The effects of media involvement in criminal cases and trials and how it influences verdicts

I would like to highlight the effects of media involvement specifically in criminal law trials (not civil cases). I want to show that in most cases, where the media is involved and a case becomes highly publicized before the jury is selected, the verdict is then highly influenced by predetermined judgements and thoughts by the jury from what they heard on TV before being selected. Great examples for this are the following cases: STATE of North Carolina v. Michael Iver PETERSON, STATE of Wisconsin v. Steven A AVERY, and STATE of California v. Scott PETERSON. There are many more highly publicized cases that you can use in this paper. My argument is that the media should not be heavily involved in covering criminal cases, and that regulations should be put in place. The media should not be involved until at least the jury is selected. The media and press involvement in a lot of cases takes away the presumption of innocence from the defendants and forbids them from having a fair trial with an impartial jury. I will use this paper as my starting point to a larger research project. Please let me know if you have any questions.