OPEN TRIALS IN THE SOCIAL MEDIA AGE.

Open trials have a long and important history in the United States. For many years, they provided judicial accountability as well as entertainment through virtually compulsory attendance for members of a community. But while the roots of this tradition are extensive, the media landscape today threatens to undermine the very goals that open trials support. In 2022, when the chief judge of the Fairfax County (Va.) Circuit Court accepted actor Johnny Depp's request for an open trial in Depp v. Heard, social media content providers curated clips of the open hearings to reap a profit. The public, in turn, formed strong snap judgments about the case based on viewing these curated clips, which failed to provide a full view of the court proceedings. The public's vehement response coupled with an inescapable onslaught of media attention has drawn criticism for potentially influencing the jury's ultimate verdict in the case. In light of the development of social media consumption, the events of the Depp v. Heard case exemplify a larger problem. They beg the question: Do open trials really provide society with the same benefits that justify their continuance? The answer may rest in the public's conduct. Open trials have historically been justified on the basis that the public will hear matters in full, weigh all evidence, and hold the judicial system accountable for its rulings. But today, the public's apparent preference for viewing singular, easily accessible content gleaned from court openness but riddled with bias and driven by profits undercuts the effectiveness of open courts. This Article argues that while the goals of open courts are laudable, judges today should carefully consider and weigh the risks of media distortion for non-sequestered juries in cases that are likely to spark media attention before allowing complete press coverage of any trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]