Opinion ID: 1192990
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Newspaper Publicity.

Text: Through a witness named Tebrich the government offered to prove the substance of a conversation that took place in an automobile containing Oxenberg, Tebrich and two other men during the evening preceding the fire. Out of the presence of the jury, Tebrich said that there was a conversation about as to who is a heavy sleeper and a light sleeper. He did not recall who started the conversation, and he did not testify as to what any particular person said. This testimony was excluded by the court. That afternoon the Ketchikan Daily News carried a front page story on the day's events of the trial. In approximately the middle of the newspaper account reference was made to Tebrich's statement about light sleepers. The rest of the story, including the heading, was concerned with other developments at the trial. The following morning Oxenberg's counsel moved for a mistrial on the ground that the newspaper had reported testimony which had been excluded by the court, that the jury was presumed to have read it, and that it was seriously prejudicial to Oxenberg. The court denied the motion. Oxenberg assigns this ruling as error. There was no showing that any juror had read the news account. Oxenberg argues, however, that it would be beyond credibility to believe that one or more of the jurors, who were allowed to separate at the conclusion of each day in court and return to their homes, had not read the article. That may be a fair assumption. [14] But it would not follow necessarily that the trial court committed reversible error in denying the motion for a mistrial. The fundamental question first to be determined is whether the article was prejudicial  i.e., whether it is likely that the jury's verdict was affected by reason of the statements contained in the newspaper. [15] That likelihood does not appear in this case. This was not an instance where the jurors were exposed to information of a character which the trial judge had considered so prejudicial it could not be directly offered as evidence. [16] Tebrich didn't know who had started the conversation or who had made the statement regarding light and heavy sleepers. Tebrich's narrative of this event was excluded because, in the words of the trial judge, it wasn't connected up, that is, the government could not produce other or further evidence of a similar or connecting nature. The trial judge did not indicate in any way that he believed the evidence would be prejudicial. It is extremely doubtful that there could have been any prejudice to Oxenberg  that the jury's verdict was in any way influenced by what one or more jurors may have seen in the newspaper. If the conversation had not been excluded, it would have amounted to nothing more than additional corroborative evidence of the same general type that was admissible and had been introduced. It could have added little to the final result, for without it there was more than ample corroboration to justify the court's decision to submit the case to the jury. The trial judge has a large discretion in ruling on issues of this kind. [17] We find no abuse of that discretion.