United States v. Martinez-Valdiosera

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding seventy-two articles — the majority of which were published over a year before jury selection — that were mostly factual, objectively reported, and did not contain incriminating evidence were not sufficient to establish a presumption of prejudice
• holding seventy-two articles — the majority of which were published over a year before jury selection — that were mostly factual, objectively reported, and did not contain incriminating evidence were not sufficient to establish a presumption of prejudice
• selecting a jury from a venire in which slightly more than two-thirds of the seventy-five people had heard or read about the case
• “Obviously, watching the defendant confess to a crime is likely to have the effect of persuading community members that the defendant is, in fact, guilty of committing the crime.”
• no evidence that media coverage had an extensive, sustained, or pervasive effect on the jury where articles were largely “factual and objectively reported” and focused on the victim’s death, the police investigation, the arrest of the defendants, and the court proceedings before the trial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).