The principle of presumption of innocence as understood by contemporary Euro-

pean law derives from the idea that, given the State's power to prosecute sus-
pects of crimes, citizens must remain shielded from harm before definitive evi-
dence of guilt leads to conviction (Quintard-Morénas, 2010; Tadros, 2007). This
basic idea has been somewhat thinned down by the Anglo-American legal cul-
ture; so that, in these parts of the world, the principle only necessitates that the
burden of proof lies with the prosecutor and nothing further (Ashworth, 2006;
Quintard-Morénas, 2010). It is a narrow conception of the presumption of inno-
cence in comparison to the European tradition; the latter requires that the defen-
dant is considered unequivocally innocent, precisely as much as before any legal
action initiated, until and unless proven guilty of the crime in a court of law (Ash-
worth, 2006; Quintard-Morénas, 2010). This, essentially, is a moral commitment
on behalf of the State towards each and every citizen to treat every defendant,
every step of the way, as innocent, and it includes the obligation to protect the
defendant's reputation (Quintard-Morénas, 2010), which in the first instance im-
plies that the State prohibits negative public statements against a defendant's in-
nocence. Indeed, in France, presumption of innocence has the status of a person-
ality right, like the right to privacy or to reputation (Quintard-Morénas, 2010). In-
deed, the relevant EU Directive clearly separates the concept of the presumption
of innocence from the burden of proof (2016).

Despite the stronger significance the presumption of innocence has in Eu-

ropean legal tradition vis-a-vis its US counterpart, literature on reality on the
ground here is sparser than on the other side of the Atlantic. Fullerton and Patter-
son, although hailing from Canada themselves, have produced a valuable body of
work (qualitative, based on in-depth expert interviews) examining how the pre-
sumption of innocence fares in European media. They broadly divide media tradi-
tions in three groups: the 'liberal' model (Anglo-Saxon countries), the 'democratic
corporatist' model (northern and central European countries) and the 'polarized
pluralist' model (Mediterranean countries, also including Portugal) (Patterson,
Smith Fullerton, & Tuñón Navarro, 2016). The corporatist tradition treats the iden-
tity of implicated persons as private information to be protected, even after pos-
sible conviction, congruently with a conception of Justice that favors rehabilitation
over retribution (they examined the Netherlands and Sweden in: Smith Fullerton
 Lit review 2
& Patterson, 2013). By contrast, the liberal tradition values disclosing as much in-
formation to the public and as soon as possible (Patterson et al., 2016; Smith
Fullerton & Patterson, 2013, 2016). Within the liberal tradition, Ireland appears to
veer slightly towards the continental European model in that Irish journalists are
very reluctant to release the identities of defendants (Smith Fullerton & Patter-
son, 2016) (Ireland shall be excluded from this research since the EU Directive on
the presumption of innocence (2016) does not apply to it). The Mediterranean
tradition also values the identities of the defendants, but with two nuances. First,
protection of identities is practiced in the public interest in upholding due process
of prosecution and police investigation, not to protect the defendants per se (it is
actually the public authorities, not journalists, that do not publish records of ar-
rests) (Patterson et al., 2016). Second, clientelism, favoritism and competition
wither journalistic integrity to a degree greater than in the other two traditions
(Patterson et al., 2016).

On the other side of the Atlantic the topic has been studied extensively. In the
USA, given the constitutional commitment to a fair trial, the field of study looks
into what is commonly termed pretrial publicity. This body of work can be broadly
divided into experimental (or simulated) studies in which participants are not ac-
tual jurors or the criminal cases are hypothetical, and surveys of actual cases
(Carroll et al., 1986; Steblay, Besirevic, Fulero, & Jimenez-Lorente, 1999; Stude-
baker & Penrod, 1997). In the first category, the focus is on the effects of pretrial
publicity on the judgment of the audience (for example: Kramer, Kerr, & Carroll,
1990; Vasquez, Loughnan, Gootjes‐Dreesbach, & Weger, 2014), while in the sec-
ond category the focus can be either on audience members (including, but not
limited to, jurors) (for a review of the field, see: Carroll et al., 1986; also: Hans &
Dee, 1991; example study: Wright & Ross, 1997) or the publicity itself (what we
shall term object) (Dixon & Linz, 2002; for example: Imrich, Mullin, & Linz, 1995;
Studebaker & Penrod, 1997). The former category proves conclusively that pre-
trial publicity influences trial outcomes. However, most pertinent to this project
which aims to measure the extent of pre-verdict publicity in the EU, is the latter
subcategory.

Dixon and Linz (2002) did a content analysis of American television news broad-
casts of criminal cases, with a special focus on prejudicial depictions of race.
 Lit review 3
They found that television news broadcasts treat with some form of prejudice
(not only racial, although such prejudice is the most common form) nearly one in
five defendants. Furthermore, they found that members of ethnic minorities are
twice as likely to be the victims of pretrial prejudice. They connected this to an
American “ethnic blame discourse” (Dixon & Linz, 2002, p. 131). Given the osten-
sible 'refugee crisis' in Europe, it would be interesting to see whether and how
race matters here. Imrich et al. (1995) content-analyzed American newspapers
for printing information indicated as prejudicial by the American Bar Association
(ABA) (American Bar Association & American Bar Association, Section of Criminal
Justice, 1991). Their research categories are supported as significant by prior re-
search on audiences (Carroll et al., 1986; Hans & Dee, 1991; Steblay et al.,
1999). They found that 27% of defendants were subjected to some form of media
prejudice corresponding to ABA's categories. Most common sources of prejudicial
statements where lawyers and law enforcement officials, however in Europe the
latter should theoretically desist from such statements given that most states
prohibit releasing identity information before conviction (Patterson et al., 2016).
[A review of legal frameworks of the states participating in this study will be pro-
duced.] Studebaker and Penrod (1997) review research in light of their own con-
tent analysis commissioned by the court adjudicating the Oklahoma City bombing
case. Following Kramer's experimental study (Kramer et al., 1990), they included
coding categories that indicate emotionally laden publicity. Their analysis per-
suaded the judge to move the venue of the trial from Oklahoma to another state,
where jurors would have been less exposed to pretrial publicity and thus ascer-
tain the court's commitment to the defendants' right to a fair trial.

This section ends with a brief mention of relevant material (documents, publica-
tions, laws) that give context to this research, but are discussed elsewhere in
more detail:

Alexander's Covering the Courts: A Handbook for Journalists (2003) is, as the title
suggests, an accessible yet comprehensive rulebook addressed to journalists cov-
ering court cases. Written with a US audience in mind, it is also a reminder of the
lack of similar material in the EU.
The ABA's The reporter’s key: rights of fair trial and free press (2006), is more de-
tailed and authoritative than the above. It is based on the ABA Standards for
Criminal Justice Fair Trial and Free Press (American Bar Association & American
 Lit review 4
Bar Association, Section of Criminal Justice, 1991), which has been used as a ref-
erence by much research (in the USA). The 4 th version of the Standards has been
published (the “black letter” version can be found online: American Bar Associa-
tion & American Bar Association. Criminal Justice Section, 2013).
The EU Directive on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of
innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings
(2016) provides the context and the concept of the presumption of innocence
that this project shall operationalize. It is based on UN, EU and COE law (Council
of Europe, 1953; European Union, 2012; United Nations, 1948, 1976). However,
Denmark, the UK and Ireland are scoped out by the Directive, therefore this
project shall not examine them.
Summarily, there is an apparent gap in the EU in content-analytic research on the
topic and in comprehensive documents like the ABA's guidelines. Nevertheless,
the US has afforded us with enough relevant literature to conduct a thorough in-
vestigation in this group of countries. In Europe, as well as in the US, competition
among media organizations seems to be the most cited reason for prejudicial pre-
verdict publicity. Still, the sources of prejudice in the EU and the most targeted
groups remain open questions, as do the causes for the EU's particular brand of
public pre-verdict prejudice.