The following excerpt is from United States v. Armone, 363 F.2d 385 (2nd Cir. 1966):
We see no reason to disbelieve the jurors' negative response regarding an article which had just been published in a magazine of somewhat limited appeal. As to the newspaper articles published before trial, at the beginning of the trial the court conducted a detailed voir dire which included the newspaper reading habits of the prospective jurors. The judge asked all members of the panel to advise him if they had read or heard anything about narcotics in general which would interfere with their ability to render a fair and impartial verdict, and if they had read anything in the press or heard anything relating to the defendants on trial, and received negative responses. Eight of the jurors finally selected were asked which newspapers they read; two said they read the newspaper involved, and one said he read "most of them." Each juror was asked whether he knew of any reason preventing him from rendering a fair verdict, with a negative response in all cases. No objection appears to have been taken after the voir dire regarding the failure specifically to ask four of the jurors which newspapers they read. The newspaper articles appeared some sixteen weeks before trial. We regard this time lag between publication and trial as most significant. As we recently had occasion to say:
[363 F.2d 396]
United States v. Bowe, 360 F.2d 1, 11 (2d Cir. 1966).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.