Is pervasive publicity prejudicial to a jury at trial?

We have recognized that in the absence of any actual prejudice, the prejudicial effect of pervasive publicity may be presumed where the record reveals a "barrage of inflammatory publicity immediately prior to trial...." Harris v. Pulley, 852 F.2d 1546, 1553 (9th Cir.) (modified, 885 F.2d 1354 (9th Cir.1988), petition for cert. filed, No. ____________). Here the magistrate properly found that there was no such barrage, and that the bulk of the pretrial publicity occurred more than a year prior to jury impanelment. Although several of the jurors had heard about the case, the record does not show that any were actually prejudiced.