Opinion ID: 1154894
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Should prejudice be presumed?

Text: Defendant argues that outrageous pretrial publicity dictates that prejudice requiring a change of venue should be presumed  making a showing of actual prejudice unnecessary. Juror exposure to information about an offense charged ordinarily does not raise a presumption that a defendant was denied a fair trial. Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 799, 95 S.Ct. 2031, 2036, 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975). If, however, a defendant can show pretrial publicity so outrageous that it promises to turn the trial into a mockery of justice or a mere formality, prejudice will be presumed without examining the publicity's actual influence on the jury. See, e.g., id.; Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723, 726-27, 83 S.Ct. 1417, 1419-20, 10 L.Ed.2d 663 (1963); State v. Atwood, 171 Ariz. 576, 631, 832 P.2d 593, 648 (1992), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 1058, 122 L.Ed.2d 364 (1993); State v. Befford, 157 Ariz. 37, 39, 754 P.2d 1141, 1143 (1988). Clearly, there was extensive pretrial publicity; the record on appeal contains approximately 130 pretrial news stories. The frequency of these items, however, varied greatly. Approximately eighty-five items appeared from June to December 1988. From January 1989 to the beginning of trial (fourteen months) approximately fifty items appeared. [4] Thus, the frequency in 1988 was approximately three items per week while the frequency in 1989 and 1990 was less than one item per week. Some reports are duplicates, containing similar material published in different newspapers; some do not mention Defendant; and several state that Defendant was not a suspect or not a strong suspect. For the most part, the reports are factually based, and nearly all of the factual information reported in the articles was admitted at trial. Some items, however, discuss inadmissible evidence, are inaccurate, or approach the outrageous standard used in determining presumptive prejudice. For example, a June 10, 1988, article has the Sheriff stating that Defendant `flunked' a lie detector test. Defendant is described as a convicted child molester who committed child rape  incorrect descriptions of his 1981 sexual assault conviction. [5] A June 28, 1988, article reported a Phoenix-area legislator suggesting the death penalty for child molesters even if it means the execution `of a few innocent people.' The article, however, added that the suggestion prompted protests, that the proposal was unconstitutional, and contained another legislator's response criticizing the suggestion as `an affront and outrageous' and not reflecting appropriate legislative `wisdom and leadership.' A January 28, 1990, article has an inmate stating that Defendant admitted involvement in the victim's abduction. The article adds, however, that the inmate recanted and repeatedly changed his story. There are other articles that might have posed a serious threat to Defendant's fair trial rights. These items, however, were months apart and came months before trial began. Cf. Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025, 1034, 104 S.Ct. 2885, 2890, 81 L.Ed.2d 847 (1984) (That time soothes and erases is a perfectly natural phenomenon, familiar to all.). In addition, they are exceptions to the largely factual information in the great bulk of the news reports. See United States v. De La Vega, 913 F.2d 861, 865 (11th Cir.1990) (no presumed prejudice when jurors had knowledge of facts as 330 articles, with few exceptions, were largely factual), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 2011, 114 L.Ed.2d 99 (1991); United States v. Angiulo, 897 F.2d 1169, 1181 (1st Cir.) (Although the news coverage was extensive, it largely was factual in nature, summarizing the charges against the defendants and the alleged conduct that underlay the indictment.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 845, 111 S.Ct. 130, 112 L.Ed.2d 98 (1990). The burden to show that pretrial publicity is presumptively prejudicial clearly rests with the defendant and is extremely heavy. Coleman v. Kemp, 778 F.2d 1487, 1537 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1164, 106 S.Ct. 2289, 90 L.Ed.2d 730 (1986). In varying procedural contexts, appellate courts have found that the issue of presumed prejudice is a question of fact or a mixed question of law and fact resulting in standards of review including manifest error, clearly erroneous, and others. See id. at 1537 & nn. 17, 18 (citing cases). Even were we to review the trial court's ruling de novo, however, this record does not lead us to conclude that prejudice must be presumed. Due in large part to the findings required, courts rarely presume prejudice due to outrageous pretrial publicity. Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 554, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 2800, 49 L.Ed.2d 683 (1976) (Burger, C.J., opinion of the Court). To presume prejudice, we must necessarily disregard the results of voir dire examination as well as the circumstances surrounding pretrial proceedings and reach our own conclusion based on the totality of the circumstances from the entire record. See Pamplin v. Mason, 364 F.2d 1, 6 (5th Cir.1966). We must also find that the defendant has shown inflammatory and prejudicial pretrial publicity that so pervaded the community as to render virtually impossible a fair trial before an impartial jury. Coleman, 778 F.2d at 1540. In short, to presume prejudice, we must necessarily decide that the publicity was so unfair, so prejudicial, and so pervasive that we cannot give any credibility to the jurors' answers during voir dire affirming their ability to decide the case fairly. The circumstances in this case fall short of those rare and unusual cases where this difficult showing has been made. See, e.g., Rideau, 373 U.S. at 726-727, 83 S.Ct. at 1419-20 (televised confession seen by many potential jurors); Coleman, 778 F.2d at 1538-1543 (overwhelming publicity in county with population of 7000); Isaacs v. Kemp, 778 F.2d 1482, 1483-84 (11th Cir.1985) (companion case to Coleman ); United States v. Denno, 313 F.2d 364, 366-67, 372 (2d Cir.) (en banc) (6-3 decision) (extensive pretrial publicity including defendant's confession; [t]he publicity was in its nature highly inflammatory, in volume great, and accessibility universal.), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 978, 83 S.Ct. 1112, 10 L.Ed.2d 143 (1963); cf. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966) (overwhelming pretrial publicity, coupled with publicity at trial and outrageous trial conduct, required reversal). These cases show more in the way of inaccurate as well as extremely prejudicial pretrial publicity than does the totality of the record in this case. These cases also demonstrate the media's successful and sometimes relentless attempt to whip up hysteria and passion in the community  something the present case lacks. And at least Sheppard contains something else lacking in this case  the media successfully influencing law enforcement officers and court personnel as well as the court itself. See Sheppard, 384 U.S. at 337, 354-58, 362, 86 S.Ct. at 1518-20, 1522. Nor is the substance of the pretrial publicity in the present case comparable to that in Rideau, where a local television station thrice showed the defendant's confession. In Rideau the defendant had `confessed' under police interrogation to the murder of which he stood convicted. A 20-minute film of his confession was broadcast three times by a television station in the community where the crime and the trial took place. In reversing, the Court did not examine the voir dire for evidence of actual prejudice because it considered the trial under review `but a hollow formality'  the real trial had occurred when tens of thousands of people, in a community of 150,000, had seen and heard the defendant admit his guilt before the cameras. Atwood, 171 Ariz. at 631, 832 P.2d at 648 (quoting Murphy, 421 U.S. at 799, 95 S.Ct. at 2035-36); see also Coleman, 778 F.2d at 1491-1537. On this record, we cannot conclude that the trial was utterly corrupted by pretrial publicity, Murphy, 421 U.S. at 798, 95 S.Ct. at 2035, and therefore will not presume prejudice, see Atwood, 171 Ariz. at 631, 832 P.2d at 648; State v. LaGrand, 153 Ariz. 21, 34, 734 P.2d 563, 576, cert. denied, 484 U.S. 872, 108 S.Ct. 207, 98 L.Ed.2d 158 (1987); State v. Greenawalt, 128 Ariz. 150, 164, 624 P.2d 828, 842, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 882, 102 S.Ct. 364, 70 L.Ed.2d 191 (1981). [6] Accordingly, we turn to the issue of whether the record demonstrates actual prejudice.