Pretrial Publicity In The Case Of Irwin V. Dowd

Pretrial publicity has been addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court since the 1960s. In the revolutionary case of Irwin v. Dowd, the defendant, Leslie Irvin, was convicted of committing six murders in a rural area of Indiana. The crimes generated extensive media coverage, in both television and print. Irvin argued that the pretrial publicity prevented him from receiving a fair trial by an impartial jury. It was found that 8 of the 12 jurors who heard the case had decided that Irvin was guilty before the trial began, which led the Court to agree with Irvin. Despite these admissions, the trial judge had accepted as conclusive the jurors' statements that they would be able to render an impartial verdict. The Court held that the substantial publicity

In a study published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Steven Fein, Allison McCloskey, Thomas Tomlinson (1997) investigated the use of suspicion to reduce the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity. Participants were presented with pretrial publicity, which was incriminating information about the defendant. The participants then took part in a mock trial. The judge instructed the jury members to disregard any previous information regarding the case and asked if they could perform their duties in an impartial and diligent way. However, the verdicts given by the participants were affected significantly by the information given during the pretrial publicity. This effect was mediated if the jury members were given reasons to be suspicious about why the incriminating information was introduced into the media. Defending attorneys need to address the information presented in pretrial publicity to weaken the biasing effects of a variety of non-evidentiary factors on the jury members’ verdicts. If publicity regarding trials cannot be completely disallowed before the trial has become, attorney’s need to be aware of what is being said by the media so they can address it during the trial. By doing so, the effects of pretrial publicity can be mediated, making it more likely that the defendant

However, pretrial publicity has been shown the significantly affect the judgments jury members make about the defendant, which subsequently affects their interpretation of evidence and their overall verdicts. The biases brought about by pretrial publicity deny the defendant a trial by an impartial jury, a right guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. By postponing the publicity of the case until after the trial has begun would still give the media their First Amendment right of reporting the details of the case and give the defendant his Sixth Amendment right of an impartial jury. Even if all pretrial publicity cannot be halted, defending attorneys can use strategies to mediate the effects of pretrial publicity. It is important to be aware of the effects pretrial publicity has on the judgments of jury members in order to ensure defendants rights are not violated. It is a balancing act, trying to ensure that everyone is guaranteed his or her First and Sixth Amendment rights during the trial. By reviewing the evidence of the effects pretrial publicity has on the outcome of trials will help generate ideas on how to ensure the press maintains their First Amendment right to report the information of a trial and the defendant is