[cliffu]

Well it is true that a fair trial is only possible with an unbiased jury, and having a lot of media coverage can create a bias. But doesn't that only apply to bias for the prosecution? And anyway they manage to find juries for high-profile cases (like OJ even after the car chase).

But no, let's throw out the First Amendment instead.

[derefr]

This seems less like a reason to prevent free speech, and more like a reason to sequester juries in advance of a trial, so that they never see the news in the first place. Maybe even have pre-built juries sitting around sequestered and ready to go for whatever case happens to come up. But, you know, that'd cost money.

[cliffu]

If it were me, I'd say if the prosecution really has enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did a crime, an initially positive bias isn't an actual problem. In fact that's how the justice system is supposed to operate (innocent until proven guilty).

[greenyoda]

"Well it is true that a fair trial is only possible with an unbiased jury"

I'm pretty sure that 99% of the U.S. population isn't following this story at all, so finding a dozen jurors who have never heard of the case shouldn't be too difficult, even if the media were allowed to write about it without any limitations.

And when it's time to select the jury, I'm sure the prosecution will summarily reject any potential jurors who know anything about the internet (like what a URL is), since such a person could never be convinced that linking to a publicly available document is a crime.