What consideration must courts give to (a) a guilty verdict, (b) the disruption to proceedings from pretrial publicity, and (c) the jury selection process in their presumed-prejudice analysis?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In State v. Komisarjeusky, 338 Conn. 526, __ A.3d. __, 2021 WL 1377338 (2021), the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the petitioner’s two motions to change the trial venue out of the New Haven Judicial District. In holding that the petitioner, Joshua Komisarjevsky, was not entitled to a presumption of prejudice, the court purported to apply the four factors considered by this Court in Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010): (1) the size and diversity of the jury pool; (2) the prejudicial nature of the pretrial publicity; (3) the publicity’s decibel level at the time of trial; and (8) the jury verdict, which Skilling said is “of prime significance.” 561 U.S. at 382-384; 2021 WL 1377338 at *11-*13. The state court acknowledged that the prejudicial nature of the media coverage and its decibel level at the time of trial favored a presumption of prejudice, but reached its conclusion because: (1) the trial venue had a total population of 846,000; and (2) the jury selection process was “extensive,” a factor which the court deemed “most significant,” but which this Court in Skilling considered in its actual-prejudice analysis, not its analysis. 2021 WL 1377338 at *14-*16; 561 U.S. at 385-395. Regarding the jury verdict, the court held that because “our review of the record demonstrates that the evidence was overwhelming... we conclude that the jury’s verdict [finding the petitioner guilty on all counts] does not support a finding of presumptive prejudice.” 2021 WL 1377338, n.21 (citing Luong v. State, 199 So. 3d 139 (Ala. 2014) ), cert. denied, 577 U.S. 1241 (2016), and State v. Gribble, 165 N.H. 1, 66 A.38d 1194 (2018)). Additionally, the court did not address the petitioner’s contention that this Court’s precedents required it to consider as part of its analysis the carnival atmosphere of the voir dire proceedings produced by the pretrial publicity. The court also found that the petitioner did not suffer actual prejudice. 2021 WL 1377338 at *17. The court rejected the petitioner’s argument that this Court’s precedents require consideration of jurors’ assertions of their own impartiality to include: (1) the emotional nature of the case and the prejudicial effect of the pretrial publicity; and (2) the difficulty of picking an unbiased jury. The questions presented are: 1. What consideration, if any, must courts give the following factors in their analysis: (a) a verdict finding the defendant guilty on all counts; (b) the disruption to the solemnity and calmness of the proceedings caused by prejudicial pretrial publicity; and (c) the jury selection process? 2. In their actual-prejudice analysis, when evaluating jurors’ assurances of their own impartiality. must courts consider: (1) the emotional nature of the case and the prejudicial effect of the pretrial publicity; and (2) the difficulty of picking an unbiased jury? ii