I. Introduction
Under the Sixth Amendment, one of the fundamental rights that a person accused of a crime holds is the right to a “public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district” where the crime was committed. Subsequent Supreme Court jurisprudence has interpreted the Sixth Amendment’s impartial jury provision to mean a jury composed of unbiased individuals in regards to how the perceive the defendant. While an important of consideration as to whether a juror is biased has focused on issues of race, ethnicity, gender, and national origin. An equally important consideration is whether a juror is biased as a result of having access to information such as the background of the defendants, their lawyers or the judges, knowledge of or about the victim, familiarity with the crime scene, whatever information that is not material to the case, but that might bias a juror in how he arrives at a verdict.
In the past, a judge could decrease or mitigate this type of bias through jury instructions forbidding jurors to consult outside sources of information or through sequestering or putting them under court supervision while they are deliberating. However, in today’s modern information society where the majority of society have constant access to smartphones and other mobile devices that can easily access the Internet at any time and from any location, including the jury box, it is much more difficult to retain control of the jury and much more easy for them to access mainstream and social media that could bias them. For example, a recent case, a juror was removed from the trial after posting a “Guilty” comment on Facebook prior to the trial’s conclusion (ABA, 2013).
The potential for bias is especially true in high profile cases that naturally attract the public’s attention. Moreover, and equally importantly, is that that the media attention that high profile trials tend to attract, not only may potentially influence the jury but also the other participants in the trial, namely the attorneys, the judges, victims and the witnesses. To be sure, despite the fact that the attorneys and judges are expected under their ethical and professional responsibilities to be unaffected by the media’s attention, they are nevertheless still human and therefore susceptible to influence. More relevantly, thought is potential influence of the media on victim’s or witnesses. To be sure, there are no restrictions on them in regards to what information they can or cannot access outside of their time in court. Consequently, if they are influenced, it would not matter whether the jurors, attorneys, or judges had satisfied their obligations to fight undue bias and influence, their actions and decisions would still be invalidly affected by how the influenced victim or witness testified.
II. Case 1: The O.J. Simpson Trial
The example that is most commonly viewed at the model of how the press can impact the outcome of a trial in the trial of O.J. Simpson. Prior to the circumstances that lead to the trial, Simpson had been an international known college and professional football player and movie star. Indeed, he was perhaps one of the most recognizable people in the nation. On the one hand, unlike contemporary society, smartphones, tablets and social media had not been developed at the time of Simpson’s trial. Accordingly, the court had a better ability to control the information that a juror could access. On the other hand, the pre-trial media coverage of the investigation of the murder of his former wife, Nicole; and his arrest which was broadcast on national television and even reached audiences across the world was unprecedented. To be sure, it was more than likely that most people, especially in southern California, where the jury pool would be drawn from, had heard about the case if not already formed an opinion as to whether he was guilty or not. As a result, although the jury, once chosen, was sequestered and cut off from accessing the continuing media reports of the trial; it is absolutely possible that they had already formed some bias prior to their selection. Unfortunately, while it is likely simply based on the reportage of the case prior to trial that its jurors were in some way influenced by it, there in the sources reviewed for this paper confirming whether or not those influences played a role in the actual verdict.
What is more measurable, however, is the effect of the trial’s press coverage on the other parties to the trial. This was probably best illustrated by the twin facts that the judge allowed cameras into the courtroom and the media seemed obsessed with broadcasting any minutely relevant story, information or leak about the trial or the people involved in the trial (PBS, 2005). Only the most discipline person can avoid acting as they normally do in the presence of a camera. Remaining normal was probably even harder when some of the news reporting is focusing on oneself personally. For instance, could it be possible that Marcia Clark, of the attorneys for the state could perform normally when there were news stories of her divorce and topless pictures of her in the tabloids. Moreover, as we learned after the trial with the publications of “tell-all” stories from attorneys and witness; it was clear that the media attention, for at least some of the relevant parties, had them spending some of their mental energy during the trial to keep “notes to write books to be paid for information” (PBS, 2005).
III. Case 2: The Casey Anthony Trial
If the O.J. Simpson trial was the one that demonstrated the power of traditional media to impact its outcome, the Casey Anthony case will likely be the one to demonstrate the impact that social media may have on a trial. While Anthony was not a known celebrity prior to her trial, for some reason the facts of her case caught the media’s and ultimately the public’s attention. Anthony was accused of murdering her daughter Caylee whose body was discovered about six months after its disappearance. As details of the story came out, such as stories that said Anthony was seen partying a few days after reporting that her child was missing, not only did the mainstream media pay attention but so did more no-traditional avenues of information. Indeed, as the trial began, one of the best sources of information about it was available from the Twitter account of the 9th Judicial Circuit Court, where the trial was being held (Cloud, 2011). Soon other social media accounts dedicated specifically to news and information about the case were created by newspapers, journalist, supporters and opponents of Anthony. In essence, if you wanted to know anything about the case, you would be able to find it on social media.
As in the Simpson case, although jurors were restricted from accessing information during the trial, they clearly knew how much attention the trial was attracting in the public. To be sure, after the verdict one of the jurors retained a public relations firm to help him negotiate speaking fees of upwards to U.S. $50,000, with interested organization (Stelter & Carter, 2011). Furthermore, as in the Simpson case, the social media impact on the trial was perhaps more keenly felt by the attorneys, judges, and witness that were not barred from accessing information about the case. For instance, it was reported that defense attorneys used the overwhelming “Anthony is guilty” and the “prosecutors are #winning” comments being expressed by the public through social media to adjust their trial strategy in ways that painted the state are over-confident and made Anthony seem more vulnerable (Pacheco, 2011). To be sure, as a window into the community, social media probably allowed the attorneys to understand the jurors better than they knew themselves.
References
American Bar Association (ABA). #Justice? Social media’s impact on the U.S. jury system. Retrieved from https://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/trialevidence/articles/summer2013-0813-justice-social-media-impact-us-jury-system.html
Cloud, J. (2011, Jul. 16). How the Casey Anthony murder case became the social-media trial of the century? Retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077969,00.html
Pacheco, W. (2011, Jul. 13). Casey Anthony: How social media tweaked defense strategy. Retrieved from http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-07-13/business/os-casey-anthony-social-media-strateg20110713_1_media-sites-casey-anthony-cindy-anthony
Public Broadcasting System (PBS). (2005, Oct. 4). Frontline: The O.J. verdict: Rating the media’s performance. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/themes/media.html
Stelter, B. & Carter, B. (2011, Jul. 6). Networks joust for interviews in Casey Anthony case. Retrieved from http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/06/networks-joust-for-interviews-in-casey-anthony-case/
Uelmen, G.F. (1996). The five hardest lessons from the O.J. Simpson trial. Retrieved from https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/more/resources/the-five-lessons-of-the-oj-trial/
