According to Murphy, Hannaford, Loveland, and Munsterman in Managing Notorious Trials (Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 1998), taking early and immediate steps to deal with the management issues of notorious trials can relieve some of the problems that arise with a high-profile case once the trial has begun. The trial judge should not be chosen randomly, but instead selected for his or her training, demeanor, willingness, and experience. If presiding over the trial and dealing with the media will be too time-consuming for one judge, the authors suggest a “tandem” approach where one judge presides over the trial and another judge manages the public affairs and logistics of the trial. This approach distributes the workload, gives the judges a partner to discuss critical decisions, and acts as a mentoring tool for trial judge, who after the case will know how to handle the logistics of a notorious trial should another one ever arise.

Court administrators should have security, media management, and jury considerations worked out before the trial begins. If gag orders need to be issued, they should be narrowly tailored and only administered after informally discussing the issues of potentially damaging statements that could be made to the media and attempting to seek voluntary compliance. If biased and intense media coverage has already become too prevalent to ensure a fair and impartial jury, a change of venue may be considered as a last resort. Because of the costs associated with a change of venue, other options such as an out-of-town jury, sequestration, or granting of a continuance should be considered before a change-of-venue decision is made.

As the trial date draws near, the trial judge needs to make courtroom management decisions, such as where spectators and the media will sit, entry and reentry rules, use of phones or pagers, and whether people can display messages or buttons on clothing. The authors also recommend that trial judges of notorious cases transfer the rest of their caseload to other judges once the notorious case begins. Because of the intense focus and high demand on time often associated with notorious cases, attempting to handle other cases on top of one can lead to high stress and loss of focus.

The authors of Managing Notorious Trials stress that the most important factor in handling the media is that all are “comfortable with the approach ultimately selected.” When courts give the media access and are truthful and fair with all members of the media, the respect given to the media is often reciprocated. The judge needs to establish explicit and fair ground rules for the media that are reasonably but strictly enforced. If the judge decides to be accessible to the media, he or she should do so in a fair way, perhaps setting aside a time each day to answer questions about court proceedings and legal issues that arose that day in court.

If a judge prefers not to deal with the media directly, the authors suggest either a court or media liaison. A court liaison would be a staff member or another judge who would distribute information on seating arrangements and courtroom policies, as well as answer any applicable questions. A media liaison is a member of the media selected to convey questions from the media to the judge. Often, the liaison is given access to judge’s chambers where a judge may consult with his law clerks and make off-the-record statements that cannot be reported. As a result, the media liaison is not acting as a reporter on behalf of the media, only as a bridge between the media and the judge so that the media can ask questions in a controlled and fair manner. Methods for disseminating information should be devised to provide the media with updates and notification of the time and place of important events.

Seating the media can easily become a hassle, and some system should be developed to control potential problems. The authors recommend either assigning a specific number of seats to the media, and then having them occupy them on a first-come/first-serve basis, or allowing certain representatives from each news organization to have one seat. They also recommend press passes allowing certain members of the media varied access to the pressroom, the courthouse, and the courtroom. Interviewing policy must be addressed. The judge must decide if the press can interview participants and where interviews will take place to minimize distractions. If interviews are not going to be allowed, the judge must define what constitutes an interview and decide if any means of enforcement is necessary. The court must decide whether television cameras will be allowed in the courtroom, the number of cameras allowed, and the location of each of those cameras.

Obviously, dealing with the media during a notorious case can be an arduous task where many decisions need to be made about minute details to ensure fairness and accuracy. Decisions should be made before the trial if feasible, or as soon as possible if not.

From the pretrial screening to post-verdict debriefing and counseling, effective jury management is necessary in high-profile cases to ensure proper jury treatment and privacy and to make certain there is not a tainted juror due to outside or media contact. In the pretrial-screening process for notorious cases, the prescreening questions often can become long, intrusive, and unnecessary. It is the judge’s responsibility to keep the voir dire process relevant, as well as to shield potential jurors from the intense media coverage and publicity that often accompanies pretrial proceedings of high-profile cases.

Jurors should be informed about the possibility of sequestration before the trial begins. Sequestration should not be a surprise, and appropriate accommodations should be made to ensure the safety and comfort of the jury.

Anonymous juries are sometimes used in notorious cases to prevent jury tampering and protect jury privacy and safety. However, extra measures like transportation, assignment of juror numbers, and payment need to be taken to ensure the jury’s anonymity and safety during the trial.

After the high-profile trial is over, the court will still be involved with the jury, sometimes providing necessary protection from pestering and abusive media members and counseling to jurors who may have undergone emotional stress during the trial.