In the case of Patton et al. v. Yount, 1983, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Yount, upholding his conviction for murder and rape despite claims that pretrial publicity had biased potential jurors against him. The court found that while there was extensive media coverage before the trial, it did not necessarily mean that an impartial jury could not be selected from within the community where the crime occurred. The defense argued that two jurors should have been disqualified due to their prior knowledge about a failed polygraph test by Yount which was inadmissible as evidence during trial proceedings; however, both stated they could still render an unbiased verdict based on presented evidence alone. In its decision, SCOTUS emphasized juror bias must be determined individually rather than collectively and affirmed lower courts' decisions stating these jurors were indeed impartial.

In the dissenting opinion for Patton et al. v. Yount, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision failed to properly apply the standard set by previous Supreme Court cases regarding juror impartiality in high-profile trials. He contended that a potential juror's exposure to pretrial publicity does not automatically disqualify them from serving on a jury, as long as they can put aside their impressions or opinions and render a verdict based solely on evidence presented in court. In this case, he believed there was no clear proof that jurors were unable to do so despite extensive media coverage of the crime and initial trial proceedings. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for giving too much deference to state courts' findings without conducting its own independent review of whether due process requirements were met under federal law.