In a case here a couple of years ago, the judge imposed a gag order at the request of the defense attorneys. Two days later, a huge article was ran in a local paper regarding a retired detective's profile of the killer in the case. This detective was not an expert profiler, and was from another state. He had been hired to compile the profile by the defendent's family, but not subject to the gag order.
He had no credentials and was not a homicide detective. He had no training in psychological or criminal profiling. The report in the paper profiled a killer who could not have been more unlike the defendent. Under the gag order, the prosecution could not respond to the article.
When the case went to trial, and the jury sent to deliberate, a couple of jurors brought up the newspaper profile in the jury room and indicated they were reluctant to convict, despite the evidence, because of that report. The other jurors reported this to the judge who immediately declared a mistrial.
It's not wrong for the media to report on criminal cases, but they need to exercise responsibility.Do you think it is wrong for the media to focus on criminal cases before the conviction?
Yes, because if the person is proven innocent after trail and they're a big lawyer or some other important profession where image is very important, then they're could be ruined for life. Plus, peaple usually only read headlines, they never really keep track on a case unless they have a reason to.Do you think it is wrong for the media to focus on criminal cases before the conviction?
No. The people have a right to know. I do, however, think that it's the responsibility of the media to report true news.
If a jury has been already properly chosen and properly sequestered, then no.
sometimes it is
Like they did w/Sen. Craig? Yes.
nah.
Yes, they could have there facts all mixed up.
No comments:
Post a Comment