Given that pre-trial publicity adversely affects jurors' impartiality, what can be done to restore the likelihood of a fair trial for the defendant?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Answers may vary.Pre-trial publicity can adversely affects jurors' impartiality. There are four alternatives available to restore the likelihood of a fair trial for the defendant. They are as follows:• Continuance:The trial can be postponed until a later date, with the expectation that the passage of time will lessen the effects of the prejudicial material. This view remains in vogue with some judges. But although continuances may decrease jurors' reliance on factual pre-trial publicity, they do not dampen jurors' recall or use of emotionally biasing information. Furthermore, prejudicial effects of pre-trial publicity can linger for at least eight weeks post-exposure.• Expanded voir dire:The most popular method for handling pre-trial prejudice involves conducting a thorough voir dire of potential jurors in order to identify and dismiss those with particularly strong biases. But expanded voir dire may be of limited usefulness. Jurors may not recognize their own biases, and can hide their true feelings from an examiner if they so choose. They may also be hesitant to self-disclose in a public courtroom. Finally, Freedman, Martin, and Mota (1998) found that the impact of pre-trial publicity actually increased, rather than decreased, when jurors were questioned about their exposure prior to trial.• Judicial instructions:A fairly simple remedy for the biasing effects of pre-trial publicity is an instruction from the judge telling jurors to ignore what they learned about the case prior to trial and admonishing them to base their decision on the evidence. But cautionary instructions may also be insufficient to reduce the biasing effects of exposure to pre-trial publicity.• Change of venue:A change of venue, the most extreme remedy for pre-trial prejudice, is typically requested by defense attorneys in cases that have generated a great deal of biased publicity (e.g., the Boston marathon bombing case). Changing venue means that the trial is held in a different geographic jurisdiction and that jurors for the trial may be drawn from this new jurisdiction. But venue changes are expensive, inconvenient, and time-consuming, so judges are reluctant to grant them, though some evidence suggests that they are more easily persuaded when defense attorneys provide media analyses documenting the extent of news coverage. Venue changes can result in significant variations in characteristics of the communities, and hence, the jurors, involved.