The Issue of Pretrial Publicity Essay

Before any method of release is accepted for the defendant, a pretrial release hearing takes place. If the arrestee doesn't pose a significant risk of flight, and has only been arrested for a relatively minor offense. If the arrestee doesn't pose the threat, then they are eligible for pretrial release. In the pretrial release hearing a bail decision is made. There are three different methods that can be used to release a defendant prior to a hearing. Those methods are, bail, own recognizance, and preventive detention. When it comes to the release form of bail, it can be described as, releasing an accused person, with the promise that they will appear to trial, if not they will pay the court with a specific sum of money or property. The federal law provides that, " upon all arrests in criminal cases, bail shall be admitted, except where the punishment may be death" ( Siegel &

The importance of show-trials is proving what you are doing looks good, and that is law-abiding. It is important to make everyone happy. (Bach pg.193) A show-trial is a judicial trial held in public with the intention of influencing or satisfying public opinion, rather than of ensuring justice. These show trials resonate deeply with the citizenry. The media world is outrageously popular for captivating the public audience’s attention for court room related cases. An example would be TV. We’ve all came across episodes of “Law and Order.” It appears out to be “how” people think American Justice is. (Bach pg.195) The public attention of media is ranked highly and known as best.

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.

In Brady v. Maryland, the United States Supreme Court examined whether or not the prosecutors had the right to suppress evidence that may have helped the defendant. Specifically, two defendants, Boblit and Brady were charged with murder. Both defendants had separate trials. The first defendant to stand trial was Boblit, who admitted his guilt. In Brady’s trial,

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

“The Jury Selection Process” is a research paper that reviews the jury selection process in detail. First we will review the stages of the criminal trail and go in depth with the jury selection process. The paper will demonstrate why the jury selection process is necessary for the United States as well as its patrons. The paper will also provide a break down of advantages and disadvantages on the jury selection process. In addition to the information listed above, we will review some large profile court cases and its jury selection process. This will determine just how detailed and challenging the process can prove to

The district court took the necessary time and caution to inform all possible jurors to ignore the publicity surrounding the issues of the case. McVeigh never argued that the district court failed to take actions to ensure fairness in the jury. He interestingly said the court focused so much on making sure the jurors did not pay attention to publicity that jurors eventually saw the publicity of the case due to strong pressure from the court not to. This statement was implying the jurors had no mind to let the publicity influence their decisions of the case until the court reminded them not

The proponents of cameras in the courtroom also believe that televised trials would educate the public on courtroom procedure and rules of the court. The media believes that as the viewers watch real trials on television, they would become more aware of the rules of the court and they would become more aware of the basic procedures courts have to follow. An example of how cameras in the courtroom would educate the public would be the all famous O.J. Simpson trial. The O.J. Simpson trial educated the public on rules of evidence with the “bloody glove” display, the cross-examination of key witnesses with the examination of Mark Furman, and what role the judge plays in the process. The media believes that if cameras where not allowed inside O.J. Simpson trial, then the public for the most part would still not understand the true workings of the court system. Kimberlianne Podlas note that televised trials will educate the public by giving them a reference for what the court system is, “its fairness, and who the arbiters of justice are” (Podlas, 2001). Podlas also explains that the O.J. Simpson trial lead more people to watch and gain a understanding and respect for the judicial system as well as gaining knowledge of the legal concepts and burdens of the system (Podlas, 2001).

Does this sort of conduct effect the outcome of a trial and its ability to be fair and impartial? Does the pressure of the media in play a significant role in the outcome of

When the prosecutor responds to the announced wishes of the major media, the prosecutor is rewarded with favorable publicity. But when the prosecutor fails to do the medium's bidding, the prosecutor can expect to receive little or no publicity, which will put the prosecutor's career in a terminal, downward tailspin.

A more common witness identification in a court of law than lineup is photo arrays (Hall, 2015). The Supreme Court ruled that the right to counsel at a photo identification session is not significant (Hall, 2015). This decision stand-fast throughout the entire process of the suspect judicial proceeding. The sixth amendment guarantees a defendant the right to have the support of a counsel in any criminal prosecution. Consequently, since pre-trial identifications usually take place before the start of formal proceedings, the defendant is not entitled to the Sixth Amendment protections (Hall, 2015). In the United States versus Wade, the Supreme Court held that a post-indictment lineup was a critical confrontation, such that the right to counsel

A topic of conversation that always comes up when I mention that I’m doing a placement with a criminal barrister, one who works as both defence counsel and for the prosecution, is the idea of representing a client who is ‘guilty’. I’m asked “but what if you know that they did it?” and “wouldn’t you feel bad if they got off?” Ysaiah Ross considered the ‘moral lawyer’ in his paper, and discussed Wasserstrom’s ‘role-differentiated behaviour’. This included that the role of the lawyer requires ignorance of moral considerations as a result. Ross commented on a comic of a rocket scientist saying that it was his job to get the rockets up, and that where they come down is ‘not [his] department’. He also remarked that the Director of Extermination in Auschwitz stated that he didn’t murder anybody; he was just the Director of Extermination. Similarly, a consideration of ‘guilt’ is counterproductive as defence counsel.

The right to a trial by jury is a core element of the United States Criminal Justice System. This right is guaranteed to all citizens by the highest law of the land: The United States Constitution. But are juries truly an effective means of securing justice? The movie 12 Angry Men provides commentary on this question with its portrayal of twelve jurors deliberating over a murder case. The jury initially seems bound to condemn the defendant, a young man of nineteen years, to the electric chair, but a single man, Juror no. 8 descents against the majority. Over the course of the film, tensions rise, and after much debate Juror no. 8 manages to convince the other eleven jurors to eventually vote not guilty. Through their debates and casual side conversations, we are shown the role of personal biases and group manipulation tactics that can impede with objective analysis and ultimately the attainment of justice. Thus, the Movie 12 Angry Men mostly serves to challenge the jury system as a means of securing justice by demonstrating the harmful effects of personal biases, the lack of dedication to the system, and the potential for manipulative tactics.