Media in the Courtroom

Media in the Courtroom

COM150 Effective Essay Writing

In today's world, the media plays a role in almost everyone's life. It keeps everyone up to date on all events happening around the world and in our home towns, and it is now easier to access than ever before. The media is more prevalent than ever in our courtrooms, and some critics say that it has an effect on the outcome of trials and violates a defendants sixth amendment rights. Some will argue that the first amendment, the right to free press, and the defendant's right to a public trial, gives the media every right to be in the courtroom. From high profile cases to low profile cases, the media is always there to bring them to the public, and in some cases, may make a difference in the final result. The media's presentation of the courtroom information may have an effect on the judges, jury, and the public involved in the trial, which brings up the question of whether they should be there or not. Even though the public has the right to know, a defendant's sixth amendment right to a fair trial may be jeopardized when the media is present.

The media is a powerful entity that is everywhere, and also plays an important role in the lives of most people. The media has been around for many years and has contributed to many of the historical events that have happened in this world over the years. In the United States the media has what some would refer to as free reign throughout the country. The First Amendment guarantees the media's existence with the right to free press. This right also gives the media the opportunity to have a biased opinion on topics. These biased opinions can lead to misleading information which can have negative effects on the public as well as courtroom proceedings.

So how does this relate to the courtroom and defendants? With the media having such a strong influence on the masses of people, their portrayal of courtroom trials could have an effect on the outcome of that trial if their biased information influences people directly related to the trial. How does this help the defendant in the trial, if the media has already made its own conclusion on the trial, and how do the defendants rights play into this.

According to the United States Constitution, which was put into place to protect the citizens of the United States from oppressive government actions, Amendment VI to the U.S. Constitution states that;

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

The Sixth Amendment was adopted as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791. Some states made their ratification of the Constitution contingent upon such adoption, reflecting a perceived need to limit the federal government's power to investigate, prosecute, and punish crime. The original Constitution had few provisions relating to the criminal process, but of the twenty-six separate rights specified in the first eight amendments, fifteen are aimed specifically at that process. The Sixth Amendment itself specifies seven rights applicable in all criminal prosecutions: a speedy trial; a public trial; a trial by jury; a notice of the accusation; a confrontation of opposing witnesses; a compulsory process for obtaining favorable witnesses; and the assistance of counsel. (Amendment VI. 2010) With this being said how are the defendant's rights affected when the media is present?

Although the Sixth Amendment gives the defendant the opportunity to a public trial, which includes the media, there is evidence that some cases have been affected as a result of media in the courtroom. Even in otherwise low profile cases, media gurus such as Nancy Grace and Jane V. Mitchell can turn cases that no one would normally know existed into media frenzied circuses, and keep them on air until they are a high profile-celebrity-like case. It is biased media like this that can get to judges and juries and keep them from paying attention to the evidence provided. There have also been situations where the media has brought in new evidence that has cleared defendants. As Robert Gil III (2009) states, "There are many advantages to having media in the courtroom, as in informing the general public of how the law works and also giving them the opportunity to see both sides of the proceeding."

With this being said, the people who have the job of making decisions in the courtroom also have access to this information. Can a judge be persuaded by the media's information? Even though juries are to be sequestered during trials, with the availability of information in so many different mediums, are they persuaded in some way by the media's information? "The effect