media can be an effective tool for exposing injustices in the application of criminal law, however it can also be used to create unfair bias against the alleged offender therefore, causing an imbalance between the rights of the accused and society. The media attempted to vilify Loveridge to create prejudice

For a more adverse effect, the trail of Casey Anthony is a good example of how the media impacted the Criminal Justice System. Lawyer Nicholas Battaglia proposed a new term, “trail by media,” in his article for the Albany Law Review. Essentially, Battaglia proposed that the media had an adverse effect on the Casey Anthony trial by questioning certain finding of the defense, live on T.V., which swayed public opinion. Therefore, when the jury exonerated her, the public was in an outcry because they had come up with their own conclusions, or as Battaglia put it, “In a sense, this crated a “wrongful exoneration” of the defendant because the “armchair jury” had convicted her when the actual jury acquitted” (Battaglia, 2012) A perspective that I had previously not considered was the potential bias that media can represent as a result of either personal or occupational

During jury selection, potential jurors are interviewed then chosen or eliminated from the jury. The initial selection of potential jurors is completely random; citizens get “jury Duty” notices on a random basis. The screening of the jury selection is conducted by both the prosecution and the defense, and is overviewed by the judge on the case. During the interview, citizens are asked a number of strategic questions to ensure that they are not in any way bias for or against the defendant or case. The questions also eliminate those who have any connection to the case, in any way. It is during this interview that the lawyers on the case can voice their concerns regarding biased jurors.

Juries exists in the criminal trial to listen to the case presented to them and, as a third, non-bias party, decide beyond reasonable doubt if the accused is guilty. For the use of a trial by juror to be effective, no bias should exists in the jurors judgments, the jurors should understand clearly their role and key legal terms, and the jury system should represent the communities standards and views whilst upholding the rights of the accused and society and remain cost and time effective.

In the 2013 case, R v Gittany, the accused, Simon Gittany, requested for a judge-only trial. This was due to the complexity of his murder case and the media coverage which Gittany believed would have influenced the jury’s perspectives and outcome. The complexities and intricacies of a trial that took barristers and solicitors years of expertise to understand and interpret cannot be expected to be completely understood from a group of twelve members from the public. This can be seen in a recent 2013 report from the Sydney Morning Herald, ‘Jurors Need More Direction’ where the NSW Law Reform Commission (LRC) found that the directions given to juries from judges ‘are not working, overly complex and need to be clearer’. However, their imperfections aren’t enough to have them off the trial process as juries allow the public to be involved in the judicial system. Public participation in the criminal trial process creates more confidence in the legal system. Juries are the most democratic aspect of the criminal trial process and are a crucial aspect in representing the interests and needs of the community.

In trials like that of Casey Anthony, the mother arrested and charged with killing her two-year-old daughter Caylee, the popularity and widespread coverage of the case definitely influenced how citizens across the country believed Anthony should be sentenced (Document D). Anyone who saw one news story on the case that was then called to the jury probably already had formed their opinion on the status of Anthony’s innocence, without reviewing any court evidence. Consequently, their predisposed opinion, similar to the cats’ on the jury in Cartoon 3 of Document E, could have resulted in a weighted outcome. Also, the fear of a “wrong decision” made by the jury could have motivated a juror to vote solely for the outcome most popularly desirable. For example, Document D quotes Janine Gonzalez, a nearby member of Anthony’s community, as saying “She (Casey Anthony) better move and move to a faraway place.” Even though, in the end, Anthony was declared innocent, the fear of her life as well as the possible violence that could occur after the verdict could have been enough to sway a juror to convict her just to satisfy a popular

Some of the hardest decisions on trial are made by the jury, which means the jurors have one of the most important roles when it comes to the trial, since they have to decide on another human’s fate, either. One decision a jury makes can be the difference between going to jail for life or being liberated. When O.J. Simpson was declared “not guilty” for the homicide of his wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and his friend, Ronald Lyle Goldman, by the Lance Ito, many argued that O.J. should have been proclaimed “Guilty”. Although many claim the verdict given was ideal, strong evidences, proves O.J. Simpson to be guilty for murdering 2 of his close acquaintances.

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

On July 20, 2017, O.J. Simpson was scheduled to have his parole trial after being in jail for armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, and kidnapping. Celebrities have been known to have less harsh punishments for crime compared to an everyday person. O.J. Simpson had already been acquitted of the two brutal murders of his ex-wife and another man. He also was granted parole after only serving close to nine years in prison for the previously listed charges of assault, kidnapping, and armed robbery. A blog post will be used to explore bias in celebrity crime trials, such as jurors altering their vote just because they admire the person. This admiration can blind people from obvious

Is our justice system fair? Is our justice system truly set out to do what it was meant to do? Or are there social factors and memory errors that come into play that can change a conviction outcome. In today’s court rooms we have, Defense attorneys, Prosecutors, judges, juries, evidence, forensics experts, witness testimonies, and of course the human memory. What better type of evidence than the human memory, right? Unfortunately, human memory is subject to the power of suggestion and unable to truly recall an event when told to recall. In other words, the story may not be the same as the one that actually happened the day of that event because many variables come into play like cross examinations and the way a question can be asked can alter the answer or how the event was perceived. The main focus of this paper is to see how the human brain is not able to effectively recall events which could possibly convict an innocent person of wrong doing. Also how lawyers use the misinformation effect to their advantage. In order to understand how something as simple as a question can decide a person’s faith we must first answer some questions. First, How does memory actually work and how is memory retrieved when your need to answer a question or being cross examined? Second, how does the misinformation effect play a role when a witness needs to testify against the defense or vice versa? Third, how can structuring a word or sentence effect the outcome of a conviction?

Between this time and November 3rd 1994 the jury of 12 was selected out of a venire of 304 perspective jurors. All 304 perspective juror’s had a seventy five page questionnaire to complete to determine eligibility for the trial. Both the prosecuting and defending teams set out to present their case. The trial lasted 134 days in 1995 and is renowned for the media coverage from inside

Jeffrey Toobin says in “The Run of His Life: The People V. O.J. Simpson” that, “It was the last leak in the case-from the sheriff 's deputies guarding the jury to their colleagues guarding Simpson: O.J. was going to walk”(429). It might have been the last leak, but it was one too many in the trial of Orenthal James Simpson. Simpson was a famous football player which brought a lot of national attention upon him. Every major network covered the trial. But, did the media play a bigger role than some may have anticipated? The trial of The People vs OJ Simpson was not necessary conducted by jurors, but by the media by use of leaking news and yellow journalism.

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.

During the infamous O.J. Simpson trial the television news media was ever present. Placing the trial as a top news story set in motion the idea that this trial was an important issue. However, the television news media was not successful at determining whether O.J. was guilty or not. For this reason, the O.J. Simpson trial is an excellent example of the Agenda Setting Theory. This paper will analyze the role the theory has in the murder trial. Television news outlets support this theory by showing people the Simpson case was important through constant coverage, but was not successful at telling the audience what to think on the issue.

This essay will be looking at the advantages and disadvantages of the jury trial. Jury trial is a legal proceeding where a jury makes a decision, which then direct the actions of a judge. The members of a jury are a group of independent citizens. They have no interest in the case before them, nor is their judgment coloured by regular experience of the business of the court. They are “twelve individuals, often with no prior contact with the courts, who are chosen at random to listen to evidence and decide upon matters affecting the reputation and liberty of those charged with criminal offences.” The jury has always been drawn from sections of society but has been made democratic only in the last half century. And now almost all citizen of the United Kingdom are eligible to serve on a jury. But the percentage of criminal cases actually tried by jury is surprisingly low. Nowadays “the magistrates’ courts deal with at least 95 per cent of criminal cases. In practice juries determine the outcome of less than 1 per cent of the total of the criminal cases.” But still the idea of trial by jury has always been seen as a “cornerstone of the English legal system” , and it remains the standard mode of trial for dealing with the most serious types of criminal case. But even though it is established and been in practice for years, people seem to believe that there are disadvantages to jury trails. Nonetheless, the jury system is becoming increasingly controversial. Critics claim that