Is it possible for a person to get a fair trial if their case is so widely publicised in the media that it is nigh on impossible to get a jury of people who have not read, seen, or heard details of the case before they sit in judgment ?
People often speak of news being "in the public interest" however this is often taken to be analogous with "of interest to the public". There is a big difference between the two. Just because something may be of interest to the public does not mean that it should be widely reported on. This can easily lead to people being found guilty of a crime before they are even tried for it. Particularly if those reporting present their "evidence" in a selective way.
I say that for such cases we have to abandon the trial by jury method. I know this may be radical however I cannot see how a person can have a fair trial in these circumstances. It cuts both ways remember. A famous sportsman may be acquitted, in spite of overwhelming evidence, because a jury does not want to find him guilty.
In these cases I would suggest they are tried in front of a panel of judges (as is done in appeal cases). Where 3 judges listen to the evidence and decide on a verdict. They are the people who are experienced in what evidence is and how it should be looked upon. They are also going to be better at looking at it and making their considerations, whilst putting any pre-conceived ideas aside.