Trial by media: How to prejudice the outcome of a pending prosecution by B Blake
December 19th 2013
Accused marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 20, is facing a 30 count indictment for his alleged role in the marathon bombings, of which 17 counts carry a potential death sentence. Under such circumstances, one would expect the media to exercise some degree of reasoned restraint and refrain from reporting in a salacious manner to boost sales or raise ratings, and/or maintain a neutral position until a verdict has been reached in the case. Unfortunately, it seems the exact opposite is true.
The term 'Trial by Media' is often used to describe the devastating impact television and newspaper coverage can have on a pending prosecution/proceedings in a court of law. Verdicts can be swayed by creating widespread perception as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, long before that defendant has even set foot in court, let alone stood in front of a jury. Under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, every defendant is entitled to a trial by an impartial jury of his or her peers. Subjecting the general public to an unending bombardment of negative news stories and information about the defendant, pre-trial, has the potential to subconsciously persuade a member of the 'impartial' jury, and so endanger the defendant’s inalienable right to a fair trial. And never has such an irresponsible phenomenon revealed itself so readily, than in the Boston marathon bombing case.
Journalism at its lowest
The Boston Globe's latest nauseating cameo of the family of accused marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (pictured right), continues the sickening trend of irresponsible and sensationalist journalism associated with the case. Entitled 'The Fall Of The House of Tsarnaev', the Globe's so-called five-month investigation offered nothing in terms of verifiable fact about the terror attack itself, yet offered more than enough to taint a future jury pool.
The sprawling 15 chapter piece made cynical reference to the entire 'deeply dysfunctional' Tsarnaev family, providing 'vital insights' such as the brothers were 'coequals in failure', and that relatives were work shy, violent, took drugs, or suffered from mental illness. There were wild speculations on a number of issues, such as the 'real' reason the family sought asylum in the US. The family claimed to be fleeing oppression in Chechnya due to the Chechen wars, yet the Globe hypothesized that: 'more likely, they were on the run from elements of the Russian underworld. Or maybe they were simply fleeing economic hardship'. Typically, they offered no firm evidence for either assertion.
If that wasn't bad enough, the Globe saw fit to totally ignore all aspects of the official investigation into the case thus far, instead deciding that their own 'investigation' was far superior to that of the FBI and Law Enforcement. Within days of Tsarnaev's arrest the public were informed that his motive for the alleged attack was Islamic extremism. In a case where evidence appears to change on a weekly basis, one aspect has remained constant: Tsarnaev's alleged motive. Court documents reveal a litany of official claims to support the Jihadi motive, yet the Globe evidently believes the FBI has it all wrong:
The sprawling 15 chapter piece made cynical reference to the entire 'deeply dysfunctional' Tsarnaev family, providing 'vital insights' such as the brothers were 'coequals in failure', and that relatives were work shy, violent, took drugs, or suffered from mental illness. There were wild speculations on a number of issues, such as the 'real' reason the family sought asylum in the US. The family claimed to be fleeing oppression in Chechnya due to the Chechen wars, yet the Globe hypothesized that: 'more likely, they were on the run from elements of the Russian underworld. Or maybe they were simply fleeing economic hardship'. Typically, they offered no firm evidence for either assertion.
If that wasn't bad enough, the Globe saw fit to totally ignore all aspects of the official investigation into the case thus far, instead deciding that their own 'investigation' was far superior to that of the FBI and Law Enforcement. Within days of Tsarnaev's arrest the public were informed that his motive for the alleged attack was Islamic extremism. In a case where evidence appears to change on a weekly basis, one aspect has remained constant: Tsarnaev's alleged motive. Court documents reveal a litany of official claims to support the Jihadi motive, yet the Globe evidently believes the FBI has it all wrong:
"Taken together, these findings suggest that the motivation for the Tsarnaev brothers’ violent acts is more likely rooted in the turbulent collapse of their family and their escalating personal and collective failures"
Worse still, whilst making such rash and injudicious statements and presenting them as 'fact', they did so from a starting point that unequivocally presumed the defendant's guilt. The universal concept of innocent until proven guilty was simply abandoned, instead replaced by comic book drawings and sensationalist gossip. And if one were ever in any doubt as to the intention of the piece, the Globe reminded them. They aimed to:
'Fundamentally recast the conventional public understanding of the brothers, showing them to be much more nearly coequals in failure, in growing desperation, and in conspiracy'
What did the Globe understand the current 'public understanding' to be? And why does a newspaper feel it's duty and right is to fundamentally change public opinion to it's own way of thinking on any issue, let alone a terrorism case that has yet to reach trial? This contemptuous attitude towards lawful due process is even more galling when one considers the Globe's main readership: the citizens of Boston, and so the potential 'impartial' jury of Tsarnaev's peers.
But it's not just the Boston Globe who are guilty of such despicable and reckless behaviour. Eight months have passed since Tsarnaev was apprehended and charged for his alleged role in the bombings, and not a week has gone by without some form of sensationalist and totally unnecessary reporting. Headline news outlets have presented their coverage with eye-grabbing imagery and inflammatory bylines designed to captivate the public's interest, but unfortunately very little else.
Media witch hunts and boosted sales
The term 'media witch hunt' has acquired usage referring to the act of seeking and persecuting a perceived enemy, particularly when that search is conducted using extreme measures and with little regard to actual guilt or innocence of the accused. In the case of Tsarnaev this is a textbook definition, but it carries with it another, more sinister aspect: Tsarnaev sells. Within hours of Tsarnaev's identity being made public the media were clamouring to fulfil the obvious public interest in the case, although depressingly, most opted to do it in typical 'witch hunt' fashion rather than actually work to uncover any new facts about the bombing itself.
Here are two quotes that accompanied the well-known photograph below, both printed within one week of Tsarnaev's arrest, and both printed based on a total pre-assumption of guilt.
Here are two quotes that accompanied the well-known photograph below, both printed within one week of Tsarnaev's arrest, and both printed based on a total pre-assumption of guilt.
'Haunting final photo of Martin Richard, 8, as killer Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev lurks'
'An innocent youngster stands just moments from death – as his evil killer lurks behind him'
Here's a small selection of leading titles (from various media) that have been published since Tsarnaev's arrest: again, all quite clearly imply nothing other than guilt.
'Boston terrorist bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev captured'
'Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is an evil terrorist, not a misunderstood young boy'
'Dzhokhar Tsarnaev: The scholar turned terrorist'
'Stop forgiving the Boston bombers'
'Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev could face death penalty: prosecutors'
'Boston Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev due to ask judge for court restrictions to be lifted'
'Dzhokhar Tsarnaev deserves to die for his actions'
'Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is an evil terrorist, not a misunderstood young boy'
'Dzhokhar Tsarnaev: The scholar turned terrorist'
'Stop forgiving the Boston bombers'
'Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev could face death penalty: prosecutors'
'Boston Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev due to ask judge for court restrictions to be lifted'
'Dzhokhar Tsarnaev deserves to die for his actions'
Another selection of media which, although not necessarily implying guilt in the title, again reported from a total pre-assumption of guilt. The words 'accused' and 'alleged' was used selectively and as a mere formality. Largely speculative arguments were presented - often cleverly disguised as 'fact'.
'Boston bombing suspects may have sold pot to finance operation'
'Video shows Boston bombing suspects at gym days before attack preparing for Jihad'
'Pols convinced Boston Marathon bombers received training and inspiration abroad'
'Boston Bomb Suspect Eyed in Connection to 2011 Triple Murder'
'Liberal media takes chill pill on Boston bombers' Muslim ties'
'MSNBC Panel Agrees: Tsarnaev Terror Due Influenced by 'Radical Libertarian Agenda,' Conspiracy Theories'
'Tsarnaev May Have Lived Off Welfare While Learning to Hate America'
'Video shows Boston bombing suspects at gym days before attack preparing for Jihad'
'Pols convinced Boston Marathon bombers received training and inspiration abroad'
'Boston Bomb Suspect Eyed in Connection to 2011 Triple Murder'
'Liberal media takes chill pill on Boston bombers' Muslim ties'
'MSNBC Panel Agrees: Tsarnaev Terror Due Influenced by 'Radical Libertarian Agenda,' Conspiracy Theories'
'Tsarnaev May Have Lived Off Welfare While Learning to Hate America'
And with the witch hunt in full swing, who could forget Rolling Stone's disgusting and shameful drive to boost sales, laughingly disguised as 'investigative journalism', the cover of which spoke for itself?
If the manipulating cover and story were bad, the fallout from it was far, far worse. Victims of the marathon bombings were outraged at the perceived 'glamourisation' of Tsarnaev, leading to a fallacious 'media storm' that only succeeded in keeping the issue at the top of every news stand in the US for weeks, leading to a tripling of Rolling Stone's sales and the inflammatory cover being named AdWeek's 'hottest' issue of the year. Not a day passed without the advent of a new opinion piece, 99% of which jumped on the anti-Tsarnaev bandwagon declaring how 'truly sickening' it was to put 'a monster' or 'killer of innocents' on the front cover.
Sadly, very few addressed a far less popular, but equally pressing issue: that an individual stood accused of a crime that could potentially result in the ultimate admonition: the death penalty. Was it right to publish a provocative and demonizing cover, accompanied by a story that added absolutely nothing in terms of the terror attack itself, pre-trial?
The answer, plainly, was no.
Although the piece itself could hardly have been said to depict Tsarnaev in a positive light, the spurious media backlash continued with the publication of 'leaked' photos of Tsarnaev's apprehension and subsequent arrest: something that should only ever have been viewed in a court of law, until a verdict had been reached at the very least. The accompanying 'journalism' once again started from a presumption of guilt, and once again did more than enough to tarnish a jury pool.
Boston Magazine's editorial decision to publish the photographs in 'The Real Face of Terror: Behind the scenes of the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Manhunt' took maximum advantage of the media hysteria of the moment, and shamelessly capitalised on the 'exclusive' that found its way to the editors' desk. In a blatant attempt to shift responsibility for the decision, the magazine attempted to absolve itself of all accountability by suggesting it was performing a public service at the request of the officer who leaked the images in the first place:
Sadly, very few addressed a far less popular, but equally pressing issue: that an individual stood accused of a crime that could potentially result in the ultimate admonition: the death penalty. Was it right to publish a provocative and demonizing cover, accompanied by a story that added absolutely nothing in terms of the terror attack itself, pre-trial?
The answer, plainly, was no.
Although the piece itself could hardly have been said to depict Tsarnaev in a positive light, the spurious media backlash continued with the publication of 'leaked' photos of Tsarnaev's apprehension and subsequent arrest: something that should only ever have been viewed in a court of law, until a verdict had been reached at the very least. The accompanying 'journalism' once again started from a presumption of guilt, and once again did more than enough to tarnish a jury pool.
Boston Magazine's editorial decision to publish the photographs in 'The Real Face of Terror: Behind the scenes of the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Manhunt' took maximum advantage of the media hysteria of the moment, and shamelessly capitalised on the 'exclusive' that found its way to the editors' desk. In a blatant attempt to shift responsibility for the decision, the magazine attempted to absolve itself of all accountability by suggesting it was performing a public service at the request of the officer who leaked the images in the first place:
'Murphy wants the world to know that the Tsarnaev in the photos he took that night - defeated and barely alive, with the red dots of sniper rifles lighting up his forehead - is the real face of terrorism - not the handsome, confident young man shown on the magazine cover. This guy is evil. This is the real Boston bomber. Not someone fluffed and buffed for the cover of Rolling Stone magazine'
However, one only had to read between the lines to determine Boston Magazine's true motivations: publicity and sales. The title leading into the photographs informed the reader:
'The following are a number of his photos from that day. A more complete collection will appear in our September issue'
Lazy journalists and even lazier editors
Surprisingly, even well respected publications appear to have fallen foul of media ethics as far as reporting on the Boston marathon bombings is concerned.
The Wall Street Journal recently ran an exclusive with the accusatory title 'A Family Terror: The Tsarnaevs and the Boston Bombings', offering yet another questionable caricature of the Tsarnaev family (pictured right), along with a story written by journalist Alan Cullison, who revealed he knew the family personally, several years ago. The article was in some parts balanced, but quickly descended into the realm of the author's own personal opinion of the family, followed with derogatory comments such as: 'In 2004, they already seemed like 'losers,' as their uncle told reporters after the attack'.
And:'for an unemployed ex-boxer who spent most of his time in a grubby third-floor walk-up in Cambridge, conspiracy theories could have provided purpose'.
Yet what The Wall Street Journal failed to tell readers is that Alan Cullison has written over ten previous articles in the last eight months for the very same publication, all of which appear to be recycled versions of the 'exclusive' they published just days ago. As such, every single article contains references to the author's own personal bias, yet he only chose to reveal his connection to the family very recently. So, in the absence of any real 'news', it appears editors at the WSJ have been content to satisfy public interest in the case by offering old rehashed articles devoid of any investigation into the bombing itself, written by a reporter showing deprecatory bias towards the family of the accused, whilst the whole time pretending to rise above the type of rudimentary and base journalism they themselves are now demonstrably part of.
But it's not just lazy on the part of journalists and editors, it's also very dangerous. Media witch hunts are a thoughtless way to fulfil the requirements of a gossip-based news cycle. Whether the defendant is guilty of a crime or not is a decision that needs to be reached by an impartial group of citizens, and the inequitable practice of trial by media makes finding such a collection of individuals virtually impossible. Someone who should be well aware of that fact is Jeanine Pirro, who describes herself as a 'highly respected District Attorney, Judge, & renowned champion of the underdog'.
And:'for an unemployed ex-boxer who spent most of his time in a grubby third-floor walk-up in Cambridge, conspiracy theories could have provided purpose'.
Yet what The Wall Street Journal failed to tell readers is that Alan Cullison has written over ten previous articles in the last eight months for the very same publication, all of which appear to be recycled versions of the 'exclusive' they published just days ago. As such, every single article contains references to the author's own personal bias, yet he only chose to reveal his connection to the family very recently. So, in the absence of any real 'news', it appears editors at the WSJ have been content to satisfy public interest in the case by offering old rehashed articles devoid of any investigation into the bombing itself, written by a reporter showing deprecatory bias towards the family of the accused, whilst the whole time pretending to rise above the type of rudimentary and base journalism they themselves are now demonstrably part of.
But it's not just lazy on the part of journalists and editors, it's also very dangerous. Media witch hunts are a thoughtless way to fulfil the requirements of a gossip-based news cycle. Whether the defendant is guilty of a crime or not is a decision that needs to be reached by an impartial group of citizens, and the inequitable practice of trial by media makes finding such a collection of individuals virtually impossible. Someone who should be well aware of that fact is Jeanine Pirro, who describes herself as a 'highly respected District Attorney, Judge, & renowned champion of the underdog'.
Even the Judiciary are at it...
Jeanine Pirro hosts a weekly televised show on Fox News network, which is regularly viewed by over 250,00o people across North America. Despite taking a judicial oath to 'defend the constitution of the United States' (and so abide to the right to fair trial), and 'administer justice without bias in respect to persons', Pirro has consistently demonstrated utter contempt for the very pledge she swore to uphold.
In a series of so-called televised rants that would be illegal in a large number of Western countries (unfortunately not the US), she has delivered her 'learned opinion' on the accused marathon bomber and his family a number of times, with a display of venom and misguided sense of 'justice' that almost beggars belief. Just one week after the apprehension of Tsarnaev, Pirro deemed it appropriate to appear on national television and declare her intention to 'expose the facts behind the terror attack at the Boston marathon'. What valuable new facts about the appalling crime did she have to offer the viewer?
In a series of so-called televised rants that would be illegal in a large number of Western countries (unfortunately not the US), she has delivered her 'learned opinion' on the accused marathon bomber and his family a number of times, with a display of venom and misguided sense of 'justice' that almost beggars belief. Just one week after the apprehension of Tsarnaev, Pirro deemed it appropriate to appear on national television and declare her intention to 'expose the facts behind the terror attack at the Boston marathon'. What valuable new facts about the appalling crime did she have to offer the viewer?
'Zubeidat Tsarnaev, mother of Islamic jihadis: We should not be required to breathe the same air as you, in fact, we should not be required to share the indignity of your presence. Your sons are terrorists. They injured more than 200. Blinded, deafened, and blew legs and arms off of innocent civilians. Your sons killed Americans. Tamerlan? He's dead. He's a terrorist. He has no rights. Jokhar? I don't want to show the rest of the world how our justice system works. I honestly don't give a damn'
A more recent offering in response to the Rolling Stone article:
'...And for those of you out there saying, ‘He’s presumed innocent,’ let me tell you the truth about the presumption of innocence. We don’t drag people into court because we assume they’re innocent. We indict them because we believe they’re guilty and there’s probable cause and damning evidence that supports that'
In response to Tsarnaev's request to have certain SAMs restrictions removed, predominantly to enable his attorneys to adequately represent their client in what currently amounts to a capital case: how about advocating death for the accused, pre-trial?
'If police had left you in that boat where you scrawled your hatred of Americans instead of bringing you to one of the best hospitals in America for free health care - you wouldn't have to worry about your isolation, your confinement or seeing the outdoors'
Why does Pirro mistakenly believe that the Constitution has to be respected, but only at her own discretion and not as a
legal-absolute requirement applicable to all? It's no excuse to say Pirro should know better - the fact is she does. Maybe someone needs to remind the retired judge that the purpose of an equitable justice system is to TEST evidence in the first instance, and never simply assume it to be a complete factual representation of the circumstances of a crime. Furthermore, has Pirro seen any documents or evidence particular to the marathon bombing case? If not, why is she commenting on a pre-trial case under the guise of a 'judge' AT ALL? Unfortunately, it's unlikely Fox News will be considering that issue any time soon. With a consistent rise in ratings every time 'Judge Jeanine' delivers her 'insights' into the marathon bombing case, there is clearly no corporate interest in them doing so.
But the moral case for doing so is compelling. Whilst the judicial system has attempted to redress the balance somewhat, it can never truly cancel out the horrendous damage inflicted on a case that has previously been 'tried by the media'. What options are there?
legal-absolute requirement applicable to all? It's no excuse to say Pirro should know better - the fact is she does. Maybe someone needs to remind the retired judge that the purpose of an equitable justice system is to TEST evidence in the first instance, and never simply assume it to be a complete factual representation of the circumstances of a crime. Furthermore, has Pirro seen any documents or evidence particular to the marathon bombing case? If not, why is she commenting on a pre-trial case under the guise of a 'judge' AT ALL? Unfortunately, it's unlikely Fox News will be considering that issue any time soon. With a consistent rise in ratings every time 'Judge Jeanine' delivers her 'insights' into the marathon bombing case, there is clearly no corporate interest in them doing so.
But the moral case for doing so is compelling. Whilst the judicial system has attempted to redress the balance somewhat, it can never truly cancel out the horrendous damage inflicted on a case that has previously been 'tried by the media'. What options are there?
Judicial remedies are lacking
The court may postpone trial proceedings in order to allow time for the initial publicity to dissipate. The judge can also modify jury instructions to specifically instruct jurors to ignore pre-trial publicity. However, these approaches are recognized to be totally ineffective in eliminating juror bias.
Terrorism cases in particular seem to attract extensive, heavily skewed coverage, which can make the process of jury selection extremely difficult, if not impossible. Attorneys for the defense and the prosecution can question members of the jury pool about numerous issues, including their exposure to pre-trial publicity and their ability to make impartial decisions and follow the judge's instructions. Yet study after study has shown that exposure to negative media pre-trial has a significant prejudicial impact on jurors, whether they are aware of that bias or not. So even potential jurors who fully believe they have not been biased in any way can, in fact, hold significant prejudicial views towards the defendant.
If the defense determines that their client has been irrevocably harmed by negative pre-trial publicity, they can request a change of venue, which moves the trial away from the jurisdiction where the crime originally occurred. While this strategy can counteract exposure to local media coverage, it rarely has any impact if the coverage is national. Moreover, judges appear extremely hesitant to concede that a defendant can only receive a fair trial in another jurisdiction, and often struggle with the notion that it could potentially frustrate the local community's legitimate interests in resolving the case.
So if the safeguards designed to mitigate the impact of negative media are questionable, is there any 'true' justice to be derived from a trial taking place in the first place?
Terrorism cases in particular seem to attract extensive, heavily skewed coverage, which can make the process of jury selection extremely difficult, if not impossible. Attorneys for the defense and the prosecution can question members of the jury pool about numerous issues, including their exposure to pre-trial publicity and their ability to make impartial decisions and follow the judge's instructions. Yet study after study has shown that exposure to negative media pre-trial has a significant prejudicial impact on jurors, whether they are aware of that bias or not. So even potential jurors who fully believe they have not been biased in any way can, in fact, hold significant prejudicial views towards the defendant.
If the defense determines that their client has been irrevocably harmed by negative pre-trial publicity, they can request a change of venue, which moves the trial away from the jurisdiction where the crime originally occurred. While this strategy can counteract exposure to local media coverage, it rarely has any impact if the coverage is national. Moreover, judges appear extremely hesitant to concede that a defendant can only receive a fair trial in another jurisdiction, and often struggle with the notion that it could potentially frustrate the local community's legitimate interests in resolving the case.
So if the safeguards designed to mitigate the impact of negative media are questionable, is there any 'true' justice to be derived from a trial taking place in the first place?
Fulfilling a public need or freak show entertainment?
Yes there is. Regardless of how an avalanche of negative reporting has monstered Tsarnaev, over 240 marathon bombing victims and their families need answers. The general public need answers too. And the justice system is all they have left: the practice of trial by media masquerading as 'fulfilling a public need' will provide nothing.
Many publications have chosen not to be so reckless and imply guilt in their headlines, opting to exercise 'caution' and use such words as 'accused' or 'alleged' when referring to Tsarnaev's purported involvement in the Boston marathon bombings. But it's not enough to simply place the word 'alleged' somewhere in the text of a piece if the entire article then proceeds on a basis of presumed guilt. Neither is it acceptable to publish/air an entirely speculative or opinion-based piece, without informing the reader that's precisely what it is.
Sensationalist (an in many cases factually wrong) reporting, has reduced the Boston marathon bombing case to a form of titillating entertainment to be readily consumed by the masses. This vile 'freak show' element is particularly sinister as it virtually eliminates the once perceived need to address anything significant, whilst simultaneously appealing to the very worst of human nature: scape-goating, xenophobia, racism, death penalty porn and all forms of prejudice.
Consequently, jurors (whether they are aware of bias or not) may not consider the trial process with the degree of seriousness and pragmatism it surely demands - precisely because it's an extension of the freak show that preceded it. If the 'normal' environment centres around comic book illustrations and gossip driven 'information' such as that in the Globe's 'The Fall of The House of Tsarnaev', or TV shows like 'Justice with Judge Jeanine', then that normality is what influences all on a subconscious level.
The media wields tremendous power in our society. Newspapers, magazines, television, and social media not only spread information, but also determine the subjects people talk and form strong opinions about. Consequently, those reading and viewing today will be called to serve tomorrow.
Whatever the outcome of the marathon bombing case, one can only hope potential jurors will never be unduly influenced by 'journalism' such as this:
Many publications have chosen not to be so reckless and imply guilt in their headlines, opting to exercise 'caution' and use such words as 'accused' or 'alleged' when referring to Tsarnaev's purported involvement in the Boston marathon bombings. But it's not enough to simply place the word 'alleged' somewhere in the text of a piece if the entire article then proceeds on a basis of presumed guilt. Neither is it acceptable to publish/air an entirely speculative or opinion-based piece, without informing the reader that's precisely what it is.
Sensationalist (an in many cases factually wrong) reporting, has reduced the Boston marathon bombing case to a form of titillating entertainment to be readily consumed by the masses. This vile 'freak show' element is particularly sinister as it virtually eliminates the once perceived need to address anything significant, whilst simultaneously appealing to the very worst of human nature: scape-goating, xenophobia, racism, death penalty porn and all forms of prejudice.
Consequently, jurors (whether they are aware of bias or not) may not consider the trial process with the degree of seriousness and pragmatism it surely demands - precisely because it's an extension of the freak show that preceded it. If the 'normal' environment centres around comic book illustrations and gossip driven 'information' such as that in the Globe's 'The Fall of The House of Tsarnaev', or TV shows like 'Justice with Judge Jeanine', then that normality is what influences all on a subconscious level.
The media wields tremendous power in our society. Newspapers, magazines, television, and social media not only spread information, but also determine the subjects people talk and form strong opinions about. Consequently, those reading and viewing today will be called to serve tomorrow.
Whatever the outcome of the marathon bombing case, one can only hope potential jurors will never be unduly influenced by 'journalism' such as this:
Recommend this:
VISIT OUR MAIN ARTICLES AND FEATURED STORIES INDEX HERE
Want more? For NIPS, quick takes, and blog posts by the main contributors to this site visit here
________________________________________________
We actively encourage comments, discussion and debate on this site! Please remember to keep it relevant and be respectful at all times.
Want more? For NIPS, quick takes, and blog posts by the main contributors to this site visit here
________________________________________________
We actively encourage comments, discussion and debate on this site! Please remember to keep it relevant and be respectful at all times.