Right to an Impartial Trial (From Criminal Justice Administration Cases and Materials, Fourth Edition, P 811-827, 1991, Frank W Miller, Robert O Dawson, et al. -- See NCJ-129355)

• NCJ Number: 129373
• Author(s): F W Miller; R O Dawson; G E Dix; R I Parnas
• Date Published: 1991
• Length: 17 pages
• Sale Source: Foundation Press
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Description
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

After an introductory discussion of legal principles in the change of trial venue and of judge to promote a fair trial, this chapter presents the U.S. Supreme Court case of Murphy v. Florida (1975), which addresses the impact of pretrial publicity on the accused's right to a fair trial.

Abstract

Venue in criminal proceedings generally lies in the locality in which the charged offense was allegedly committed; however, American jurisdictions usually have procedures for changing the trial location when there is sufficient reason to believe that trial in the locality provided by general venue rules would be "unfair." Local procedures also often provide for proceedings to determine whether the case should be heard before a judge other than the one initially designated to hear it. This may be done on demand by the defendant, on the judge's own motion, or for cause provided by law or by the Code of Judicial Conduct. In Murphy v. Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the petitioner was not denied a fair trial because members of the jury had learned from news accounts about a prior felony conviction or certain facts about the crime with which the defendant was charged. Case notes are provided.