media trial thesis

Pretrial Publicity and the Jury: Research and Methods

• First Online: 01 January 2011

Cite this chapter

• Lisa M. Spano 3 ,
• Jennifer L. Groscup &
• Steven D. Penrod  

1112 Accesses

5 Citations

33 Altmetric

Research conducted over the past 40 years demonstrates that pretrial publicity (PTP) can negatively influence jurors’ perceptions of parties in criminal and civil cases receiving substantial news coverage. Changes in the news media over the same period of time have made news coverage more accessible to the public as traditional media including newspapers, television, and radio are complemented with new media such as the Internet. The development of specialized media services such as Court TV has further complicated the task of finding jurors who have not been exposed to potentially biasing PTP. In short, contemporary media pose growing challenges to those involved in trials, especially highly publicized cases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

This figure is based on searches in the NEXIS newspaper and wire service databases using the following search terms: (No or Not or Impossible or Unlikely or Prejudic! or Bias!) w/ 25 (((Fair or Constitution!) w/ 4 trial or hearing) or ((Impartial or Bias! or Prejudic!) w/ 4 (Jury or Juror))) w/ 25 (Publicity or Report! or ((Media or Press) w/ 4 (Attention or Coverage))) and Date([as appropriate]). The figure may confidently be assumed to underestimate the actual number of reports because not all national newspapers and services were covered by these databases during the early 1980s. Moreover, it is reasonable to anticipate that far more claims would be reported by regional and local press – most of which are not included in databases (Minow & Cate, 2001 ).

It is noteworthy that the target case involved a retrial of the three defendants. In the initial trial, the jury was hung with 11 to 1 toward acquittal on the most serious charge, rape by intoxication.

Comprehensive searches using Lexis Nexus did not show news coverage outside of the trial area. It is also worth noting there were no significant differences in remote jurors’ prejudgments of defendant guilt between those reporting to have heard about the case and those reporting not knowing about the case.

ABA Standards for Fair Trial and Free Press. (1992). Retrieved from http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/standards/fairtrial_toc.html .

Abramson, J. (2000). We the jury . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Google Scholar  

American Bar Association. (2004). Model rules of professional conduct . Chicago. Retrieved from January 2007 http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/rule_3_6.html .

Arbuthnot, J., Myers, B., & Leach, J. (2002). Linking juror prejudgment and pretrial publicity knowledge: Some methodological considerations. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 20 , 53–71.

Bornstein, B. H., Whisenhunt, B. L., Nemeth, R. J., & Dunaway, D. L. (2002). Pretrial publicity and civil cases: A two-way street? Law and Human Behavior, 21 , 3–17.

Article   Google Scholar  

Carroll, J. S., Kerr, N. L., Alfini, J. J., Weaver, E. M., MacCoun, K. G., & Feldman, V. (1986). Free press and fair trial: The role of behavioral research. Law and Human Behavior, 10 , 187–201.

Chrzanowski, L. M., Groscup, O’Neil, Penrod, Garcia, Solomonson, et al. (2006). Testing the effects of pretrial publicity: A field experiment with an actual trial . Unpublished manuscript.

Costantini, E., & King, J. (1980–1981). The partial juror: Correlates and causes of prejudgment. Law and Society Review, 15 , 9–40.

DeLuca, A. J. (1979). Tipping the scales of justice: The effects of pretrial publicity . Unpublished master’s thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.

Dexter, H. R., Cutler, B. L., & Moran, G. (1992). A test of voir dire as a remedy for the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22 , 819–832.

Dixon, T., & Linz, D. (2002). Television news, prejudicial pretrial publicity and the depiction of race. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 46 , 112–136.

Flood, M. (2004, November 9). Skilling seeks escape from Houston heat: Ex-Enron chief files for a change of venue after poll finds unflattering perceptions here. Houston Chronicle , 9.

Fowler, T. (2004). Verdict from Houston residents polled: guilty. Houston Chronicle.

Greene, E., & Wade, R. (1988). Of private talk and public print: General pre-trial publicity and juror decision-making. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2 , 123–135.

Horowitz, I., & Willging, T. (1984). The psychology of law: Integrations and applications . Boston: Little, Brown, & Co.

Hvistendahl, J. K. (1979). The effect of placement of biasing information. Journalism Quarterly, 56 , 863–865.

Imrich, D. I., Mullin, C., & Linz, D. (1995). Measuring the extent of prejudicial pretrial publicity in major American newspapers: A content analysis. The Journal of Communication, 45 , 94–117.

Irvin v. Dowd , 366 U.S. 7 17, 727 (1961).

Kerr, N. L., Kramer, G. P., Carroll, J. S., & Alfini, J. J. (1991). On the effectiveness of voir dire in criminal cases with pretrial publicity: An empirical study. American University Law Review, 40 , 665–701.

Kline, F. G., & Jess, P. H. (1966). Prejudicial publicity: Its effects on law school mock juries. Journalism Quarterly, 43 , 113–116.

Kovera, M. B. (2002). The effects of general pretrial publicity on juror decisions: An examination of moderators and mediating mechanisms. Law and Human Behavior, 26 , 43–72.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kramer, G. P., Kerr, N. L., & Carroll, J. S. (1990). Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies, and jury bias. Law and Human Behavior, 14 , 409–438.

Lieberman, J. D., & Arndt, J. (2000). Understanding the limits of limiting instructions: Social psychological explanations for the failures of instructions to disregard pretrial publicity and other inadmissible evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6 , 677–711.

Minow, N. N., & Cate, F. H. (2001). Who is an impartial juror in an age of mass media? The American University Law Review, 40 , 631–664.

Moran, G., & Cutler, B. L. (1991). The prejudicial impact of pretrial publicity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21 , 345–367.

Mu’Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415 (1991).

Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 799–802 (1975).

Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976).

Nietzel, M. T., & Dillehay, R. C. (1983). Psychologists as consultants for changes of venue: The use of public opinion surveys. Law and Human Behavior, 7 , 309–335.

Ogloff, J. R. P., & Vidmar, N. (1994). The impact of pretrial publicity on juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 18 , 453–469.

Otto, A., & Penrod, S. D. (1991). Assessing mediators of pre-trial publicity effects . San Francisco: APA.

Otto, A., Penrod, S., & Hirt, E. (1990). The influence of pretrial publicity on juror judgments in civil case . Unpublished manuscript.

Otto, A. L., Penrod, S., & Dexter, H. (1994). The biasing impact of pretrial publicity on juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 18 , 453–470.

Padawer-Singer, A. M., Singer, A. N., & Singer, R. L. (1977). Legal and social-psychological research in the effects of pre-trial publicity on juries, numerical makeup of juries, non-unanimous verdict requirements. Law and Psychology Review, 3 , 71–79.

Penrod, S. D., Groscup, J. G., & O’Neil, K. O. (2001). Assessing the effects of pretrial publicity in the case of Elizabeth “Lizzie” Grubman . Unpublished manuscript.

Penrod, S. D., O’Neil, K. O., & Groscup, J. G. (2002). Assessing the effects of pretrial publicity in the case of John Walker Lindh . Unpublished manuscript.

Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia (1980).

Rideau v. Louisiana , 373 U.S. 723 (1963).

Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 362 (1966).

Simon, R. J., & Eimermann, T. (1971). The jury finds not guilty: Another look at media influence on the jury. Journalism Quarterly, 48 , 343–344.

Steblay, N. M., Besirevic, J., Fulero, S. M., & Jimenez-Lorente, B. (1999). The effects of pretrial publicity on juror verdicts: A meta-analytic review. Law and Human Behavior, 23 , 219–235.

Studebaker, C. A., & Penrod, S. D. (1997). Pretrial publicity: The media, the law and commonsense. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3 , 428–460.

Studebaker, C. A., Robbennolt, J. K., & Pathak-Sharma, M. K. (2000). Assessing pretrial publicity effects: Integrating content analytic results. Law and Human Behavior, 24 , 317–333.

Tankard, J. W., Middleton, K., & Rimmer, T. (1979). Compliance with American Bar Association fair trial-free press guidelines. Journalism Quarterly, 56 , 464–468.

Tans, M., & Chaffee, S. (1966). Pretrial publicity and juror prejudice. Journalism Quarterly, 43 , 647–654.

U.S. Department of Justice. 28 C.F.R. $50.2.

U.S. v. McVeigh , 918 F. Supp. 1467 (1996).

Van Dyke, J. M. (1977). Jury selection procedures . Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Vidmar, N. (2003). Symposium:III. The jury in practice: When all of us are victims: Juror prejudice and “terrorist” trials. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 1143 , 1–42.

Wilson, J. R., & Bornstein, B. H. (1998). Methodological considerations in pretrial publicity research: Is the medium the message? Law and Human Behavior, 12 , 477–497.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

PhaseOne Communications, 6080 Center Drive, Suite 450, Los Angeles, CA, 90045, USA

Lisa M. Spano

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa M. Spano .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

, Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska/Lincoln, Burnett Hall 338, Lincoln, 68588-9296, Nebraska, USA

Richard L. Wiener

Dept. Psychology, University of Nebraska, Burnett Hall 335, Lincoln, 68588-0308, Nebraska, USA

Brian H. Bornstein

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Spano, L.M., Groscup, J.L., Penrod, S.D. (2011). Pretrial Publicity and the Jury: Research and Methods. In: Wiener, R., Bornstein, B. (eds) Handbook of Trial Consulting. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7569-0_11

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7569-0_11

Published : 24 March 2011

Publisher Name : Springer, Boston, MA

Print ISBN : 978-1-4419-7568-3

Online ISBN : 978-1-4419-7569-0

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

In the judgment declared on 18th January 2021, the Bombay High Court, India has elaborated the position of media trials in India, declaring the judicial point of view. The court viewed the effects and consequences of media trials in the administration of justice, a quintessential factor of modern democracies. The judgment pronounced by Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice G.S. Kulkarni of the Bombay High Court walks on a tight rope navigating the line between the “freedom of the press” guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and the menace of media trials running contrary to the same Constitution of India. But, in a larger scheme of questions does this case stand as a novelty in the jurisprudence i.e. “Modern Foundation of Media Trials in India” in a world consumed by emerging technologies?

In the wake of the death by suicide of the popular Indian actor, Sushant Singh Rajput, the reporting of this case provided for a sad state of affairs by news reporting channels. The reporting by such news channels hampered the investigation which was exponentially important for justice administration. Several Public Interest Litigations were filed in the Bombay High Court against the media trials in the wake of such reportage. The phenomenon of declaring the accused as a convict even before the Court had given its judgment, is called media trials. It is the widespread coverage of the guilt of the accused and imposing a certain perception about him, regardless of any of the verdict given by the court of law. In the present case, the reputation of the partner of the deceased actor, actress Rhea Chakraborty, was brutally torn apart by the media houses in what may constitute a “media trial”.

In the past, the fourth pillar of Indian democracy has proved to be a tool of advancing the interest of the victims in remarkable cases such as the Jessica Lal Case , the Priyadarshini Mattoo Case , 2006 and the Bijal Joshi Rape Case , 2005. The power of the fourth pillar,“media”, has been immense, however, when this power hampers the administration of justice, intervention by the Court becomes necessary.

The judgment pronounced by Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice G.S. Kulkarni has touched upon several key issues in relation to media trials mainly dealing with: directions to prominent television networks to restrict reportage that could hamper the investigation, re-interpretation of contempt law, and guidelines for the regulation the print or broadcast media without curtailing the freedom of the press.

The highlight of the judgement lies in its guidelines established for media houses. The Court in its first provided guidelines of how media houses and channels must report cases dealing with suicide. Whereby the Court held that the privacy of the deceased must be respected at all times, the evidence of sensitive character must not be disclosed, police confessions cannot be made public and while the Court case goes ahead, no interviews of any personalities has to be taken.

The Court also raised the Press Council of India Guidelines and set that though they are binding on the print media, the electronic must abide the same too. In order to establish information in the interest of public.

An important facet of this judgment refers to the “administration of justice” and its extent of its application in modern democracies such as India. It also discusses the issue of contempt of court and places that disclosing any information during the investigation would amount to Contempt of Court. The Court held that TIMES NOW and REPUBLIC TV had reported cases maligning the investigation and obstructing the administration of justice. However, no action against them has been taken.

In the case Suresh Chandra Jana v. State of West Bengal (2017), the Supreme Court of India acknowledged the need to highlight the principle of “criminal justice administration”. This case constructed a broader understanding of the jurisprudence from a comparative perspective bringing the view of other modern democracies such as New Zealand, Australia, England, and the United States. In this case, the Supreme Court elaborated:

“Criminal Justice System seems to exist to protect the power, the privilege and the values of the elite sections in society. The way crimes are defined and the system is administered demonstrate that there is an element of truth in the above perception even in modern times.”

A new aspect of introducing a Media Officer has been suggested by the Court, who may act as a bridge between the media and investigating authority so as to let the public interest be preserved. However, the position can only be created through the legislature in letter and spirit.

On the subject-matter of forms of “regulation” by media houses, the Court has explicitly stated that concerns about the lack of regulation on the electronic mode and urged the Central Government to take appropriate measures to control the problem of “trial by media” through the establishment of statuary bodies.

While discussing the contempt liability issue, i.e. to re-interpret the contempt law with reference to publications of the cases made from the stage of filing an FIR in criminal cases may be subject to contempt liability. Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 , publications under free trials are sheltered against contempt proceedings. However, any publication which interferes with or obstructs or tends to obstruct any proceeding, be it civil or criminal, and the course of justice, which is actually a pending proceeding, constitutes contempt of court. An illustration of this immunity can be seen through the case of Aarushi Talwar’s Murder , 2013, the media had declared who was guilty and who was not even before the actual trial had begun. The press had immunity for such a publication previously. However, no interference of the legislature was noted. However, a broader understanding of the same has been provided by the Court bringing the action of trial by media under the realm of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

In what may be constructed as the modern foundation of a judicial stance on “trial by media” redefining our understanding of the effects of excess report coverage in the case of Actor Sushant Singh Rajput, the Court seeks to strike a balance between the pillars of our democracy from the judiciary to the media. More so, the view of the court must not be viewed as a solution to this issue. The true achievement shall lie in compliance and administration with the recommended guidelines by the Bombay High Court. With the emergence of newer technology and accessibility to the information point, the “Modern Foundation of Indian Media Trials” jurisprudence shall evolve.

It is a fact that media is bound to report cases of public interest, but, now the media must think twice before it reports asking a crucial question, “does this article or statement cross the line of freedom of the press and enter the realm of media trial?”. The judiciary and media are institutions inhabiting separate spheres and their functions do not overlap. One cannot and must not use the other for the discharge of its functions. The media should only engage in acts of journalism and not act as a special agency for the court. The impermissibility of freedom of speech and expression amounting to an interference with the administration of justice due to the prejudicial nature of certain media coverage.

The guidelines set out to create a new standard of media coverage and resorting benign practices with restrictions created in the interest of the administration of justice.

Vishwajeet Deshmukh is a 4th Year Law Student at Government Law College, Mumbai, India and JURIST Staff Editor.

Suggested citation: Vishwajeet Deshmukh, Media Trials in India: A Judicial View to Administration, JURIST – Student Commentary, January 20, 2021 https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2021/01/vishwajeet-deshmukh-media-trials-india/.

This article was prepared for publication by Khushali Mahajan , a JURIST staff editor. Please direct any questions or comments to her at [email protected]

Sirhan convicted of assassinating RFK

On April 17, 1969, Sirhan Sirhan was convicted of assassinating Senator Robert F. Kennedy and sentenced to death. The sentence was later commuted to life in prison after the Supreme Court of California overturned the death penalty in the state.

Canadian constitution patriated with bill of rights

On April 17, 1982, the Constitution Act 1982 was proclaimed in Ottawa, establishing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and terminating the British Parliament's power to amend the Canadian constitution.

TRIAL BY MEDIA: CONCEPT AND PHENOMENON.

• Assistant Professor, Seedling School of Law and Governance, Jaipur National University. The writer worked as an Assistant Professor in Apex Professional University, Pasighat, Arunachal Pradesh. He also had worked as a Journalist in esteemed newspapers like Indian Express and DNA, online newsportals and a magazine in Ahmedabad. He also had worked as a Liaison Officer in Indian Society of International Law, New Delhi
• Cite This Article as
• Corresponding Author

A media shackled by its government is an unhealthy thing; however, a media allowed to run its mouth in an unaccountable manner may prove to be even more dangerous. While there must be punishments for the heinous crimes committed every day, the process of punishment should not encroach on the right of the accused for a free and fair trial in a Court of law. The problem of media trials is becoming more and more prevalent today. This article tries to analyse the problem of media trials by studying the various materials available on the topic, such as newspaper articles on the most famous media trials of India. I have come to the conclusion, after a fair analysis, that while the freedom of the press must be maintained in a country governed by the principle of ?rule of law?, there must be a certain restraint to prevent the media from encroaching on the sole jurisdiction of the Courts of law i.e., the administration of justice.

• Freedom of speech
• Tripathi, Devesh, ?Trial by Media: Prejudicing the Sub Judice?, RMLNLU Journal , Lucknow, 2015, p.1.
• ?Legal News: News Hour with Jim Lehrer ?(Transcript).Public Broadcasting System (PBS). 19 th October, 1998.
• Bowcott, Owen,? Contempt of court rules are designed to avoid trial by media ?, The Guardian , 5 th July, 2011.
• K Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106.
• ?Media and the Law? Seminar, UniversityLaw?College, VidhiBhawan,?University?of?Rajasthan?on?27 th ?May 2006.
• Scott, C. P., 1846?1932: the making of the Manchester Guardian , Frederick Muller, London, 1946.
• Primrose, J.B., The library , Dec. 1939, vol XX, No.3, p. 245.
• Hickey, William, The memoirs of William Hickey Vol II (1775-1782) , Hurst and Blackett, London, 1918, p.175
• Metcalf?s Act IX, 1835.
• Press Act, 1813.
• Vernacular Press Act, 1878.
• Effect of trial by media before courts.Available at http://www.lawteacher.net/commercial-law/essays/effect-of-trial-by-media-before-courts-lawessay.php.
• Harijai Singh and Vijayakumar, AIR 1997 SC 73.
• ?Enact law to regulate trial by media: Law Commission?, The Hindu , 3 rd Sept, 2006.
• Indian Express Newspapers V Union of India 1985 SCR (2) 287.
• L Rao, ?Trial by Media-Television should have no role when criminal cases are in court?, The Telegraph , 25 th July, 2011. Available at http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110725/jsp/opinion/story_14234123.jsp .
• The Blanket, Journal of Protest and Dissent , November 2000.
• Maneka Gandhi Vs Union Of India 1978 SCR (2) 621.
• Tony Rogers, The First Amendment and Press Freedom. Available at http://journalism.about.com/od/ethicsprofessionalism/a/firstamen.htm/
• 19(1)(a) constitution of India.
• Ist amendment, Constitution of America.
• 19(2) constitution of India.
• Dahyabhai v. state of Gujarat ,AIR 1964 SC 1563.
• Section 3, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
• Section 114 Indian evidence act 1872
• UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, G.A. Res.146, U.N. GAOR, 40th Sess.(1985) art.6.
• General Assembly Resolution 2200 A (XXI) of 16 December, 1966.
• 14(1), ICCPR, (1966) 999 UNTS 171, 1976 Can. T.S. No. 47, in force, including Canada, 1976 (my emphases).
• Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966.
• Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966.
• RomeshThapper v. State of Madras AIR 1950 124 (Supreme Court of India).
• AIR 1950 SC 129.
• Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.
• AIR 1950 SC 124.
• Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead , (1943).
• AIR 1963 SC 1295.
• (1975) 2 SCC 148: 1975 SCC (Cri) 468.
• (1987) 4 SCC 373.
• (1982) 1 SCC 1.
• (1999) 4 SCC 65.
• UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, G.A. Res.146, U.N. GAOR, 40th Sess.(1985)art.6.
• 14(1), ICCPR, (1966) 999 UNTS 171, 1976 Can. T.S. No. 47, in force, including Canada, 1976.

[ S. Krishnan. (2018); TRIAL BY MEDIA: CONCEPT AND PHENOMENON. Int. J. of Adv. Res. 6 (Mar). 889-901] (ISSN 2320-5407). www.journalijar.com

Article DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/6745       DOI URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/6745

Download Full Paper

Share this article.

Trump trial: Why can’t Americans see or hear what’s happening inside N.Y. courtroom?

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

It’s a moment in history — the first U.S. president facing criminal charges in an American courtroom . Yet only a handful of observers are able to see or even hear what is going on.

Instead, most of the nation is getting news of former President Trump’s hush money trial secondhand. Starting with preliminary motions and jury selection that began Monday, reporters in a Manhattan courtroom must convey what is being said to the outside world after the fact.

That’s all because New York state law regarding media coverage of court proceedings is one of the most restrictive in the country. Last week’s death of O.J. Simpson, whose murder trial was beamed live from a Los Angeles courtroom captivated a nation three decades ago, was a telling reminder of how New York is behind the times — or, at least, a holdout.

Trump is going on trial in New York today. Here’s what to expect

Trump faces the first of four criminal trials that will cut into his campaigning. He is accused of falsifying records to hide payments to a porn actor.

April 15, 2024

Why won’t New York let me see it?

Regulations limiting media coverage in courtrooms date back nearly a century, when the spectacle of bright flashbulbs and camera operators standing on witness tables during the 1935 trial of the man accused of kidnapping and killing Charles Lindbergh’s baby son horrified the legal community, according to a 2022 report by the New York-based Fund for Modern Courts.

Rules to enforce decorum spread nationally, amended to account for the invention of television, as defense lawyers worried that video coverage would harm their cases, the report said.

Yet an interest in open government chipped away at these laws and — slowly, carefully — video cameras began to be permitted in courts across the country, often at the discretion of judges presiding in individual cases.

New York allowed them, too, on an experimental basis between 1987 and 1997, but they were shut down. Lobbyists for defense lawyers remain strong in New York and hold particular sway among lawyers in the state Assembly, said Victor Kovner, a former New York City corporation counsel who advocates for open courtrooms.

Trump joins media outlets in pushing for his federal election interference case to be televised

Donald Trump is pushing for his federal election interference trial in Washington to be televised, joining media outlets in the request.

Nov. 11, 2023

New York and Louisiana are the only states remaining that completely forbid video coverage, the Fund for Modern Courts said.

To Kovner and others, that’s outrageous.

“We’re the media capital of the world, we like to think, and the fact that cameras aren’t permitted in one of our three branches of government is unacceptable,” said New York state Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal, who has sponsored a bill to try to change that.

“It’s one of the most consequential trials of our modern age,” the senator said. “I think the public has a right to see exactly what happens in that courtroom.”

At the trial’s outset, some reporters suggested that it appeared there were times that Trump drifted off to sleep while watching the proceedings. The former president’s campaign disputed that. With no video camera in place and trained on him, there’s no way of knowing for sure.

Wait, I saw a photo of Trump in court at the trial’s start

That’s because the presiding judge, Juan M. Merchan, permitted a handful of still photographers to shoot photos of Trump before the day’s proceedings started. Once court was called into session, courtroom sketch artists — a dying communications form — hold sway.

There is actually some video coverage of the trial, available on monitors in an overflow room adjacent to the main courtroom. It was packed Monday with reporters, court officers and a few members of the public, including Ron Sinibaldi, a former accountant from Long Island who lined up outside the courthouse before midnight for a seat.

“I read presidential biographies,” Sinibaldi said. “I go to presidential libraries. I’m here for the history.”

How are those involved compensating for the restrictions?

In a hallway outside the courtroom, a limited number of cameras and a small pool of reporters are positioned to capture remarks of anyone involved in the trial who wants to address the outside world. That included Trump, even before the proceedings started.

Absent live coverage of the trial, how often the former president chooses to take advantage of those cameras and whether news organizations carry his remarks — either live, taped or not at all — will play a big role in how the case is perceived publicly.

MSNBC carried his remarks live on Monday morning. “They’re trying to grab the narrative regardless of the outcome,” CNN reporter Phil Mattingly said of the Trump defense team.

How are journalists handling the restrictions?

With some difficulty. CNN stationed a team on the streets of Manhattan outside the courtroom, where a truck festooned with pro-Trump flags frequently drove by, blaring horns and music from loudspeakers. Reporters sometimes struggled to be heard. “It is kind of a circus down here,” CNN’s Kaitlan Collins said.

Commentators and experts, many of them with experience in jury selection, offered opinions from outside the courtroom or from studios. Fox News analyst Jonathan Turley said that “most cities, at least those outside of New York,” will see the case as a weaponization of criminal justice.

With estimates that jury selection could take two weeks, and no way of showing it, journalists will have a lot of time to fill unless they turn their attention elsewhere.

World & Nation

Trump’s history-making hush-money trial begins with challenge of picking a jury

It’s the first criminal trial of any former U.S. commander-in-chief and the first of Trump’s four indictments to reach trial.

Will other Trump cases be televised?

Georgia, where Trump faces charges of election meddling , gives judges discretion over whether to allow television cameras. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee has said he will make all hearings and trials in the case against Trump there available for broadcast. That has already included hearings on whether Fulton County Dist. Atty. Fani Willis would be removed from the case.

Federal courts do not allow cameras in criminal cases. Trump is facing separate federal cases for alleged election interference and mishandling of classified documents, although it is not clear when, or if, those trials will take place.

The feds offer one glimmer of hope: The U.S. Supreme Court permits audio of oral arguments to be broadcast outside the courtroom. But there’s no indication that this would apply to Trump’s case. New York’s law does not allow audio coverage of his hush money trial.

Proponents of legislation to open up New York courts to electronic media coverage are hoping the attention paid to the Trump case may boost their proposals. The idea is being considered as part of current negotiations over the New York state budget so, theoretically, a new law could even affect the Trump trial if it is passed and goes into effect immediately.

Given New York’s history, it’s best not to count on it.

Bauder writes for the Associated Press. AP correspondents Jennifer Peltz and Jake Offenhartz in New York, and Anthony Izaguirre and Maysoon Khan in Albany, N.Y., contributed to this report.

More to Read

Calmes: The hush money trial has only just begun, but it’s not a good look for Candidate Trump

Only 1 in 3 U.S. adults thinks Trump acted illegally in N.Y. hush money case, poll shows

April 16, 2024

First 7 jurors are chosen for Trump’s hush money criminal trial, with 11 more still needed

Start your day right

Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

More From the Los Angeles Times

Abortion ban has supercharged Arizona politics. What will GOP legislators do?

April 17, 2024

Former U.K. leader Liz Truss blames others for her brief, chaotic tenure — and she endorses Trump

Justice Thomas returns to Supreme Court after one-day absence

The abortion debate is giving Kamala Harris a moment. But voters still aren’t sold

Advertisement

These Are the 42 Questions Prospective Trump Jurors Are Being Asked

Once they are chosen, jurors will be asked to decide whether Donald J. Trump falsified business records to cover up a sex scandal. But first they must answer these questions.

• Share full article

By Jonah E. Bromwich

• Published April 16, 2024 Updated April 17, 2024, 4:06 p.m. ET

Jury selection is often a lengthy process, but in the first criminal trial of a former American president , currently taking place in a Manhattan criminal courthouse, it’s going more slowly than normal.

In part, that is because of the nature of the case: Jurors, once seated, will be asked to decide whether Donald J. Trump committed a crime. Prosecutors have charged him with 34 felonies, accusing him of falsifying business records to cover up a sex scandal that could have hurt his first presidential run.

But the process has been particularly drawn-out because, once would-be jurors say they can be fair and impartial, they are being asked a series of 42 questions . After that, they face additional scrutiny from lawyers for the prosecution and the defense.

Here are the 42 questions:

1. Without telling us your address, in what neighborhood do you live? For example, Upper East Side, Lower East Side, Inwood, etc. How long have you lived there? Are you a native New Yorker? If not, where did you live previously?

2. What do you do for a living? How long have you been doing that? If you are retired, please tell us what you did before you retired.

3. Who is your current employer? How large is your current employer? Are you self-employed or own your own business? Who was your prior employer?

4. What is your educational background? For example, high school diploma, college degree, graduate degree, etc.

5. Are you married? Have you ever been married? Do you have children?

6. If you are married, or living with another adult, what does that person do for a living? If you have adult children, what do they do?

7. What do you like to do in your spare time? Do you have any interests or hobbies?

8. Do you participate in any organizations or advocacy groups? Which ones?

9. Have you ever served on a jury before? If you did, please tell us how long ago that was and whether that was in Criminal Court, Civil Court or Grand Jury. Without telling us the verdict, please tell us whether the jury reached a verdict.

10. Which of the following print publications, cable and/or network programs, or online media such as websites, blogs, or social media platforms do you visit, read, or watch? (The New York Times, USA Today, New York Daily News, Huffington Post, CNN, MSNBC, Google, Facebook, X, TikTok, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, Newsday, The Washington Post, Fox News, Newsmax, MSN, Yahoo, Truth Social).

11. Do you listen to or watch podcasts? If so, which ones?

12. Do you listen to talk radio? If so, which programs?

13. Have you, a relative, or a close friend ever been the victim of a crime? If so, please briefly tell us what happened.

14. Have you, a relative, or a close friend ever been employed by a law enforcement agency? For example, the police, FBI, District Attorney’s Office, Department of Correction, Etc.

15. Have you, a relative, or a close friend ever been employed by a federal, state, or any local government, including but not limited to the State of New York?

16. Have you, a relative, or a close friend ever been employed in the accounting or finance field?

17. Have you, a relative, or a close friend ever had any education, training, or work experience in the legal field, including but not limited to practicing criminal or civil law?

18. Have you, a relative, or a close friend had any experience or interaction with the criminal justice system, including a police officer or other type of law enforcement agent, which caused you to form an opinion, whether positive or negative, about the police or our criminal justice system? If so, what was the experience? Would that experience prevent you from being a fair and impartial juror in this case?

19. Have you, a relative, or a close friend ever been accused or convicted of committing a crime?

20. Do you, a relative, or a close friend have a pending criminal case?

21. Do you have any political, moral, intellectual or religious beliefs or opinions which might prevent you from following the Court’s instructions on the law or which might slant your approach to this case? Do you have any political, moral, intellectual or religious beliefs or opinions that would interfere with your ability to render a verdict in this criminal case?

22. Do you have a health condition that might interfere with your ability to be here on the appointed days and times or otherwise prevent you from serving as a juror?

23. Without telling us the name(s), do you take any medication that would prevent you from being able to concentrate or pay attention during the proceedings or during the deliberations?

24. Court proceedings normally end around 4:30 in the afternoon though on rare occasions, we might work beyond that. Would your schedule and responsibilities permit you to work later if it were absolutely necessary to complete that day’s work?

25. Do you practice a religion that would prevent you from sitting as a juror on any particular weekday or weeknight?

26. Can you give us an assurance that you will be fair and impartial and not base your decision in this case upon a bias or prejudice in favor of or against a person who may appear in this trial, on account of that person’s race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, gender identity or expression, religion, religious practice, age, disability, sexual orientation or political views?

27. Can you promise to guard against allowing stereotypes or attitudes about individuals or about groups of people, referred to as an implicit bias, influence your decision?

28. Have you, a relative, or a close friend ever worked for any Company or organization that is owned or run by Donald Trump or anyone in his family?

29. Have you, a relative, or a close friend ever worked or volunteered for a Trump presidential campaign, the Trump presidential administration, or any other political entity affiliated with Mr. Trump? Have you ever attended a rally or campaign event for Donald Trump? Are you signed up for or have you ever been signed up for, subscribed to, or followed any newsletter or email lists run by or on behalf of Mr. Trump or the Trump Organization? Do you currently follow Donald Trump on any social media site or have you done so in the past? Have you, a relative, or a close friend ever worked or volunteered for any anti-Trump group or organization? Have you ever attended a rally or campaign event for any anti-Trump group or organization? Are you signed up for or have you ever been signed up for, subscribed to, or followed any newsletter or email lists run by or on behalf of any anti-Trump group or organization? Do you currently follow any anti-Trump group or organization on any social media site, or have you done so in the past?

30. Have you ever considered yourself a supporter of or belonged to any of the following: (the QAnon movement, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Three Percenters, Boogaloo Boys, Antifa)

31. Do you have any strong opinions or firmly held beliefs about whether a former president may be criminally charged in state court?

32. Do you have any feelings or opinions about how Mr. Trump is being treated in this case?

33. Can you give us your assurance that you will decide this case solely on the evidence you see and hear in this courtroom and the law as the judge gives it?

34. Do you have any strong opinions or firmly held beliefs about former President Donald Trump, or the fact that he is a current candidate for president that would interfere with your ability to be a fair and impartial juror?

35. Have you read (or listened to audio) of any of the following books or podcasts by Michael Cohen or Mark Pomerantz? If so, please let us know if what you have heard or read affects your ability to be a fair and impartial juror in this case (“Disloyal: A Memoir,” “Revenge,” “Mea Culpa,” “People Vs. Donald Trump”)

36. The defendant in this case has written a number of books. Have you read (or listened to audio) of any one or more of those books? If so, which ones?

37. Do you have any opinions about the legal limits governing political contributions?

38. Can you promise to set aside anything you may have heard or read about this case and render your verdict based solely on the evidence presented in this courtroom and the law as given to you by the judge?

39. Can you give us your absolute assurance that you will refrain from discussing this case with anyone in any manner and from watching, reading, or listening to any accounts of this case during the pendency of the trial?

40. Can you assure us that you will follow the judge’s instructions on the law, including instructions on the definition of reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence?

41. The United States Constitution provides that a defendant has no burden to introduce any evidence or to testify in a criminal case. If Mr. Trump chooses not to testify, or to introduce any evidence, can you give us your assurance that you will not hold that against him?

42. Is there any reason, whether it be a bias or something else, that would prevent you from being fair and impartial if you are selected as a juror for this case?

Jonah E. Bromwich covers criminal justice in New York, with a focus on the Manhattan district attorney’s office and state criminal courts in Manhattan. More about Jonah E. Bromwich

Our Coverage of the Trump Hush-Money Trial

News and Analysis

The daunting work of selecting a jury for the trial rapidly gained momentum as seven New Yorkers were picked  to sit in judgment of Donald Trump, accelerating a crucial phase of the case that many had expected to be a slog.

The beginning of Trump’s trial drew intense security, smothering media coverage and loud demonstrations to a dingy Manhattan courthouse that will be the unlikely center of American politics for six weeks .

Melania Trump has long referred to the case as her husband’s problem, not hers. But she has privately called the trial a “disgrace”  that could threaten his campaign.

More on Trump’s Legal Troubles

Key Inquiries: Trump faces several investigations  at both the state and the federal levels, into matters related to his business and political careers.

Case Tracker:  Keep track of the developments in the criminal cases  involving the former president.

What if Trump Is Convicted?: Will any of the proceedings hinder Trump’s presidential campaign? Here is what we know, and what we don’t know .

Trump on Trial Newsletter: Sign up here  to get the latest news and analysis  on the cases in New York, Florida, Georgia and Washington, D.C.

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.