What is the effect of adverse publicity on a jury?

In this regard, we reiterate our observation that " '[p]retrial publicity--even pervasive, adverse publicity--does not invariably lead to an unfair trial.' [Citations.]" (People v. Mendonsa (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 888, 895 [187 Cal.Rptr. 363] ) "[I]t should be emphasized that the controlling cases 'cannot be made to stand for the proposition that juror exposure to information about a state defendant's prior convictions or to news accounts of the crime with which he is charged alone presumptively deprives the defendant of due process.' (Murphy v. Florida, supra, 421 U.S. at p. 799 [95 S.Ct. 2031 at p. 2036, 44 L.Ed.2d 589] ....) 'It is not required ... that the jurors be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved. In these days of swift, widespread and diverse methods of communication, an important case can be expected to arouse the interest of the public in the vicinity, and scarcely any of those best qualified to serve as jurors will not have formed some impression or opinion of the merits of the case. This is particularly true in criminal cases. To hold that the mere existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the

Page 275