Jury trials allow the public to decide the outcome of a case. Justice is taken from the hands of the state and given to ordinary people. This acts as a form of protection for defendants against the power of the state (Iorns & Co). The jurors are meant to be fair and impartial and they can be questioned in order to determine whether they will act accordingly.

However, considering the publicity around Luigi Mangione, it raises the question on whether the jurors can still be fair and impartial. There have been studies which looked at the impact of pretrial publicity on a jury and research suggests that publicity can influence the likelihood of a verdict. This publicity tends to rely on police and prosecution accounts, and so the bias is normally against the defendant (Abrams and Calkins). However, for Mangione, the publicity has been quite positive and a lot of the media attention surrounding the case is on why he is innocent or why his actions are justifiable.

Social Media Sympathy

The positive publicity surrounding the case has been recognized and US Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has commented on how alarming he finds the idolization of a murderer (Evans). People online either believe Mangione is innocent because the “eyebrows don’t match” or because there is simply too much evidence, or they defend him because they think he was justified in his actions.

There are a lot of negative emotions attached to the American health insurance industry and those emotions have fueled support for Mangione. This has led to actions like people funding his defense through various platforms. Hence, it is quite clear that he has garnered a lot of public support.

While it is true that people have always had access to the news and other people’s opinions, the Mangione case has received a lot of attention and I think that will have a more significant impact on influencing jurors’ perspectives (Suciu). This is especially because social media acts as an echo chamber and it would be easier to be influenced when all the discourse seems to indicate that a viewpoint is held by the majority of people.

Other Similar Cases

This isn’t the first time people have reacted way to an alleged killer. O.J. Simpson had fans cheering for him during his car chase and people even sold merch outside the courthouse (Arntfield). With Mangione, people are frustrated with the health insurance system and so they support him. Similarly with O.J. Simpson, there was a lot of support for him due to concerns with systemic racism. These individuals become symbols and so people flock to support them because of what they represent.

In these cases, the jury may be inclined to not pass a guilty verdict even if they “believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has broken the law” (Suciu). This can either be seen as the jury exercising their function in a case that they think is unjust or it may be a failing on the part of the legal system to not have an impartial and fair jury. Nevertheless, the jury will be acting in a way that they think is fair, even if objectively their actions may be considered otherwise.

In a situation where a jury is expected to be fair and impartial, it then raises the question of how we define fairness. Obviously, there is a certain understood definition which is what lawyers use when selecting a jury. However, fairness is an intangible concept which has many definitions and so the question of whether pretrial publicity would affect a jury’s fairness would be dependent on how we understand fairness.