Abstract

This paper examines the constitutional tension between the First Amendment and the Sixth Amendment, specifically in relation to media coverage and the right to a fair trial in high-profile criminal cases. This study explores the contextual and media environments surrounding the high-profile cases of Sheppard v. Maxwell, The People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson, and State of South Carolina v. Richard Alexander Murdaugh. By conducting a comparative analysis, I examined the media narratives present in each case and how they influenced public perception and its impact on the administration of justice. This study focuses on newspaper articles at the time of the cases to maintain consistency across time periods.

This study argues that media coverage can contribute to prejudicial narratives in high-profile cases that complicate the fairness of legal proceedings. My findings suggest that, while the media landscape has evolved, sensationalism, scandal, and celebrity status have consistently been intertwined in high-profile cases through media narratives since Sheppard v. Maxwell, serving as key factors in attracting public attention. As technology continues to advance, these dynamics are likely to become even more complex, making it increasingly difficult to ensure an impartial jury unaffected by pervasive media narratives.

Semester/Year of Award

Spring 2026

Mentor

Dr. Ginny Whitehouse

Mentor Department Affiliation

Communication

Access Options

Open Access Thesis

Degree Name

Honors Scholars

Degree Level

Bachelors

Department

Communication

Presentation

https://mymaileku-my.sharepoint.com/:p:/g/personal/julia_luxon1_mymail_eku_edu/IQANwPh0N51cS7SH8UHLr-x2AfSq3UUwoZKrokD-CPe_KBM?e=asdoEf

Download

Share

COinS