In the case of Marshall v. United States in 1973, Thurgood Marshall was a petitioner who had been convicted for distributing narcotics. He appealed his conviction on the grounds that some jurors were exposed to news articles during trial which contained information about him not presented as evidence in court. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously (8-0) in favor of Marshall, holding that he was entitled to a new trial because his right to an impartial jury under the Sixth Amendment had been violated by this exposure. The Court stated that even though jurors claimed they could remain unbiased despite reading these articles, it is almost impossible for them to completely disregard such prejudicial information once they have read it and therefore their impartiality cannot be guaranteed.

In the dissenting opinion for Marshall v. United States, Justice William O. Douglas argued that a new trial should not be granted based on juror exposure to pretrial publicity unless there is clear evidence of prejudice against the defendant. He contended that it was unrealistic and unnecessary to expect jurors to be completely ignorant of facts about a case before entering the courtroom, especially in high-profile cases where media coverage is extensive. Instead, he suggested that jurors should simply be expected to set aside any prior knowledge or opinions and base their verdict solely on evidence presented at trial. Furthermore, he expressed concern that granting new trials too readily could undermine public confidence in the judicial system by suggesting that juries are incapable of reaching fair decisions when exposed to pretrial publicity.