English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

There is widespread concern that extensive crime reporting in the mass media threatens the right of an accused to a fair trial by influencing the behavior of judges and juries. Several kinds of crime coverage may have this effect: the publication of information and opinions which might be inadmissible as evidence,1 the testimony of unsworn witnesses, 2 the sensational and one-sided presentation of material which would be admissible in court,3 and even the extensive reporting of the bare facts of a criminal incident. 4 No empirical studies, however, have been made to identify the forms of crime coverage most likely to result in prejudice or describe the kinds of criminal proceedings most affected by extensive publicity. The problem posed by crime coverage is almost universally acknowledged, but the focus of recent inquiry has been directed less to the nature of the problem than to the search for appropriate solutions.5 This comment will review several measures designed to immunize criminal proceedings from the prejudicial effects of publicity and suggest a system based on automatic relief to defendants as the appropriate next step in limiting the prejudicial effects of extensive coverage of crimes.

"Free Press-Fair Trial" Revisited: Defendant-Centered Remedies as a Publicity Policy