An extension of How does one find a judge for highly publicized issues?

The answer to that question says that judges can adjudicate a case even if they had prior knowledge of the facts, and can be trusted to do so fairly because they are trained not to let their prior prejudices influence their rulings.

What if a highly-publicized trial is to be decided by jury instead - how would one find an unbiased jury?

Looking at Wikipedia's article on jury selection, it seems to say that both the prosecution and the defense can object to a jury member, and often they don't even have to give reasons; however they only have a certain number of possible challenges. In other words, if all the originally-selected jury members have heard of the event and possibly already formed an opinion, one is indeed stuck with biased jurors - which seems less than ideal.

  • Note that in some jurisdictions, it is also possible to challenge a juror for cause, meaning that because of their background, their history, or their beliefs, they are believed to be fundamentally unable to be unbiased in this particular matter. If the judge agrees and removes the juror for cause, this will not count against the limited number of challenges each side has. For example, a juror who was sexually abused by their foster parents in a case that involves custody of a foster child may be inherently biased against the foster system. Aug 22, 2021 at 10:19
  • Forming an opinion based on media reports does not necessarily equate to bias when examining the actual evidence presented at trial.
    – user35069
    Aug 22, 2021 at 11:55


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .