I’ve often wondered about that. Where do they find people who haven’t been tainted before the trial? Sure, in boring local cases, they can probably find people who don’t follow the local news closely and might not have already developed an opinion on the case. But in a more headline grabbing case, wouldn’t most everyone who’s even remotely smart enough and aware enough of the world around them to be a competent juror have already been over-exposed to the case? I could see in cases where the headline was dominantly of local interest, you could maybe move the trial a little further away and find some folks that hadn’t heard about the case or at least hadn’t followed it closely enough to have any real idea about what was going on or opinion about who might or might not be guilty. But what about major flashy cases, like national news kind of cases? Do both sides just sort of give up in those cases and accept that pretty much everyone’s heard some about the case and then just pick the people who are the least firm or extreme in their opinion on it?
