Open Access Research Article
MEDIA ROLE IN WRONGFUL CONVICTION
Published Paper
Article Details
MEDIA ROLE IN
WRONGFUL CONVICTION
AUTHORED BY - DHNANJY GUPTA
STUDENT [PERSUING BA.LLB (HONS.)]
UNITED WORLD SCHOOL OF LAW
KARNAVATI UNIVERSITY, GANDHINAGAR,
INDIA
ABSTRACT:
The criminal justice system faces a
serious issue with wrongful convictions; estimates place the number of
erroneous convictions at 2% to 5%. Through its coverage of crime and justice,
the media can lead to false convictions and plays a significant role in
influencing public perceptions of the legal system. This study looks at how the
media covers examples of false convictions, with a particular emphasis on how
media framing affects how the public views the reasons that lead to mistaken
convictions.The public's perception of the issue can be distorted by the
media's propensity to report on more serious crimes and penalties
disproportionately, which can result in calls for harsher punishments for those
who may not merit them.A poll of public opinion towards the judicial system and
a content analysis of media coverage of wrongful conviction cases are part of
the research strategy and methodology. The results show that the media
frequently presents wrongful conviction instances in a way that prioritises
some contributing circumstances over others, and that this framing might affect
how the general public views the legal system. The case studies of erroneous
convictions brought about by media coverage show how media coverage affects
public opinion and legislative choices. The conversation focuses on the
significance of the findings for preventative journalism, stressing the
necessity for journalists to report on the police and the courts while keeping
in mind their personal responsibility to avoid accusing the innocent. More
training in preventive journalism and the significance of ethical reporting on
the legal system are among the recommendations made for politicians and journalists.
Future studies will examine how social media affects the public's view of
erroneous convictions and how the media contributes to the criminal justice
system's accountability and openness.
Keywords-
wrongful convictions, media coverage, contributing factors, public perceptions,
criminal justice system
Introduction:
In cases of wrongful conviction, the media
is crucial since they can be a source of controversy as well as a critical eye
on these injustices. On the one hand, strong public pressure—often stoked by
media coverage—to solve crimes and condemn suspects can generate an environment
of fear and public pressure that could result in erroneous convictions.
However, the media can also act as a scrutineer, revealing and looking into
cases of erroneous convictions while also bringing the matter to the public's
attention. A critical component of this work is media framing, which has the
power to alter public opinions about the justice system as a whole and the
elements that contribute to unjust convictions[1].
According to studies, media framing can skew public views of the main reasons
for wrongful convictions and affect the public's desire for changes that
prioritise addressing some contributing elements over others[2].The
public's perception of the issue can be distorted by the media's propensity to
report on more serious crimes and penalties disproportionately, which can
result in calls for harsher punishments for those who may not merit them. This
in turn may have an effect on the judgements made on public policy, since a
public opinion survey would force decision-makers to take the people's
viewpoint into account and may result in more severe penalties for individuals
who may not have earned them[3].In
order to stop more unjust convictions and enhance the administration of
justice, journalists must engage in preventative journalism by looking into
wrongful convictions and reporting on the legal system in a responsible and
knowledgeable manner.
Sensationalism And Crime Reporting:
The justice system and society at large
may be significantly impacted by the use of sensationalism in crime reporting.
Sensationalism has the power to alter public perceptions of crime in general,
resulting in heightened anxiety and an undue focus on particular categories of
criminal activity[4]. This biassed
representation may affect how the public views the issue and how legislators
respond, which could result in the adoption of ineffective criminal justice and
crime prevention measures. For instance, when violent crimes like murders and
sexual assaults are the focus of the media, resources may be disproportionately
allocated to these crimes at the expense of other crimes like property crimes
or white-collar crimes. As a result, there may be an imbalance in the criminal
justice system, where some offences get more attention and resources than
others.
Another possible effect of sensationalism
in crime reporting is the instillation of dread. Constant exposure to crime
stories—especially those that arouse strong emotions—may be a factor in the
development of "mean world syndrome[5]."
This syndrome characterises the occurrence when people seek more severe
penalties and stringent law enforcement procedures because they believe the
world is more dangerous than it actually is. In response to these demands,
politicians eager to calm a frightened public could enact measures that lack
scientific backing or that disproportionately affect particular communities[6].
This may set off a vicious cycle of fear that results in more severe penalties
and stringent law enforcement procedures, all of which may further skew public
perceptions of crime and the criminal justice system.
Importance
of media role in wrongful conviction cases:
The media plays a critical role in cases
of wrongful conviction because it may expose the tales of innocent people who
have been wrongfully convicted, call attention to the shortcomings in the legal
system, and mobilise popular support for exoneration. In addition, the media
can operate as a watchdog by investigating the activities of law enforcement,
prosecutors, and courts, and holding the legal system responsible[7].
Nonetheless, there may be drawbacks to the
media's involvement in cases of unjust conviction. The way the media covers
crime and justice can lead to erroneous convictions due to sensationalism,
skewed reporting, and the reinforcement of negative stereotypes. A false
perception of the overall crime landscape can be produced by sensationalism in
media coverage of crime and justice, which can amplify feelings of fear and
place an undue emphasis on particular sorts of crimes[8].
This biassed representation may affect how the public views the issue and how
legislators respond, which could result in the adoption of ineffective criminal
justice and crime prevention measures.
Inaccurate convictions can also result
from biassed reporting, as it can foster a climate in which the accused
perceives that everyone is against them[9].
One-sided and presumptively guilty media coverage can create a terrifying
reality in hich the media's portrayal can influence the proceedings within the
courtroom. One cannot undervalue the influence that the media has on public
opinion, and it is important to recognise this influence. In instances of
unjust conviction, the media's involvement is crucial for keeping the legal
system responsible. By closely examining the activities of law enforcement,
prosecutors, and the courts, the media can operate as a watchdog. By doing
this, the media can contribute to the maintenance of a just and fair legal system
and prevent the wrongful conviction of innocent people.
Contributing
factors to wrongful conviction:
One important way to influence public
opinion and understanding of the criminal justice system is through the framing
of contributing reasons to erroneous convictions in the media. Studies and
investigations have demonstrated the impact that media coverage, particularly
in situations involving racial bias, can have on how criminal defendants are
portrayed. The way the media presents criminal cases, particularly the language
they use, the images they employ, and how they portray offenders and victims,
can lead to unjust and inconsistent verdicts in the courts[10].
Additionally, the use of imagery in media
coverage might reinforce guilt-based assumptions and reinforce stereotypes[11].
For instance, the use of mugshots in media reports might contribute to the
assumption of guilt even before a trial has started by reinforcing unfavourable
preconceptions about Black men. This may affect the public's perception of a
case and have an effect on the verdict.
Bias in media coverage can also result
from linguistic decisions. Certain words and phrases have the power to
perpetuate stereotypes and increase guilt-related assumptions. The term
"thug" is often used to characterise Black defendants, which can
reinforce unfavourable preconceptions and increase the likelihood of guilt.
Comparably, highlighting a defendant's criminal past in court proceedings might
raise the possibility of a presumption of guilt, affect public opinion of the
case, and possibly affect the verdict.
Impact
of media coverage on public opinion and Decision making:
One important area of political
communication research is the effect of media coverage on public opinion and
governmental decisions. Public opinion, policy preferences, and political
conduct are all influenced by media coverage of politically significant
subjects[12]. Policymakers' attention
to issues and their decisions about policies, notably those related to budgets,
can also be influenced by the media.
Studies have indicated that public opinion
surveys and perceptions of popular attitude can be influenced by media
coverage. For instance, a study that was published in the Public Opinion
Quarterly discovered that polling behaviour can be influenced by media
coverage, with people being more inclined to support a candidate or cause if
they think it has widespread support from the public[13].
In a similar vein, research published in
the American Political Science Review discovered that media coverage of policy
topics signals the significance of those concerns to the public and
politicians, reflecting and influencing public opinion and policy change.
The media has the power to affect
lawmakers' decisions and attention to topics[14].
According to research, the priority that citizens place on issues can be
communicated to politicians through media coverage, and vice versa—media
coverage of policy topics influences the agenda for policy.
But there is a complicated and reciprocal
relationship between public opinion, media coverage, and policy actions. Though
public opinion and policy decisions are influenced by media coverage, media
coverage is also influenced by public opinion and policy decisions.
It was discovered that public perceptions
of public sentiment can be influenced by media coverage, and that public
perceptions of politically significant problems can be shaped by media
coverage.
But there is a complicated and reciprocal
relationship between public opinion, media coverage, and policy decisions;
public opinion and policy changes are both reflected in and influenced by media
coverage.
Role of social media in shaping
public perception:
Social media is become a potent instrument
for influencing public opinion, even in situations where someone has been
wrongfully convicted. Social media sites like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter
have grown to be important debate and informational tools for a large number of
people, and it is impossible to overlook how they affect public opinion and the
formulation of public policy[15].
Social media can have a significant impact
on how the public views the accused, the victim, and the legal system in cases
of wrongful conviction[16].
Social media sites can be used to exchange ideas, disseminate information, and
rally support for a cause. On the other hand, there are drawbacks to using
social media in wrongful conviction cases, such as the propagation of false
information, the maintenance of damaging stereotypes, and the instillation of
fear.
Social media can influence public opinion
in cases of unjust conviction by using images, among other things[17].
Even before a trial has started, the usage of mugshots in media coverage of
criminal cases can bolster suspicions of guilt. Comparably, disseminating
pictures of the accused or the victim via social media can also have a similar
outcome, especially if the pictures are chosen to support unfavourable
preconceptions or to advance a specific story.
The way that wrongful conviction cases are
covered on social media can potentially be biassed by the language used.
Certain words and phrases have the power to perpetuate stereotypes and increase
guilt-related assumptions. The term "thug" is often used to characterise
Black defendants, which can reinforce unfavourable preconceptions and increase
the likelihood of guilt. Similar to this, language that highlights the
offender's criminal past might raise suspicions of guilt, but language that
highlights the innocence of the victim can do the opposite.
In the end, biassed social media coverage
can impact the fairness and accuracy of court procedures by feeding
stereotypes, maintaining a guilt presumption, and creating a skewed perception
of crime and justice. In order to solve this problem, steps must be taken to
stop prejudice from entering the criminal justice system, inform the public
about how social media coverage affects criminal trials, and motivate social
media users to report on criminal trials objectively and fairly. By doing this,
we may contribute to ensuring that justice is carried out and that the accused
is given a fair and impartial trial.
Pre-trial
publicity and fair trial rights of media coverage:
Pretrial publicity and how it affects
defendants' rights to a fair trial in the criminal justice system are important
issues that call for a careful balancing act between press freedom and the
right to a fair trial. Pretrial publicity is the term used to describe public
discourse and media attention to a case prior to trial, which may have an
impact on potential witnesses, juries, and the trial's general fairness[18].
Particularly in high-profile cases, media
coverage has the power to sway public opinion, engender prejudice, and even
bias juries. The right of the defendant to be presumed innocent till proven
guilty may be compromised by the widespread and frequently sensationalised
reporting of criminal cases, which can result in an assumption of guilt even
before the trial starts[19].
Various legal remedies and techniques are
used to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial in order to address the
issues presented by pretrial publicity[20].
Among them are:
Voir
Dire:
In this procedure, prospective jurors are questioned to determine their
objectivity and capacity to make decisions based on the evidence that is
presented in court rather than preconceived ideas based on media coverage.
Continuance:
Delaying the trial to give prospective jurors time to forget or become less
swayed by media coverage, as well as to mitigate the effects of pretrial
exposure.
Sequestration:
Preventing biassed information from influencing jurors' decisions during the
trial by removing them from external influences, such as media coverage.
Change
of Venue: Transferring the trial to a new site in order to
mitigate the influence of local press coverage and public sentiment on the jury
pool.
The public's right to knowledge, the
press's freedom of speech, and the defendant's right to a fair trial must all
be balanced by the courts[21].
Jury
bias and decision making:
Media coverage, especially in the form of
pretrial exposure, can have a substantial impact on jury bias and
decision-making. This phenomena relates to how a case is discussed and covered
by the media before to trial, which may have an impact on witnesses, juries,
and the trial's general fairness[22].
According to a study, pretrial publicity
that is biassed against the prosecution or defendant can have a significant
impact on jurors' perceptions, interpretations of the evidence, and verdicts[23].
Juror judgements can be influenced by
media coverage of legal matters in a number of ways. For instance, a wide range
of legally relevant material obtained from media sources, such as newspaper
articles, radio and television news, advertisements, motion pictures, televised
crime series, and courtroom scenes, may have an impact on jurors' decisions.
Juror deliberations can mitigate the
influence of pretrial publicity on jurors' decision-making, while this remedy's
efficacy is debatable. While some studies contend that collective
decision-making can result in poor decision performance and extreme, biassed
positions, others contend that deliberations may help the courts limit juror
bias[24].
The social influence of pretrial publicity
on juror biases emphasises the necessity of collaboration between social
psychologists and the legal system to identify practical measures to reduce
pretrial publicity's biassing effects[25].
Challenges
faced by the exonerees in rebuilding their lives:
After being falsely convicted, exonerees
must overcome numerous obstacles in order to start over[26].
These obstacles are numerous and diverse, including mental and practical
barriers that may have a major effect on their reintegration into society[27].
Among the main obstacles exonerees must overcome to start again in their new
lives are:
Problems
with Mental Health: The trauma of unjust incarceration
causes exonerees to suffer from a variety of mental health issues, including
depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). These mental
health problems may significantly affect their capacity to reintegrate into
society after release from jail and to regain their self-worth.
Social
Stigma: Exonerees must deal with social stigma, which can
make it very challenging for them to find housing, work, and the help they
require. Reintegration might be hampered by the stigma attached to an incorrect
conviction, which can also cause feelings of social estrangement and
loneliness.
Financial
Strain: Those who have been wrongfully convicted frequently
return home with little money to support their rehabilitation and
self-restoration. Years of unjustified imprisonment can put exonerees in a
difficult financial situation that makes it difficult for them to meet their
basic necessities, find stable housing, and get access to services.
Lack
of Support Systems: Exonerees may find it more difficult to
reintegrate into society if they do not have sufficient support networks. In
the absence of a robust support system comprising social, material, and emotional
help, exonerees could find it difficult to deal with the challenges of
reconstructing their life after being freed.
Legal
Difficulties: In their efforts to clear their records,
obtain recompense for their false conviction, and obtain resources to ease
their reintegration into society, exonerees frequently run into legal
difficulties. For exonerees, navigating the legal system and fighting for
justice can be difficult and time-consuming tasks[28].
Recidivism
Risk:
Tragically, some exonerees may experience recidivism as a result of inadequate
support networks and reintegration difficulties, which feeds the unjust cycle.
Exonerees may find it difficult to surmount the challenges they encounter in
reconstructing their lives in the absence of the required tools and assistance.
Case studies of wrongful conviction:
Wrongful convictions have been a major
problem in India, and media coverage has been a major factor in shaping these
verdicts. Sensationalism and political reporting by the media have frequently resulted
in the conviction of innocent people; examples of this include the incidents of
the 2002 Gujarat riots and the Nithari killings. In these instances, political
and social prejudices had a significant impact on the media's reporting, which
distorted the public's understanding of the incidents and the participants.
Mohinder Singh Pandher was wrongfully
convicted in the Nithari killings case due to the media's sensationalised
reportage and the police's reliance on it. A public demand for justice was
sparked by the media's heavy coverage of the case, which included vivid details
of the murders and the accused. As a result, the police raced to identify a
culprit and utilised shaky evidence to condemn Pandher.
Similar to this, political and communal
prejudices greatly influenced the media's coverage of the 2002 Gujarat riots,
which distorted the public's perception of the unrest and the government's
response.
When it came to covering the riots, the
media frequently highlighted the violence of one community while downplaying or
ignoring the violence of the other, which resulted in a skewed perception of
the events and the participants.
The criminal justice system can be
significantly impacted by the sensationalism and biassed reporting of the
media, which frequently results in erroneous convictions and a skewed
perception of the facts. To ensure that justice is done and the public is
informed in a responsible and unbiased manner, it is imperative that the media
report on these matters honestly and accurately, taking into account the
intricacies and nuances of the legal system.
Wrongful convictions have a significant
effect on the family of the falsely convicted in addition to the difficulties
exonerees encounter in starting over. The falsely convicted and their families
can suffer from unimaginable psychological trauma and emotional suffering,
which frequently leaves them with lifelong scars that continue to affect their
mental health long after they are freed[29].
It is crucial to investigate the reforms
and actions that can lessen the likelihood of miscarriages of justice in order
to prevent erroneous convictions. Enhancing police education in areas like
identifying eyewitnesses and questioning methods is critical, as is putting
best practices and oversight in place to protect the rights of the accused.
Another essential is making sure that everyone, regardless of income level, has
access to quality legal representation a step in preventing wrongful
conviction.
The individual in question was accused of
triple murder and had served nearly 19 years in prison. He was given a life
sentence by the additional district and sessions judge, but an appeal was then
filed at the supreme court. When they discovered there was insufficient
evidence to convict him, the top court dropped all of the charges against him.
Later, he made a statement to the media in which he said that although though
his family does not accept him now, he will work hard to win back their
confidence (Suffian).
Six people were found guilty by the
Supreme Court of killing and raping a lady and her fifteen-year-old daughter in
the aforementioned case. One of the six individuals was underage when they were
sentenced. These men were members of a socially conservative community who were
unfairly convicted. The other four individuals were recognised by the
eyewitness as the culprits, but the police had closed the case without looking
into it further. Thus, an ineffective government was the cause of these six
men's suffering. The state was ordered by the court to compensate each of the
five lakhs of people who had spent sixteen years in prison for a crime they had
not even committed[32].
Conclusion:
The sources emphasised the importance
of journalistic ethics when covering criminal cases. When reporting on crimes
involving victims, journalists can refer to a code of ethics provided by the
Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) for guidance. Seeking the truth,
preventing harm, acting on one's own initiative, and being open and honest are
all stressed in this code[33].
The pursuit of truth and the possible harm that their reporting may do must be
balanced for journalists, particularly when covering delicate subjects like
child abuse or crimes linked to gangs.
Journalists covering criminal cases are
urged to use original sources whenever possible, take accountability for the
quality of their reporting, and double-check information before publishing it[34].
Throughout the course of a news story, they should also collect, update, and
correct information. They should also be watchful in keeping those in positions
of authority accountable and providing a voice to the voiceless. Journalists
are also recommended to refrain from catering to lurid curiosity, show sympathy
for individuals impacted by news coverage, and weigh the public's desire for
information against potential discomfort or injury.
Furthermore, while dealing with minors,
victims of sexual offences, and sources who might be inexperienced or unable to
give consent, journalists should take cultural differences into account in
their approach and treatment[35].
To ensure that reporting on criminal cases is done ethically and responsibly to
preserve the principles of truth, honesty, and sensitivity towards people
engaged in the case, it is imperative to strike a balance between the right of
a suspect to a fair trial and the public's right to know.
References:
1. “Media
Framing of Wrongful Convictions” Academic Works .
2. Sidhu-S,
“The Dualistic Role of the Media in Wrongful Convictions - Francis Gordon”
(robsoncrim, January 23, 2021)
.
3. “Role
of the Media & Public Opinion on Innocence Reform: Past and Future (From
Wrongful Conviction and Criminal Justice Reform: Making Justice, 2014, Marvin
Zalman and Julia Carrano, Eds., See NCJ-244328) | Office of Justice Programs”
.
4. “Wrongful
Convictions | National Institute of Justice” (National Institute of Justice)
.
5. Stephen
Handelman, “Attracting Readers vs. Sensationalizing Crime” (The Crime Report,
September 1, 2016)
6. “Why
Do Wrongful Convictions Happen? | Korey Wise Innocence Project | University of
Colorado Boulder”
.
7. “The
Media’s Role in Wrongful Convictions” The Crime Report
.
8. Vanguard
Administrator, “Looking Back: The Role of the Media in Setting the Stage for
Wrongful Convictions | Davis Vanguard” (Davis Vanguard, August 16, 2020)
9. “A
Qualitative Analysis of Sensationalism in Media” Research Repository
.
10. Aaron
Straus Garcia, “A Look at Racial Bias and Inequity in Media Coverage of
Criminal Defendants in the U.S.” (Global Strategy Group, December 16, 2021)
11. Tia
Fasano, “The Effect Media Has on Juror Bias” [2019] Digita Lcommons
.
12. “Media
Coverage Polls” (Oxford Academic)
.
13. “Reading
Public Opinion: The Influence of News Coverage on Perceptions of Public
Sentiment on JSTOR” www.jstor.org .
14. Emiliano
Grossman, “Media and Policy Making in the Digital Age” (2022) 25 Annual Review
of Political Science 443
.
15. The
Law Offices of Brian J. Cooke, “How Does Social Media Affect Court Cases?” (The
Law Offices of Brian J. Cooke, February 15, 2024)
16. “How
Does Social Media Shape Public Perceptions? | 4 Answers from Research Papers”
(SciSpace - Question) .
17. “UN-MAKING
A MURDERER: NEW MEDI AKING A MURDERER: NEW MEDIA’S IMPACT ON (POTENTIAL)
WRONGFUL CONVICTION CASES” Scholarlycommons
.
18. “PRETRIAL
PUBLICITY IN CRIMINAL CASES OF NATIONAL NOTORIETY: CONSTRUCTING A REMEDY FOR
THE REMEDILESS WRONG” Digital Commons
.
19. “Prejudicial
Publicity in Criminal Trials: Bringing Sheppard v. Maxwell Into the Nineties |
Office of Justice Programs”
.
20. “Is
a Fair Trial Possible in the Age of Mass Media?”
.
21. “ClaireCatonSecondPaper
- CompPrivConst - TWiki”
22. “Bias
in the Eye of the Beholder: Impact of Pretrial Publicity on Jurors’
Decision-Making”
23. Edith
Greene, “Media Effects on Jurors.” (1990) 14 Law And Human Behavior 439
.
24. “Cognitive
and Human Factors in Legal Layperson Decision Making: Sources of Bias in Juror
Decision Making” (National Center for Biotechnology Center)
25. “Pressing
the Verdict: The Social Influence of Pretrial Publicity on Juror Biases”
Scholarship
26. “Rehabilitation:
Rebuilding Lives after Exoneration - FasterCapital” (FasterCapital)
.
27. “Exploring
the Challenges Faced by Wrongfully Convicted Individuals” (Free Michael Hart,
March 27, 2024)
.
28. Heather
Weigand and others, “REBUILDING a LIFE: THE WRONGFULLY CONVICTED AND
EXONERATED,” vol 18 (2009)
.
29. “General
Issues & Reforms to Reduce the Wrongful Convictions in India - Ignited
Minds Journals” .
30. Habil
Sindhu vs State of Odisha 2021 (I) ILR – CUT -767
31. Ankush
Maruti Shinde . vs State Of Maharashtra AIR 2019 SC 1457
32. LawBhoomi
Content Team, “The Innocence Lost: A Comprehensive Study of Wrongful
Convictions” (LawBhoomi, September 25, 2023)
.
33. Natalie
Yahr, “Doing No Harm: The Call for Crime Reporting That Does Justice to the
Beat - Center for Journalism Ethics” (Center for Journalism Ethics, August 23,
2019)
34. “The
Ethics of Reporting Misdemeanor Crimes” (School of Journalism and
Communication)
.
35. “The
Intersection of Journalism Ethics and Cases of Violence against Children”
Frederick County
.
[2] Sidhu-S, “The Dualistic Role of the Media in Wrongful
Convictions - Francis Gordon” (robsoncrim,
January 23, 2021) .
[3] “Role of the Media & Public Opinion on Innocence Reform:
Past and Future (From Wrongful Conviction and Criminal Justice Reform: Making
Justice, 2014, Marvin Zalman and Julia Carrano, Eds., See NCJ-244328) | Office
of Justice Programs”
.
[5] Stephen Handelman, “Attracting Readers vs. Sensationalizing
Crime” (The Crime Report,
September 1, 2016)
[6] “Why Do Wrongful Convictions Happen? | Korey Wise Innocence
Project | University of Colorado Boulder”
.
[8] Vanguard Administrator, “Looking Back: The Role of the Media
in Setting the Stage for Wrongful Convictions | Davis Vanguard” (Davis Vanguard, August 16, 2020)
[10] Aaron Straus Garcia, “A Look at Racial Bias and Inequity in
Media Coverage of Criminal Defendants in the U.S.” (Global Strategy Group, December 16, 2021)
[13] “Reading Public Opinion: The Influence of News Coverage on
Perceptions of Public Sentiment on JSTOR” www.jstor.org
.
[14] Emiliano Grossman, “Media and Policy Making in the Digital
Age” (2022) 25 Annual Review of Political Science 443
.
[15] The Law Offices of Brian J. Cooke, “How Does Social Media
Affect Court Cases?” (The Law Offices
of Brian J. Cooke, February 15, 2024)
[16] “How Does Social Media Shape Public Perceptions? | 4 Answers
from Research Papers” (SciSpace -
Question)
.
[17] “UN-MAKING A MURDERER: NEW MEDI AKING A MURDERER: NEW
MEDIA’S IMPACT ON (POTENTIAL) WRONGFUL CONVICTION CASES” Scholarlycommons
.
[18] “PRETRIAL PUBLICITY IN CRIMINAL CASES OF NATIONAL NOTORIETY:
CONSTRUCTING A REMEDY FOR THE REMEDILESS WRONG” Digital Commons
.
[19] “Prejudicial Publicity in Criminal Trials: Bringing Sheppard
v. Maxwell Into the Nineties | Office of Justice Programs”
.
[24] “Cognitive and Human Factors in Legal Layperson Decision
Making: Sources of Bias in Juror Decision Making” (National Center for Biotechnology Center)
[25] “Pressing the Verdict: The Social Influence of Pretrial
Publicity on Juror Biases” Scholarship
.
[27] “Exploring the Challenges Faced by Wrongfully Convicted
Individuals” (Free Michael Hart,
March 27, 2024) .
[28] Heather Weigand and others, “REBUILDING a LIFE: THE
WRONGFULLY CONVICTED AND EXONERATED,” vol 18 (2009)
.
[29] “General Issues & Reforms to Reduce the Wrongful
Convictions in India - Ignited Minds Journals”
.
[30] Habil Sindhu vs State of Odisha
2021 (I) ILR – CUT -767
[31] Ankush Maruti Shinde . vs State Of
Maharashtra AIR 2019 SC 1457
[32] LawBhoomi Content Team, “The Innocence Lost: A Comprehensive
Study of Wrongful Convictions” (LawBhoomi,
September 25, 2023)
.
[33] Natalie Yahr, “Doing No Harm: The Call for Crime Reporting
That Does Justice to the Beat - Center for Journalism Ethics” (Center for Journalism Ethics, August
23, 2019)
[35] “The Intersection of Journalism Ethics and Cases of Violence
against Children” Frederick County
.
Article Information
MEDIA ROLE IN WRONGFUL CONVICTION
Authors: DHNANJY GUPTA
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/05/15
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.