Is justice blind to wealth and fame?

It is almost impossible to try one of those high profile cases these days. The media is publicizing fact with fiction and speculation in every possible form from radio, newspaper, television and Internet.

Just think about it for a moment. You have a group of jurors that are instructed that they are allowed to go about their daily lives when the courts are not in session (usually all day Fridays and many hours during the work week, and obviously weekends). Now tell them that they are not allowed to see, hear or otherwise encounter anything having to do with the case, be it from the media, or from family or friends. Now imagine being that juror and trying to go to the grocery store to get some milk. Chances are, you will hear stuff that you aren't suposed to hear, which could cause a mistrial and the whole thing has to start from scratch.

No, the cases are being played out in the Court of Public Opinion by spin doctors, and frankly, by the parites themselves in many instances. All of this makes it nearly impossible to be able to have the jurors hear and deliberate on JUST what they hear in the courtroom (which is the essence of their duties).

Technically, the jurors are not even supposed to tell their spouses or employees WHICH case they are on, or even what it is about. That rule is there so that someone doesn't spout off their own views on the issues or parties - something that might affect the juror's perceptions or way of thinking, and something that is influence obtained not in court under sworn testimony, and of which the other jurors are not privy to.

It used to be that high profile cases were highly sought by attorneys to get some recognition. Now, if there is one in the office, most people nearly hide under their desks if they see the supervisors coming with the file for assignment. One of the best stories I've read that also dealt with the media's influence is the book on the JonBenet Ramsey murder. Don't recall the title now, but it went into detail about how much money the National Enquirer and Star and others like that paid for news, and how they virtually stalked all the parties.

I agree with you Clay. Ratings are way more important than truth, and that's very, very, sad.

--Cindi
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email the mods

editorial articles, or "contributor articles", essentially always say the same thing and always lead me to the same question:

1. Such articles effectively state that "All men are equal [add: "under the law"], but some are more equal than others" (Orwell).

2. "... the same question" is: Why doesn't the US have the same sub-judice(*) rules as we do in the UK prior to the case coming to trial? Specifically to avoid hearsay/gossip which would taint testimony via "trial-by-media" reports (biased or otherwise).

(*) Sub-judice from the Latin meaning "Under the seal".

If such sub-judice rules existed, would the same need for such secrecy still exist?

Just a thought, OK two thoughts.
Regards
Mo

The media is a business. If people didn't buy this stuff this wouldn't be a problem.

Dan

.