How have the courts considered the impact of publicity on jury selection in a murder trial?

Defendant's evidence demonstrated that only half of the adult English speaking population had any recall of the crimes at the time of jury selection. The actual voir dire of the jury panel confirms the wisdom of the trial court's ruling. Defendant points to no aspect of the jury voir dire as reflecting a prejudicial impact flowing from the earlier publicity. Our review of that voir dire suggests that of the jurors on the panel who had any recollection, none remembered anything more than that he or she had read something about the case earlier. None had a present recall of any of the facts other than that the homicides had occurred and the location. Nothing in the record supports a conclusion that any juror who did serve, and who had heard or read something about the case, would not be able to set aside [46 Cal.3d 943] his impressions and base a verdict solely on the evidence presented in court. (See Irvin v. Dowd (1961) 366 U.S. 717, 722-723, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 1642, 6 L.Ed.2d 751.) Each assured the court that he could do so, and the record supports the implicit conclusion of the trial judge that each could be fair. None was challenged for cause by the defense.