• What effect has pretrial publicity had on trials?
Pretrial Publicity has and will always be a significant concern for defendants, specifically those alleged to have committed heinous, Unethical, and immoral offenses. While many argue that the First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right to free speech and free press, it is important to recognize that said defendant is simultaneously entitled to his or her Sixth Amendment Right to a fair and impartial jury. Media coverage, despite how objective it claims to be, presents a high probability of influencing jurors’ decisions.
According to IResearchNet (2015), empirical research suggests that exposure to pretrial publicity causes jurors to be more conviction prone, especially when the publicity is designed to elicit an emotional response rather than present facts. Furthermore, when someone is exposed to inadmissible evidence via pretrial publicity, he or she will likely be unable to remain objective, or ignore the prohibited information, if chosen to serve as a juror for the case.
As explained by IResearchNet (2015), PTP continues to be a concern to defendants, the courts, and researchers. Research has consistently demonstrated that exposure to negative information about the defendant pretrial affects jurors’ perceptions of the defendant, that these negative perceptions persist even after trial evidence is presented, and that these perceptions have been showed to influence jurors’ verdict decisions.
• How has the “CSI Effect” impacted the courtroom?
As provided by Ericksen (2017), there’s no shortage of crime and legal programming in our lives. This is causing many legal professionals to notice the lines blurring between real life circumstances and Hollywood’s portrayal of it. It’s called the CSI effect and its changing modern-day courtrooms. Interesting to not however, is that some people remain adamant that the CSI effect is a made-up construct, denying said effect even exists, let alone impacts courtrooms. In some instances, many feel that technology is to blame for said effect.
The following effects, both negative and positive are just some of the many, according to Ericksen (2017): Negative-More difficult to prosecute defendants; harder to find jurors; straining already tight resources; manipulating crime scenes; and defense lawyers are spending too much time educating juries. Positive-Jurors are becoming more knowledgeable, and increased interest in the criminal justice field.
Both negative and positive effects aside, it is critical that those who watch true crime and fictional crime solving based shows, understand that what is being viewed only captures a small portion of the work, expertise, and Methodologies involved in real-world CSI operations. To put it bluntly, knowledgeable jurors are not as knowledgeable as they think they are. Simple concepts may be grasped, without actually understanding the true capabilities and practicality of testing
.
• What is the current status of the access granted to the media by the courts in various jurisdictions throughout the country? Identify two cases that have impacted the current status.
The following is provided by United States Courts (2021) and is the current policy for cameras in trial courts in accordance with the cameras pilot program in California Northern, Washington Western, and Guam: A Judge may authorize broadcasting, televising, recording, or taking photographs in the courtroom or adjacent areas during proceedings or recesses for the presentation of evidence; for the perpetuation of the record of proceedings; for security purposes; for other purposes of judicial administration; for the photographing, recording, or broadcasting of appellate arguments; or in accordance with piolet programs approved by the Judicial Conference.
US Courts (2021) further provides that when broadcasting, televising, recording, or photographing in the courtroom or adjacent areas is permitted, a judge should ensure that it is done in a manner that will: Be consistent with the rights of the parties; not unduly distract participants in the proceeding; and not otherwise interfere with the administration of justice.
While there have been a wide array of court cases that have influenced the media’s access to court rooms nationwide, some of the most influential cases/rulings are ones with which many are unfamiliar. According to Kraft (2009), although the First Amendment does not explicitly mention the right of access, the Supreme Court has held that the right to attend criminal proceedings is implicit in freedom of speech and serves an important function in a democratic society by enhancing trial fairness and its appearance.
The following court cases and rulings have played integral roles in the clarification of media access, as it pertains to its First Amendment right: Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia (1980)-The press and public have the First Amendment right to attend criminal trials; and Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California (1986)-The press has the right of access to attend jury selections and preliminary proceedings.
