When brothers Erik and Lyle Menendez were retried for their parents’ murder in 1995, America was taken by storm. While the brothers’ supporters sympathized with their testimonies of childhood sexual abuse, others accused them of lies and greed. Media sources raced to cover their retrial, creating public controversy surrounding the brothers’ culpability. This media coverage became so extensive that Erik Menendez’s lawyer, Leslie Abramson, spoke about the negative effects of this publicity in a 1996 interview. She stated, “I am absolutely terrified of the retrial in this case. Not because I don’t believe my client; I do […] but because I don’t know how to purge from the minds of the jury pool these lies.”
Abramson’s fear highlights the potentially harmful influence of biases from pretrial publicity (PTP) on jurors’ verdict decisions. Therefore, to limit the influence of negative PTP on juror decision-making, I argue for the revision of current interventions against PTP through reforms of extended voir dire and bias awareness training.
Research consistently supports the claim that PTP negatively biases jurors’ perceptions of defendants. One study examining 1,831 newspaper articles determined common factors of pretrial media that negatively portrayed defendants, such as emotional language and defendant character details that are inadmissible in trial. Furthermore, alongside another study revealing how mock jurors exposed to negative PTP deliver more guilty verdicts, recent research also suggests that mock jurors exposed to negative PTP perceive unclear evidence as evidence of guilt, an error contributing to wrongful convictions.
The media is undoubtedly a useful tool to inform the public. In fact, some research suggests that PTP can be beneficial to defendants when the coverage is positive, as mock jurors exposed to positive PTP deliver more innocent verdicts. However, with an overwhelming majority of PTP being negative, it is essential to discuss its devastating impacts on defendants awaiting trial– regardless of their culpability. In the United States Constitution, defendants are guaranteed the right to an impartial jury under the Sixth Amendment. Yet, jurors’ formation of biased opinions of defendants due to exposure to negative PTP undermines this Constitutional right and increases the risk of wrongful convictions.
As media usage and exposure increases with time, potential biases from negative PTP become increasingly presented across many contexts. In the Menendez brothers’ case, not only did negative PTP present itself in their 1995 retrial, but modern portrayals of their case, such as the 2024 Netflix series Monsters, reveal the perpetual nature of negative media.
The Netflix series Monsters depicts the lives of the Menendez brothers leading up to and after their 1996 conviction for their parents’ murder. Viewers have raised controversy over how the series portrays the brothers in the public eye.
Our current judicial system has implemented voir dire–a series of questions about juror’s demographics, legal experience, and attitudes–to identify and remove potentially biased jurors. If a juror’s responses are approved by both the prosecution and defense, they are permitted to serve on that jury. However, there are several weaknesses to the voir dire process worth addressing.
Voir dire relies on jurors answering questions truthfully, including those regarding PTP exposure. Additionally, even if jurors respond truthfully, voir dire cannot always detect their unconscious, implicit biases that may affect later verdict decisions. This weakness is illustrated by the juror selection process in the Menendez brothers’ retrial. A 1993 LA Times interview revealed that when one potential juror was questioned about her PTP exposure, she stated that she had “None at all”, though later added that “two brothers were alleged (to have) shot and killed their rich parents for money” (Abrahamson, 1993). Not only did this potential juror lie about her PTP exposure, she also held a preconceived negative opinion of the brothers’ motive, unsupported by trial evidence. Therefore, in high-profile cases, current voir dire is unreliable at eliminating jurors biased by PTP.
As endorsed by lawyers, extended voir dire should include a compounded method for addressing PTP exposure. First, supplemental questioning should begin by asking jurors whether they were exposed to PTP. Then, various direct questions should be asked regarding jurors’ typical media usage, engagement levels, and preferred media platforms. This complex voir dire regarding PTP exposure can help to protect jury impartiality.
Additionally, courts must address jurors’ implicit biases through bias awareness training. While past research shows that verbal instruction alone is insufficient at preventing PTP biases, a more recent study used an interactive game to demonstrate how engaging, interactive bias awareness training helps reduce implicit bias. Put simply, physical engagement with activities designed to raise awareness of bias decreases bias post-activity. Therefore, interactive bias awareness training can help detect jurors biased by PTP when voir dire cannot.
Opposing views claim these interventions are impractical to implement. Interactive bias awareness training can be costly, and both training and expanded voir dire may lengthen already time-sensitive legal proceedings. Further, the American public already criticizes expenditures of their tax dollars within the judicial system, perceiving minimal benefits in return. However, I argue that incorporating these reforms into the judicial system will hold systematic benefits:
First, funds allocated to interactive bias awareness training can limit the amount of taxpayer dollars spent on housing prisoners, some of whom are wrongfully convicted.
Expanding voir dire questioning to deeply address PTP exposure can also ensure that jurors remain impartial, decreasing the possibility of hung juries (those unable to reach a verdict) and preventing retrials. Thus, the time and taxpayer dollars spent on trials decreases.
Alongside these systematic benefits, I urge our perspectives to shift from prioritizing efficiency to instead emphasizing community protection, from defendants’ rights to jury impartiality to avoiding wrongful convictions. Juror impartiality is essential to protecting the Sixth Amendment rights of defendants. Moreover, fair trials provide justice to victims of crime and protect the safety of American citizens.
It remains uncertain why the Menendez brothers murdered their parents in the summer of 1989. However, it is clear that their high-profile trial, one depicting alleged childhood trauma and abuse, was negatively affected by the PTP surrounding it. Therefore, in a society where we are exposed to PTP daily, it is essential that our judicial system undergoes reform through expanded voir dire and bias awareness training to ensure defendants like the Menendez brothers receive the fair trials guaranteed by the Constitution and that innocent defendants remain free.