美国宪法增修条文第一条，赋予新闻自由和公众参与刑事审判与审前程序的权利，美国宪法增修条文第六条亦赋予刑事被告获得公正陪审团之公平审判的权利。
有鉴于被告享有公平审判的权利，对于众所瞩目的刑事案件，大家所关注的焦点，通常在于审前媒体报导是否会影响陪审团审判的公正性。
有研究报告[1]指出，审前媒体报导确实会影响陪审团的审议。即使法官在审议前一再告诫陪审员不得讨论审前媒体报导的内容，陪审员大多不会严格遵守法官的指示，因此，看过或听过审前媒体报导的陪审员在审议中，仍可能会讨论媒体报导的内容，显见法院不能仰赖陪审员制止其他陪审员讨论媒体报导的不当行为。
审前媒体报导会影响陪审团在审议中对证据的解读和讨论，接触过审前媒体负面报导的陪审员较易从偏袒检方的角度，检视案件双方提出的证据，而极少从支持辩方的角度讨论这些证据，但是陪审团通常没有意识到他们心中存有偏见，从而影响陪审团审判的公正性。
因为美国宪法规定刑事诉讼采犯罪行为所在地管辖，如果审前媒体对被告案件的偏颇报导致使陪审团产生偏见，而有影响公平审判之疑虑，被告得向法院请求变更审判地点，以维护其由公正陪审团公平审判的权利。
注一：Ruva, CL, & LeVasseur, MA. (2011).Behind closed doors: The effect of pretrial publicity on jury deliberations.Psychology, Crime & Law.
判决要旨：
路易斯安那州查尔斯湖银行被抢劫、三名银行行员被绑架、其中一人被杀的重大事件发生后几小时，被告遭到逮捕并关进教区郡监狱。
第二天早上，教区郡警长「采访」被告，此「采访」持续了大约 20 分钟并且全程录像，内容包括由警长侦讯被告，和被告坦承犯下抢劫银行、绑架和杀害银行行员等罪行。
拍摄「采访」当天稍晚以及随后两日，「采访」内容在当地电视台播出，教区郡许多人都看到和听到「采访」内容。
之后，被告被控犯下持枪抢劫银行、绑架和谋杀罪。法院指派两名公设辩护律师给被告。这两名律师向教区郡地方法院要求变更审判地点，但被法院拒绝。被告的案件在路易斯安那州教区郡地方法院由法官偕同陪审团审理。
陪审团经过审议后，裁定被告的所有罪名成立，法院判处被告死刑。路易斯安那州最高法院确认定罪判决。
被告上诉到美国最高法院。
美国最高法院裁决，当大多数教区郡民众已从电视上看到或听到被告坦承犯行的「采访」内容，路易斯安那州教区郡地方法院拒绝被告要求变更审判地点之申请违反了正当法律程序﹙因被告无法得到公平审判﹚，因此撤销路易斯安那州最高法院的判决。
此篇英文原文，摘录自美国最高法院判决：
Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (1963).
On the evening of February 16, 1961, a man robbed a bankin Lake Charles, Louisiana, kidnapped three of the bank's employees, and killedone of them. A few hours later the petitioner, Wilbert Rideau, was apprehendedby the police and lodged in the Calcasieu Parish jail in Lake Charles. The nextmorning a moving picture film with a sound track was made of an"interview" in the jail between Rideau and the Sheriff of CalcasieuParish. This "interview" lasted approximately 20 minutes. It consistedof interrogation by the sheriff and admissions by Rideau that he hadperpetrated the bank robbery, kidnapping, and murder. Later the same day thefilmed "interview" was broadcast over a television station in LakeCharles, and some 24,000 people in the community saw and heard it ontelevision. The sound film was again shown on television the next day to anestimated audience of 53,000 people. The following day the film was againbroadcast by the same television station, and this time approximately 29,000people saw and heard the "interview" on their television sets.Calcasieu Parish has a population of approximately 150,000 people.
Some two weeks later, Rideau was arraigned on charges ofarmed robbery, kidnapping, and murder, and two lawyers were appointed torepresent him. His lawyers promptly filed a motion for a change of venue, onthe ground that it would deprive Rideau of rights guaranteed to him by theUnited States Constitution to force him to trial in Calcasieu Parish after thethree television broadcasts there of his "interview" with thesheriff. After a hearing, the motion for change of venue was denied, and Rideauwas accordingly convicted and sentenced to death on the murder charge in theCalcasieu Parish trial court.
Three members of the jury which convicted him had statedon voir dire that they had seen and heard Rideau's televised"interview" with the sheriff on at least one occasion. Two members ofthe jury were deputy sheriffs of Calcasieu Parish. Rideau's counsel hadrequested that these jurors be excused for cause, having exhausted all of theirperemptory challenges, but these challenges for cause had been denied by thetrial judge. The judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court ofLouisiana, and the case is here on a writ of certiorari.
The record in this case contains as an exhibit the soundfilm which was broadcast. What the people of Calcasieu Parish saw on theirtelevision sets was Rideau, in jail, flanked by the sheriff and two statetroopers, admitting in detail the commission of the robbery, kidnapping, andmurder, in response to leading questions by the sheriff. The record fails toshow whose idea it was to make the sound film, and broadcast it over the localtelevision station, but we know from the conceded circumstances that the plan wascarried out with the active cooperation and participation of the local lawenforcement officers. And certainly no one has suggested that it was Rideau'sidea, or even that he was aware of what was going on when the sound film wasbeing made.
In the view we take of this case, the question of whooriginally initiated the idea of the televised interview is, in any event, abasically irrelevant detail. For we hold that it was a denial of due process oflaw to refuse the request for a change of venue, after the people of CalcasieuParish had been exposed repeatedly and in depth to the spectacle of Rideaupersonally confessing in detail to the crimes with which he was later to becharged. For anyone who has ever watched television the conclusion cannot beavoided that this spectacle, to the tens of thousands of people who saw andheard it, in a very real sense was Rideau's trial -- at which he pleaded guiltyto murder. Any subsequent court proceedings in a community so pervasivelyexposed to such a spectacle could be but a hollow formality.
In Brown v. Mississippi, this Court set aside murderconvictions secured in a state trial with all the formalities of fairprocedures, based upon "free and voluntary confessions" which in facthad been preceded by grossly brutal kangaroo court proceedings while thedefendants were held in jail without counsel. As Chief Justice Hughes wrote inthat case, "The State is free to regulate the procedure of its courts inaccordance with its own conceptions of policy. But it does not follow that itmay substitute trial by ordeal." That was almost a generation ago, in anera before the onrush of an electronic age.
The case now before us does not involve physicalbrutality. The kangaroo court proceedings in this case involved a more subtle butno less real deprivation of due process of law. Under our Constitution'sguarantee of due process, a person accused of committing a crime is vouchsafedbasic minimal rights. Among these are the right to counsel, the right to pleadnot guilty, and the right to be tried in a courtroom presided over by a judge.Yet in this case the people of Calcasieu Parish saw and heard, not once butthree times, a "trial" of Rideau in a jail, presided over by asheriff, where there was no lawyer to advise Rideau of his right to stand mute.
The record shows that such a thing as this never tookplace before in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. Whether it has occurred elsewhere,we do not know. But we do not hesitate to hold, without pausing to examine aparticularized transcript of the voir dire examination of the members of thejury, that due process of law in this case required a trial before a jury drawnfrom a community of people who had not seen and heard Rideau's televised"interview." "Due process of law, preserved for all by ourConstitution, commands that no such practice as that disclosed by this recordshall send any accused to his death."
Reversed.
1.apprehend（v.）逮捕，拘提
2.interrogation（n.）侦讯，讯问，审问，质问
3.admission（n.）自白，招认
4.perpetrate（v.）犯罪，作恶，行凶
5.robbery（n.）强盗（罪）；抢劫（罪）
6.kidnapping（n.）绑架
7.murder（n.）谋杀，杀人
8.arraign（v.）提讯
9.charge（n.）指控，控诉；罪名
10.change the venue 为求判决公平而变更审判地点
11.voir dire 选拔陪审团的程序
12.juror（n.）陪审员
13.peremptory challenge 无因回避（指无须指明理由而请求某一陪审员回避的绝对回避）
14.challenge for cause 有因回避
15.writ of certiorari 调卷审查令（指上级法院对下级法院调取案件审查的令状）
16.commission（n.）犯罪
17.due process of law 正当法律程序
18.plead guilty 刑事被告表示认罪
19.formality（n.）形式
20.confession（n.）自白，供认；招供
21.deprivation（n.）剥夺；丧失
22.right to counsel 刑事被告要求律师协助辩护的权利
23.voir dire examination 陪审员遴选程序之审查
24.jury（n.）陪审团
25.the accused 被告，刑事被告
来源：林利芝 来源：法治时报 检察笔记