Legal Law

Trail By Media – Is it really fair to put a person on the road through the media?

Can a person accused of a crime get a fair lead while being tried by the media? Should the media even be discussing this person’s trial before that person is sent to trial? Can a court choose an impartial jury for any trail when there is constant talk of so many high-profile trails in which a person is accused of murder? Are juries tainted by what they see and hear in the media about a person who is on the jury? Should the media even talk about someone left behind?

I believe that no person accused of a crime should be tried by the media because that person is innocent until a jury at their docks proves guilty. I don’t think that all the people who will stand on the jury will not see or hear news about that person. I don’t think any journalist should ask anyone about a person accused of a crime. I am not telling the media not to talk about high profile cases. I think the media should be very careful about the way the road is covered. I hope the jurors don’t really watch any crime show that discusses high-profile cases because once a juror hears the evidence, that person will never get a fair trace. Once a person hears some evidence about the trail, that person immediately begins to wonder if that person actually committed that crime.

Is there any real way to protect would-be jurors from watching TV or reading a new newspaper about that high-profile murder case? I believe that once a person begins to hear or see about a high-profile murder case, they must resign from jury duty to make sure the path is fair. I don’t see how high-profile serial killer cases should be discussed in the media before the trail begins. How can one person find twelve prospective jurors who don’t read newspapers or watch TV shows where all these crime shows talk about the heinous crimes committed by that serial killer?

I find myself watching all these crimes that are being committed and I begin to wonder if that person really did commit such a heinous crime. I am not saying that this person is guilty. I just start gathering evidence from the media shows I watch. How can a person not avoid looking at or reading about evidence that is everywhere to see and read? The very thought of what kind of person could commit such a heinous crime for someone else makes the viewer’s mind start to think of these crimes.

I believe that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I wonder if the media should constantly talk about such high-profile cases. Is it really fair for lawyers to speak in the media about how to convict or defend a person who follows a lead? I think it’s up to that person’s attorney to defend his client without media ideas. Is there a real justice when a person is already condemned in our media? I know that media folks tell viewers that all people are innocent until proven guilty, but most viewers are already thinking about whatever evidence a person hears about. I understand that high profile cases bring high marks. I wonder how much the media affects a fair trail in these high profile cases.

Should the media ask how long to meet in high-profile cases? Does this affect the final sentencing hearing? Does all public pressure affect the jail sentence of a convicted person? I wonder how much media news affects the death penalty. These are all questions that I ask myself about in high-profile cases. How much does the media really affect the judicial system? What happens when a person convicted of murder in a high-profile case gets a fair trail in the death penalty phase of the trial?

I wish I could answer these questions myself. I will always wonder how much advertising affects so many high-profile cases. Could a jury or juror really be swayed by such a media blitz in high-profile cases? How can a jury not have heard at least one compelling evidence involving such a high-profile case that is constantly in so many media outlets? Does having such a high profile life help that person in a high profile case? Does a person’s fame allow a jury to really believe that such a nice famous person could even commit such a crime? Does fame and wealth give a high profile person an edge in the media and in court?

I wonder if a juror who looked up to this famous and wealthy person could really believe that this person could commit a crime like murder in the first degree. I wonder if watching a person on television a show or making movies would affect the outcome of a high-profile murder case. Can having money, wealth and fame allow a person to have a better chance of being acquitted?

I would like to have answers to all these questions. I think I can only wonder how the media affects high profile cases and high profile people down the road. Perhaps one day I will find answers to these questions.

As always, I write with respect.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *