Opinion ID: 1133490
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Neutrality and timing of publicity

Text: {60} As both sides in the opinion below noted, the mere fact that publicity is widespread and that many people are familiar with a case does not automatically lead to the presumption that a venue has been impermissibly tainted. House Majority, 1998-NMCA-018, ķ 13, 124 N.M. 564, 953 P.2d 737; House Dissent, 1998-NMCA-018, ķ 80;, 124 N.M. 564, 953 P.2d 737 see also Chamberlain, 112 N.M. at 726, 819 P.2d at 676. Much depends on the nature of the publicity. News articles and broadcasts, even if pervasive and frequent, will not be found prejudicial if they are fair, neutral, unemotional, and generally limited to a recitation of established facts. Snell, 14 F.3d at 1294. Also relevant is whether the publicity, even if it was emotional and opinionated, occurred close to the time of the trial. If detrimental articles and broadcasts appeared months or years before the beginning of a trial, the probability of prejudice is significantly reduced. See Patton, 467 U.S. at 1034, 104 S.Ct. 2885 (That time soothes and erases is a perfectly natural phenomenon, familiar to all.); Murphy, 421 U .S. at 802, 95 S.Ct. 2031 (last significant publicity was seven months before jury selection). {61} As the news items cited in the fact section of this opinion demonstrate, the pretrial, during-trial, and post-trial publicity in this case could not be characterized as largely fair, neutral, unemotional, or objective. Publicity about the case appeared frequently throughout the geographical region that included Taos County. Moreover, as noted by Judge Armijo in her dissent, news items were published concurrent with every legal maneuver and proceeding in the case: [T]his is not a case where publicity was minimal or had diminished over time. The trial court's review of the content of the newspaper articles and television broadcasts presented in the record revealed that the nature of the publicity was, in some instances, emotional, sensational, inflammatory, intrusive, and potentially misleading. House Dissent, 1998-NMCA-018, ķķ 100-01, 124 N.M. 564, 953 P.2d 737. There is abundant evidence in the record to suggest that the publicity in this case was prejudicial. See Irvin, 366 U.S. at 725-26, 81 S.Ct. 1639 (discussing highlights of numerous news items and their permeation of the community and concluding prejudice was clear and convincing).