Why is there a lower risk of contempt once an appeal has been lodged?

The correct answer highlights that the risk of contempt is lower once an appeal has been lodged because jurors typically do not hear appeals unless they relate to a re-trial. In many cases, appeals are considered by judges rather than juries, which means that jurors are not involved in the appeal process. This distinction is significant as it reduces the potential for prejudice or contamination of a jury’s perspective if they were to be exposed to information about the original trial during the appeals phase.

Contempt of court can occur if jurors are influenced by the media or external factors related to the initial trial, but once an appeal is in process and is addressed by judges, there is generally less chance of jurors encountering that information, thereby lowering the overall risk of contempt. The focus shifts from the initial verdict to the legal arguments surrounding the appeal, which are typically handled in a controlled judicial environment.

This understanding is crucial in media law, especially for professionals covering court cases, because it underscores the importance of managing information dissemination to prevent undue influences on jury deliberation.