Replies

Do you think the non-stop coverage will prejudice any jury they can find? Or will they have to get such thick-heads who will claim not to have seen any coverage that they are not capable of following a trial argument and will be capable of being misled by a fast-talking attorney like Johnny Cochran?

Either way, can he get a fair trial? Isn't that reason enough to moderate the coverage?

"Do you think the non-stop coverage will prejudice any jury they can find?"

To be fair to the media : here in the Information Age - the REAL information Age - any and all national manhunts taints the entire potential jury base, because nearly the entire country participated in it or is aware of it, so the media cannot be blamed on that score. Nor can our legal system, which must now evolve to encompass change....

BUT....and this is a BIGGGGGGG BUT : WHEN that person is found, the media should BACK OFF, because all of the extra 24/7 coverage after the individual for which the country is HUNTING has been found is pure hype and open to manipulation by attorneys on BOTH sides.

Attorneys CAN and HAVE used 24/7 news channels to sway public opinion and therebye judges and juries. Guilty parties may go free...and talking heads (like GRETA) get whole careers from the tabloid-circus coverage.

So yeah, I basically agree with you. The tabloid coverage can and has ruined the process of law which we hold so dear in this country.

What happened to justice? If Scott IS guilty of murdering his wife and unborn son so he can continue his womanizing in peace, but walks free due to attorney-manipulated media hype swaying opinions...well, then Stephen King - as his pseudonym Richard Bacheman - had it right. We might as well just have game shows, where the jury is the TV audience. (King was pretty good before his accident. I used to be a big fan)