I disagree that Avery couldn't get a fair trial anywhere in the vicinity of Manitowoc. Tbh, I think it should have been moved further than Calumet, but the jury did vote not guilty on the Mutilation of a corpse charge and their initial jury pool had votes for not guilty on the murder charge, so when it came down to it, they were willing to consider and deliberate on the charges. I think what would be a better idea would be to cover the case as little as possible in the media until the jury is selected and sequestered- think of how many cases have been worse even than Avery's as far the media is concerned. Casey Anthony was absolutely tried and convicted in the court of public opinion, yet got a fair trial and a not guilty verdict. Even so, her life will never be the same. We've really got to be careful, IMO, about how much we influence the jury pool through the media.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I've thought about this a lot. We are SO fascinated by these cases, we want every details, which means the "news" (I use that term very lightly these days) sources are scrambling to be the first and most exciting so we'll watch THEM and not the other guys.
But you can't just take away media's access because of Freedom of the Press.
I wonder if we could set forth some sort of laws or statutes that states the media can report on the case but can't report names? AND the investigators have to NOT put out evidence and details of the crime, IMO. We learn immediately where bodies were found and in what condition, who suspects are, who is being investigated, who is no longer a POI, etc etc etc. We get really intimate details fed to us via those close to the cases.
Maybe instead of restricting what the media reports, we can charge those close to investigations with obstruction of justice or some sort of violation of due process if they tell the media intimate details of a case?
I don't know but something has to be done because it really mucks up the fair trial thing. JMO!