This article evaluates the challenges that have arisen from the growth of social media and its influence on the right to the fair trial process in high-profile cases. Pretrial publicity through media exposure can bias potential jurors, potentially leading to decisions based on outside information rather than courtroom evidence. The article highlights the risks associated with jurors being exposed to external information through various media sources, which can significantly impact their objectivity and ability to make impartial judgments. It scrutinizes the limitations of the existing legal framework in addressing these challenges, including the reliance on jurors’ assurances of impartiality and the presumed ability of the legal system to uncover and mitigate bias.

By highlighting the case of State of Minnesota v. Derek Chauvin, the article considers how social media amplifies pretrial publicity, further complicating the preservation of juror impartiality. This case raises important questions about the impact of social media on juror bias and whether the current legal standards are equipped to address this issue adequately. The article does not assess Chauvin’s guilt or whether the jury was correct in reaching their verdict. Rather, the article emphasizes the urgent need for a reevaluation of these legal standards, which have largely remained unchanged since the 1960s, focusing on whether a fair trial is possible in cases with worldwide attention and social justice scrutiny.