NCJ Number
117713
Journal
University of Detroit Law Review Volume: 65 Issue: 2 Dated: (Winter 1988) Pages: 169-197
Date Published
1988
Length
29 pages
Annotation
This article examines the effect of pretrial publicity on the jury selection process.
Abstract
There are two methods of achieving justice in a jury trial, procedural justice and substantive justice. Procedural justice consists of rules and procedures that shape the legal system's institutional order. Substantive justice, sometimes referred to as distributive justice, is based on the concept that a legal system is just if results are fair. If a court determines that pretrial publicity may prejudice the potential jury, the court may mitigate this effect by case continuance, expansion of voir dire, foreign venires, or change of venue. Since it is impossible to operationalize a uniform methodology for determining prejudice, trial judges must develop their own methods for discovering bias or prejudice. The relation between pretrial publicity and prejudicial attitudes exists in degree, and prejudicial attitudes must be examined according to the issues of each case. Only a few cases have applied the presumed prejudice standard. This standard is confined to instances in which the petitioner demonstrates an extreme situation of inflammatory pretrial publicity that saturated the community where the trial was conducted. In low and medium publicity trials, the voir dire examination should reveal the extent of prejudice among prospective jurors. In massive pretrial publicity cases, the only method available to rebut the presumed prejudice standard may be the public opinion poll. The admissibility and methodology of a public opinion poll are important, and a social scientist should be retained to conduct the poll. 189 references.