>Even if they're holed up in a hotel for the duration of the case they could turn on the telly or a radio and see/hear reporting that has an axe to grind agains

>Even if they're holed up in a hotel for the duration of the case they could turn on the telly or a radio and see/hear reporting that has an axe to grind against the accused. That's where the US differs, we do hole jurors up in hotels and actively filter both electronic and physical communication with said jurors to prevent tainting. Yes, it does suck when those jurors are unlucky enough to end up on the rare year-long controversial trial, but the US believes that's an acceptable tradeoff for allowing the media full access to reporting. I guess the crux of this debate is whether it's worth it to sequester jurors for the benefit of the general public or not.