Media in court cases has many effects. One of which is the possibility that the Medias opinion may result in tainting the jury with unproven facts. As humans we make decisions based on how we perceive the world and the information we have on decision we are going to make. Pre-Trial Publicity “Due to extensive media coverage, jury selection in a high profile case can be extremely difficult. Jurors will likely have developed some biases about the case based on the media coverage to which they have been exposed”( “Media Influence In Capital Cases”, 2011).
Under the 6th amendment you have the right to a fair trial by an impartial jury of your peers. That becomes extremely difficult and possibly impossibly when the media open a flood gate of “facts” and opinions before the case has even begun. In some instances they have to relocate to court case to an area where the media coverage of the case has not been so rampant just too find impartial jurors. Which just increase the cost of the court case. Not only can media influence the opinion of the jury but also the public.
During the Casey Anthony case the media had a barrage of legal professionals condemning this women before the final verdict was concluded. TIME magazine called it” The Social Media Trial of the Century” (Varma, 2011). No matter what the outcome of the case that person will never have a normal life. “According to data from NM Incite, 64 percent of people on Twitter disagreed with the ”not guilty” verdict, while only 1% agreed (35% were neutral)”( Varma, 2011).
Because of media allowed in courts this woman is considered guilty by 64% of people, even though she was found not guilty. References Media Influence in Capital Cases. (2011). Retrieved from http://www. capitalpunishmentincontext. org/issues/media Varma, A. (2011). Twitter: Only 1% Think Casey Anthony Innocent. Retrieved from http://www. socialnomics. net/2011/07/08/twitter-only-1-think-casey-anthony-innocent/