- appellant’s trial was not prejudiced by a saturation of prejudicial and inflammatory media publicity about the crimes in the community; the articles were no more than routine reports of heinous crimes, investigations, the arrest of appellant, and the steps taken to bring him to trial in both state and military courts which did not create any actual unfairness to appellant
- military judge did not abuse his discretion and fail to ensure appellant received fair trial in light of pretrial publicity where, although he rejected defense-proffered solutions, he did permit extensive voir dire, instructed the members not to expose themselves to any particular information about the accused, instructed the members to use common sense in dealing with media coverage, and twice ruled that the members were impartial in fact
CAAF Opinion Digest · II.D.9 · Court Members
Pretrial Publicity
1 digested opinion, 1999–1999 Terms
1999
Source and status
This is a verbatim mirror of the Opinion Digest and opinions tables published by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The headnotes are the court staff’s summaries of the opinions, reproduced as published; they are not the opinions themselves and not this site’s commentary. Nothing here is edited on this site.
Last updated by the court: Oct 13, 2026 · mirrored Oct 29, 2026 · digest page IID9 · Always confirm a holding against the opinion itself (linked from each case name).