In the case of Stroble v. California (1951), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a murder conviction despite extensive pretrial publicity and an alleged coerced confession. The defendant, Albert Stroble, was convicted for the brutal rape and murder of a six-year-old girl in Los Angeles County, California. His defense argued that his constitutional rights were violated due to prejudicial pretrial publicity which made it impossible for him to receive a fair trial as well as an allegedly forced confession from police officers while he was held without access to counsel or family members. The court ruled 5-4 in favor of upholding Stroble's conviction stating that although there had been significant media coverage surrounding the crime, it did not necessarily mean that prejudice existed within the jury pool or affected their decision-making process during trial proceedings. Furthermore, they found no evidence supporting claims of coercion regarding his confession. This case is notable because it set precedent on how courts should handle cases with high levels of public attention and scrutiny; emphasizing that substantial news coverage does not automatically equate to juror bias or violation of defendants' right to fair trials.

In the dissenting opinion for Stroble v. California, Justice Hugo Black argued that the pre-trial publicity was so extensive and damaging to Stroble's case that it denied him a fair trial as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that due process of law requires an impartial jury, which he believed could not have been possible given the widespread media coverage surrounding this case prior to trial. This included detailed accounts of confessions made by Stroble before his arrest and during police interrogation, which were later admitted into evidence at his trial despite objections from defense counsel about their voluntary nature. Justice Black also criticized how quickly the court proceedings took place after such intense public exposure, suggesting there wasn't enough time for public sentiment to subside before selecting a jury or conducting a fair hearing on admissibility issues related to these confessions.