It is stated that "the real injustice of exaggerated publicity is its ability to present unsupported points of view that can influence the trial in immutable ways" (Breheny and Kelly, 2012 : 377-378) which means that advertising bias causes partial trials without verified evidence and exploits the rights of the accused. Furthermore, the unproven opinion usually spreads widely and quickly, which is true, for example the Taylor sisters were persecuted by the media that they were already believed to be murderers and this belief still haunted them even though they were released. Furthermore, although other characteristics play a significant role in biased judging, prejudicial publicity is the most influential cause of bias (Geragos, 2006). The damaging effect of press disclosure resulting in the R. v. Taylor (1994) cases was that the video image of the victim's wedding was published in newspapers and headlines, but it was never revealed in court; therefore, during the appeal, the convictions were considered unsafe and unsatisfactory because there was a lack of clarification of the witnesses' depositions. However, Carey (1985) suggests that from the analysis of practical observations on public prejudice it appears that juries' decisions are based on information in the courtroom rather than on external data from the media. Just as Frasca (1988, cited in Geragos, 2006) suggests that only a few cases present the problem of disclosure to the press, on the contrary Geragos (2006: 1178) maintains that "the problem is qualitative, rather than quantitative". Frasca's (1988) argument is insufficient for the issue of media coverage due to the focus only on the number of cases; in contrast, Gerogos's (2006) argument focuses on the cruelty of the problem that no one should deserve and also suggests that the method of dealing with these notable cases is to properly