I am curious about the effects of media attention has on jury deliberations.
Specifically I wonder if media attention can be shown to contaminate thoughtful orderly analysis of evidence and testimony.
I suspect that jurors are painfully aware of the notoriety and that their verdict will be highly scrutinized.
Jurors in high profile cases are then interviewed by HLN or 48 Hours and thus reap their own 15 minutes of fame.
My hunch is that intense media attention does indeed warp the “ordinary” deliberation process. Jurors are transmogrified into analytical machines of the first order as each and every one sniffs out holes in the state’s case. Forensic evidence normally not even mentioned is found to be in error. Horn failed to mention the dural tear at the entry wound THUS the state’s entire case is SUSPECT and THUS there is now cause to invoke “reasonable doubt”.
Media attention paid to crime cases fulfills NO obvious public good. There is really no sincere “right for the public to know” question when allowing cameras into the courtroom. Why not?
Otherwise the courts should place cameras in every court room and let the public dial through the various cases being adjudicated on any given day. Cities should provide this as an ordinary public service just like cameras often cover City Council debates.
The Arias case is a veritable "train wreck" and its lure is based on prurient interests stemming from the viewing public. Because the Arias case is blood curdling and sensational, it possesses immense entertainment value.
The Arias case is being covered intensely because HLN can parlay viewership ratings into big buck profits. The price the public will pay for HLN’s intense scrutiny- or all the HLN After Dark episodes - is another miscarriage of justice and jury verdict error.
You have some good comments here, but I would like to point out the obvious and that is these jurors are making a decision based on the evidence and what was presented in Court during this trial. Whether it was televised or not, has nothing to do with the verdict. You are implying that due to the highly publicized nature of this trial that a verdict will be tainted? Or the verdict will be influenced somehow? Not quite sure what you think is going to happen, we’ve seen many highly publicized and controversial trials in the last 2 decades that have been televised with all different outcomes, i.e., to name a few.
Ted Bundy – 3 Death Penalties - Bundy’s trial holds the distinction of being the first to be televised nationally. Dubbed the Chi Omega murder case because of his brutal attacks on four of the Florida State University sorority’s members, it was covered by 250 reporters from five continents in 1979. Bundy, who later confessed to committing at least 30 homicides from 1974-1978, was convicted of three death sentences in two separate trials and executed in the electric chair in 1989.
The Menendez Brothers – Life Sentences, In 1993, millions of viewers tuned in to the first trial of Erik and Lyle Menendez for the shotgun slayings of their parents (It was one of Court TV’s first high-profile broadcasts). But the judge declared a mistrial on January 13, 1994, after jurors could not agree on a manslaughter or first-degree sentence. The brothers’ second trial was not televised and ended with a conviction of both Menendez’s for murder in the first-degree and two consecutive life-in-prison terms.
OJ Simpson – Acquitted, Dubbed the case that changed modern courtroom coverage, over a 100 million people tuned in (giving the broadcast a 45.7 Nielsen rating) October 3, 1995 to watch Simpson receive an acquittal verdict for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.
Scott Peterson – Death Penalty, convicted of murdering his wife, Laci Peterson, and their unborn son in Modesto, California in 2002. Peterson's arrest and subsequent trial received significant American news media coverage until 2005, when he was sentenced to death by lethal injection. He remains on death row in San Quentin State Prison while his case is on appeal to the Supreme Court of California
Phil Spector, - Convicted of 2nd Degree, 2009, the legendary music producer was found guilty of murder in the second degree for the death of actress Lana Clarkson. Cameras were not allowed in the courtroom for the duration of the trial--his second, the first was broadcast in full in 2007, but ended with a hung jury--but were present on the day of the verdict.
Casey Anthony – Acquitted, Ratings have yet to be released, but Anthony’s July 5th verdict stands to be one of the most widely viewed in recent history. CNN’s website reported a 30 percent spike in traffic with 1.9 million viewers tuning in to its live video stream from the courtroom.
So what does this tell us about high profile cases that are televised? Not much really, unless you actually think they are influenced one way or another. But to say that all trials should NOT be televised, when the public can actually walk into any courtroom in the country where there is a trial going on, is ridiculous. It is the public citizen’s right to see how trials are conducted. And if you want to go one step further, take another example of the news coverage in today’s society. Networks are taking full advantage of the what is going on right now in Ohio with the 3 missing women that were found alive (thank God) after being kidnapped, and enslaved for 10 years. They are taking advantage of all the coverage they will get on that story, isn’t it the same thing? Does that mean we don’t have a right to know? Look at the heroes and people connected with this story that will be making money off the tragedy here? You can’t look at society the same anymore, everyone has an agenda. That’s just the way it is, but we have to have confidence in human nature that everyone has good intentions and are doing the right thing. We have to have faith in the justice system and these jurors that they are doing their job and are not being influenced by anything other than the evidence. They’ve pledged to do their duty, and we need to trust they will.
