But clearly it’s better for the jury not to have been put in that position in the first case! After all, this situation was entirely avoidable.
Publicity influencing the jury is an issue with any trial where the circumstances have been in the media. Basically, the rule is not “have you even heard of this case”, but rather “can you keep and open mind and rule on the facts presented in court”. Nobody is going to avoid a trial because of pretrial publicity, although in some cases the tone of that publicity might allow for a change of venue. Video or not, sold or givenaway, it does not matter.
(If OJ could get a jury trial in California, anyone can get a jury trial).
The question is credebility and motivation of the players. If there’s a chance that it was all a setup, would you want to send a poor, innocent party animal to jail? Selling the tape was a minus, but aspointed out above, the price was pretty minor. The other plus for the complainant’s credibility is that they waited a long time to make the sale, so it was not a matter of instantly cashing in. Then there’s the whole set of follow-on questions, who approached whom about the sale, what was the original demand, etc.
This as opposed to some hypothetical murder trial, where a sole witness might receive, say, a year’s wages or more for their story. In that case - do you believe this person, or are they making it up? Would you convict someone with that alternate explanation for the testimony?
IANAL, I don’t know if evidence or testimony can be excluded by the judge based on the fact that it was bought. Obviously, people under plea bargains testify, and they are probably trading off for something far more valuable. Expert witnesses, IIRC, are paid for their time and expertise. The prosecutor presents evidence that he believes will convict, and the defense tries to explain why that evidence is flawed. Often the prosecution will not include evidence, if they feel that it creates more doubt than conviction.
Does the video fall in that category? Stay tuned…
Actually, at least in English law, jury tampering ( which includes anyone including court officials approaching a juror to persuade them of guilt or innocence, or threats or bribery ) is a serious offence.
And it seems to be the case in New Jersey at least ( where they prolly have experience ):
Otherwise, corrupting or influencing a jury will remain a crime of the third degree without a presumption of non-imprisonment. A crime of the third degree is punishable by a term of imprisonment of 3-5 years and a fine of up to $10,000.
That has no relevance to this case. No one is accused of jury tampering. I don’t even think there’s a jury yet.
Didn’t say it had: I was responding to A. Gwilliam’s assertion that it wouldn’t be wrong, not to whatever you imagined I was responding to.
I think you misunderstand - **A. Gwilliam ** was trying to say “everyone agrees that jury tampering after the jury is selected is wrong”. He just bungled the phrase “anyone would argue”.
I’m glad you posted this! When I read Claverhouse’s post, I thought: “Why is (s)he telling us this?” After reading your post, I re-read my post. And re-read it again. And then re-read it again; it was only then that I discovered I’d somehow managed to construct a sentence in such a way that someone else could understand it in the exact opposite sense of what was intended. Maybe there’s some transpondialism involved. Anyway, I shall endeavour to be more careful in future! :o
Is this how wars get started…?! 
But there are plenty of cases in which something like a car chase is broadcast by the news media in real time. The footage could be used as evidence with no problem.
I think you over-estimate how many people give a crap about this case. There should be plenty of jurors in the pool who either never saw the tape (like me) or who will be able to give a fair verdict even after having seen the tape before.
Here - Entertainiment Tonight purchased rights to airthe tape and is airing clips of the video tonight.
It must be a California thing. The sales person for exclusive craft jewelery that costs thousands a pop is dressed like she’s ready to clean out her garage.
I hadn’t considered that, since it’s not something that’s ever happened over here (that I know of). However, I did have in mind cases where the police go to the media to help get publicity for someone on the run, or in extreme cases for someone running around shooting people. I’m not sure in my mind about your scenario, but in the latter example there’s a clear difference from that in the OP.
As I said earlier, the case in the OP was entirely avoidable.
But it’s better not to have a potential problem in the first place. You can’t unwatch something. And a ludicrous number of people clearly follow anything in the news (even if it isn’t news itself) regarding the alleged activities of alleged celebrities (and then discuss said alleged activities with their friends or family).
In some countries it’s not even possible for the media to name someone as having been charged with a crime, in an effort to avoid “trial by media”.
I knew. I just like good, clean fun.