AC2.4 - Assess key influences affecting the outcomes of cases.
How media can influence the outcome of cases:
In recent times, media is readily available and everywhere. Not only are newspapers
sensationalising and demonising, but so are social media accounts across all
platforms. As inescapable as it is, when hearing a case, jurors must avoid seeing any
media related to their case as it can, both consciously and unconsciously bias their
preferred verdict. It is illegal to look up any information about the case you are on as a
juror as you should be able to remain impartial in order to preserve a fair trial, however,
a fifth of jurors admitted that they struggled to disregard any pretrial coverage of the
case they had seen anyway. Furthermore, 26% of jurors admit that they had looked up
information regarding the case despite it being illegal.
Professor Cheryl Thomas found in a study that juries on high-profile cases are,
understandably, seven times more likely to recall media coverage than those on
standard cases. Similarly, she also found that the more high-profile a case is, the more
likely a juror is to look for information on it online. This means that prejudicial reporting
could lead to juries being biased.
A key example of prejudicial media coverage leading to biased juries is the case of
Christopher Jefferies, who was arrested for the murder of Jo Yeates (a landscape
architect) and consequently condemned by the press- “Everyone else saw not Chris
Jefferies, but the murderer of Jo Yeates”. Jefferies was only held in custody for 2 days
before being released on bail, but by then it was too late. News stories were using the
most ‘creepy’ images of him they could find, vilifying him and representing him as
disturbing and strange. This, of course, made a lot of people believe him to be guilty,
even though he had not committed the murder. In the event that Jefferies had been put
on trial for this case, he would not have received a fair one as a result of the
dehumanising and disrespectful media reports that were produced about him, which
would have been seen by so many people that an unbiased jury would have been
extremely difficult to build.
Another example would be the Depp v Heard trial from 2022. It was completely
televised, and the media coverage was relentless. Amber Heard became a meme on
various social media platforms such as TikTok and Twitter (X), and completely
outcasted. The issue that the lawsuit was surrounding was Amber Heard doing an
interview with a new column where she discussed domestic abuse, and what it's like
being a victim of it. As a result of this, Depp sued her for $50 million for defamation
when people related her interview to her accusation of domestic abuse towards him 8
years prior. Heard did counter-sue for $100 million, but the damage was already done.
The disgusting media reports and social media support for Johnny Depp would have
How media can influence the outcome of cases:
In recent times, media is readily available and everywhere. Not only are newspapers
sensationalising and demonising, but so are social media accounts across all
platforms. As inescapable as it is, when hearing a case, jurors must avoid seeing any
media related to their case as it can, both consciously and unconsciously bias their
preferred verdict. It is illegal to look up any information about the case you are on as a
juror as you should be able to remain impartial in order to preserve a fair trial, however,
a fifth of jurors admitted that they struggled to disregard any pretrial coverage of the
case they had seen anyway. Furthermore, 26% of jurors admit that they had looked up
information regarding the case despite it being illegal.
Professor Cheryl Thomas found in a study that juries on high-profile cases are,
understandably, seven times more likely to recall media coverage than those on
standard cases. Similarly, she also found that the more high-profile a case is, the more
likely a juror is to look for information on it online. This means that prejudicial reporting
could lead to juries being biased.
A key example of prejudicial media coverage leading to biased juries is the case of
Christopher Jefferies, who was arrested for the murder of Jo Yeates (a landscape
architect) and consequently condemned by the press- “Everyone else saw not Chris
Jefferies, but the murderer of Jo Yeates”. Jefferies was only held in custody for 2 days
before being released on bail, but by then it was too late. News stories were using the
most ‘creepy’ images of him they could find, vilifying him and representing him as
disturbing and strange. This, of course, made a lot of people believe him to be guilty,
even though he had not committed the murder. In the event that Jefferies had been put
on trial for this case, he would not have received a fair one as a result of the
dehumanising and disrespectful media reports that were produced about him, which
would have been seen by so many people that an unbiased jury would have been
extremely difficult to build.
Another example would be the Depp v Heard trial from 2022. It was completely
televised, and the media coverage was relentless. Amber Heard became a meme on
various social media platforms such as TikTok and Twitter (X), and completely
outcasted. The issue that the lawsuit was surrounding was Amber Heard doing an
interview with a new column where she discussed domestic abuse, and what it's like
being a victim of it. As a result of this, Depp sued her for $50 million for defamation
when people related her interview to her accusation of domestic abuse towards him 8
years prior. Heard did counter-sue for $100 million, but the damage was already done.
The disgusting media reports and social media support for Johnny Depp would have
