Trial by media

Last updated

Trial by media is a phrase popular in the late 20th century and early 21st century to describe the impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person's reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before, or after, a verdict in a court of law. [1] It is particularly relevant in cases where high-profile individuals stand trial, with the concern that the impartiality of the jury may be compromised by extraneous information, disrupting due process and resulting in an unfair trial. [2]

Contents

Etymology and early use

The concept was popularized for the first time as Trial by Television in response to the 3 February 1967 television broadcast of The Frost Programme, hosted by David Frost. [3] The confrontation and Frost's personal adversarial line of questioning of insurance fraudster Emil Savundra led to concern from ITV executives that it might affect Savundra's right to a fair trial. [4]

Description

During high-publicity court cases, the media are often accused of provoking an atmosphere of public hysteria akin to a lynch mob which not only makes a fair trial nearly impossible but means that regardless of the result of the trial, the accused will not be able to live the rest of their life without intense public scrutiny. [5]

Although popularized in 1967, the idea that popular media can have a strong influence on the legal process goes back certainly to the development of the printing press and probably much further. [6] [ original research? ] This is not including the use of a state-controlled press to criminalize political opponents, but in its commonly understood meaning covers all occasions where the reputation of a person has been drastically affected by ostensibly non-political publications. [7]

Often the coverage in the press can be said to reflect the views of the person in the street. However, more credibility is generally given to printed material than 'water cooler gossip'. The responsibility of the press to confirm reports and leaks about individuals being tried has come under increasing scrutiny and journalists are calling for higher standards. There was much debate over U.S President Bill Clinton's impeachment trial and prosecutor Kenneth Starr's investigation and how the media handled the trial by reporting commentary from lawyers which influenced public opinion. [8]

In the United Kingdom, strict contempt of court regulations restrict the media's reporting of legal proceedings after a person is formally arrested. These rules are designed so that a defendant receives a fair trial in front of a jury that has not been tainted by prior media coverage. The newspapers the Daily Mirror and The Sun have been prosecuted under these regulations, although such prosecutions are rare. [9] It is also within the power of the courts to prevent the jury from accessing electronic devices during the course of the trial. [10] Furthermore, court security officers are authorized to search for electronic devices that they suspect a juror may have failed to surrender as per the judge's request. [11] Consequently, to conduct research into the case using electronic devices, and indeed share this information with other jurors, is punishable by a fine or imprisonment for up to two years. [12] [ self-published source? ]

See also

Related Research Articles

Contempt of court, often referred to simply as "contempt", is the crime of being disobedient to or disrespectful toward a court of law and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court. A similar attitude toward a legislative body is termed contempt of Parliament or contempt of Congress. The verb for "to commit contempt" is contemn and a person guilty of this is a contemnor or contemner.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury trial</span> Type of legal trial

A jury trial, or trial by jury, is a legal proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact. It is distinguished from a bench trial, in which a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating rights related to criminal prosecutions

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the United States Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has applied all but one of this amendment's protections to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury</span> Group of people to render a verdict in a court

A jury is a sworn body of people (jurors) convened to hear evidence, make findings of fact, and render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment. Most trial juries are "petit juries", and usually consist of twelve people. A larger jury known as a grand jury has been used to investigate potential crimes and render indictments against suspects.

Jury nullification, also known in the United Kingdom as jury equity, or a perverse verdict, is when the jury in a criminal trial gives a verdict of not guilty even though they think a defendant has broken the law. The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case, that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant. Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses. Nullification is not an official part of criminal procedure but is the logical consequence of two rules governing the systems in which it exists:

  1. Jurors cannot be punished for passing an incorrect verdict.
  2. In many jurisdictions, a defendant who is acquitted cannot be tried a second time for the same offense.

The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact. If the prosecution does not prove the charges true, then the person is acquitted of the charges. The prosecution must in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted. The opposite system is a presumption of guilt.

A hung jury, also called a deadlocked jury, is a judicial jury that cannot agree upon a verdict after extended deliberation and is unable to reach the required unanimity or supermajority. A hung jury may result in the case being tried again.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Death of Azaria Chamberlain</span> Australian victim of animal attack

Azaria Chantel Loren Chamberlain was a nine-week-old Australian baby girl who was killed by a dingo on the night of 17 August 1980 during a family camping trip to Uluru in the Northern Territory. Her body was never found. Her parents, Lindy and Michael Chamberlain, reported that she had been taken from their tent by a dingo. However, Lindy was tried for murder and spent more than three years in prison. Michael received a suspended sentence. Lindy was released only after Azaria's jacket was found near a dingo lair and new inquests were opened. In 2012, 32 years after Azaria's death, the Chamberlains' version of events was officially supported by a coroner.

Beyond (a) reasonable doubt is a legal standard of proof required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems. It is a higher standard of proof than the standard of balance of probabilities commonly used in civil cases because the stakes are much higher in a criminal case: a person found guilty can be deprived of liberty or, in extreme cases, life, as well as suffering the collateral consequences and social stigma attached to a conviction. The prosecution is tasked with providing evidence that establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to get a conviction; albeit prosecution may fail to complete such task, the trier-of-fact's acceptance that guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will in theory lead to conviction of the defendant. A failure for the trier-of-fact to accept that the standard of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has been met thus entitles the accused to an acquittal. This standard of proof is widely accepted in many criminal justice systems, and its origin can be traced to Blackstone's ratio, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

The right of peremptory challenge is a legal right in jury selection for the attorneys to reject a certain number of potential jurors or judges without stating a reason. The idea behind peremptory challenges is that if both parties have contributed in the configuration of the jury, they will find its verdict more acceptable. The use of peremptory challenges is controversial as some feel it has been used to undermine the balanced representation on a jury which would occur using random selection. Many jurisdictions limit or prohibit peremptory challenges.

A publication ban is a court order which prohibits the public or media from disseminating certain details of an otherwise public judicial proceeding. In Canada, publication bans are most commonly issued when the safety or reputation of a victim or witness may be hindered by having their identity openly broadcast in the press. They are also commonly issued when the crime involves minors or is sexual in nature.

Michael Marion Emil Anacletus Pierre Savundranayagam, usually known as Emil Savundra, was a Sri Lankan swindler. The collapse of his Fire, Auto and Marine Insurance Company left about 400,000 motorists in the United Kingdom without coverage.

Jury duty or jury service is a service as a juror in a legal proceeding. Different countries have different approaches to juries. Variations include the kinds of cases tried before a jury, how many jurors hear a trial, and whether the lay person is involved in a single trial or holds a paid job similar to a judge, but without legal training.

Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976), was a landmark Supreme Court of the United States decision in which the Court held unconstitutional prior restraints on media coverage during criminal trials.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Juries in England and Wales</span> Law of trial by jury in England and Wales

In the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales, there is a long tradition of jury trial that has evolved over centuries. Under present-day practice, juries are generally summoned for criminal trials in the Crown Court where the offence is an indictable offence or an offence triable either way. All common law civil cases were tried by jury until the introduction of juryless trials in the new county courts in 1846, and thereafter the use of juries in civil cases steadily declined. Liability to be called upon for jury service is covered by the Juries Act 1974.

Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that state juries may convict a defendant by a less-than-unanimous verdict in a felony criminal case. The four-justice plurality opinion of the court, written by Justice White, affirmed the judgment of the Oregon Court of Appeals and held that there was no constitutional right to a unanimous verdict. Although federal law requires federal juries to reach criminal verdicts unanimously, the Court held Oregon's practice did not violate the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury and so allowed it to continue. In Johnson v. Louisiana, a case decided on the same day, the Court held that Louisiana's similar practice of allowing criminal convictions by a jury vote of 9–3 did not violate due process or equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Jury selection in the United States is the choosing of members of grand juries and petit juries for the purpose of conducting trial by jury in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Courtroom photography and broadcasting</span>

Courtroom photographing, videotaping and broadcasting is restricted in many jurisdictions. The law varies from limited film and electronic media coverage in some countries, to a complete ban in others.

Juror misconduct is when the law of the court is violated by a member of the jury while a court case is in progression or after it has reached a verdict.


Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U. S. 356 (1972), was a court case in the U.S. Supreme Court involving the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Louisiana law that allowed less-than unanimous jury verdicts to convict persons charged with a felony, does not violate the Due Process clause. This case was argued on a similar basis as Apodaca v. Oregon.

References

  1. ↑ Middleweek, Belinda (4 May 2017). "Dingo media? The persistence of the 'trial by media' frame in popular, media, and academic evaluations of the Azaria Chamberlain case". Feminist Media Studies. 17 (3): 392–411. doi:10.1080/14680777.2016.1235054. hdl: 10453/123672 . S2CID   151827061.
  2. ↑ Phillipson, Gavin (2008). "Trial by Media: The Betrayal of the First Amendment's Purpose". Law and Contemporary Problems. 71 (4): 15–29. JSTOR   27654682. Gale   A191514423.
  3. ↑ Jeffries, Stuart (1 September 2013). "Sir David Frost obituary". The Guardian. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved 1 August 2023.
  4. ↑ Jeffries, Stuart (1 September 2013). "Sir David Frost obituary". The Guardian.
  5. ↑ Nanda, Neelam (March 2016). "Impact of Media activism on Social renaissance". Amity Journal of Media & Communications Studies. 5 (3): 41–47.
  6. ↑ Christie, Suzanne (1 July 1998). "Trial by media: politics, policy and public opinion, the case of the ACT heroin trial". Current Issues in Criminal Justice. 10 (1): 37–51. doi:10.1080/10345329.1998.12036112. ISSN   1034-5329.
  7. ↑ Statham, Simon (2016). Redefining Trial by Media: Towards a critical-forensic linguistic interface. John Benjamins Publishing Company. ISBN   978-90-272-6682-8.[ page needed ]
  8. ↑ "Legal News: News Hour with Jim Lehrer" (Transcript). Public Broadcasting System (PBS). 19 October 1998. Retrieved 12 March 2011.
  9. ↑ Bowcott, Owen (5 July 2011). "Contempt of court rules are designed to avoid trial by media". The Guardian.
  10. ↑ Act, 69. Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. 13 April 2015.
  11. ↑ Act, 70. Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. 13 April 2015.
  12. ↑ "Pulling at the Curtain, Social Media and Jury Trials – Paul Wragg". Inforrm's Blog. 17 November 2017.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.