American Sniper: The Timing of Movie Release and Ongoing Trial

I have a question regarding the blockbuster hit American Sniper, and the timing of its release BEFORE the trial. I just dont see how the man suspected of killing Kyle and his friend, could possibly receive what can be called a "fair" trial. I mean, I am pretty sure he is guilty, however, it is being argued by defense that it was self defense as he thought that Kyle was going to kill HIM. Anyhow, just wondering if there are any great legal minds here on ATS that can speak on this. This movie was being pitched on every TV channel for the last three months. Could it be argued by the defense that their client cannot expect a fair trial? I mean, this movie is already being accused of being a propaganda film, to garner further support for the war=mongering US. Just imagine how the feelings could just automatically convict this man just because of Kyle's notoriety. Thoughts?

The release date had more to do with the Academy Awards.

Same with Selma.

Turkey needs all the help it can get.

If these movies were released three months ago they'd be completely forgotten by now.

a reply to: thesmokingman

He already pleaded Insanity, so I'm pretty sure he's gonna walk. Unless they can prove he had a valid motive to want to kill him, He's probably gonna walk on that.

Insanity Plea

originally posted by: PsychoEmperor
a reply to: thesmokingman

He already pleaded Insanity, so I'm pretty sure he's gonna walk. Unless they can prove he had a valid motive to want to kill him, He's probably gonna walk on that.

Insanity Plea

I think he will be found guilty. I dont think even the PTSD is going to save him from guilt. Just my opinion though.

I am interested in this thing you mention called a fair trial.

Really what is that?

Will ther be 12 vetrans of the wars that have ptsd on the jury?

originally posted by: deadeyedick
I am interested in this thing you mention called a fair trial.

Really what is that?

Will ther be 12 vetrans of the wars that have ptsd on the jury?

I would gladly respond to your question but I guess I do not understand it.

Where is it being argued that it was self defense? So far all I've seen is an insanity defense.

He will get just as fair of a trial as George zimmerman. Both have already been tried in the court of public opinion.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Where is it being argued that it was self defense? So far all I've seen is an insanity defense.

Well, Routh said he thought Kyle was going to kill him, and last time I checked, you are legally able to defend yourself if you feel your life or safety are in danger. Moot point anyway. The discussion is if he would receive a fair trial.

There is no such thing as a fair trial, anyway.

Innocent people get life in prison and guilty people walk away.

Little people lose property that is rightfully theirs to rascals with a nearly endless supply of wealth and influence to get their way.

I've seen it all, and have no faith in the so called fairness of the courts. All I can ever ask for in life is that I never have to sit in the court's chair to be judged by a bunch of strangers again.

a reply to: thesmokingman

Oh. My bad. It was a statement in the OP which I hadn't heard prior to reading the OP.

Apologies for seeking further information on a statement in the OP

a reply to: thesmokingman

I don't think the timing matters in this case. His guilt is not in question due to his confession. What is in question is his insanity at the time that he killed two men. I am not a lawyer but I am not buying his insanity defense in light of all that has been made public. I'm not saying the man isn't extremely disturbed but I do believe he knew right from wrong at the time of the killing. That's just my opinion as I only have the information that I can see and find from public sources.

originally posted by: thesmokingman
I have a question regarding the blockbuster hit American Sniper, and the timing of its release BEFORE the trial. I just dont see how the man suspected of killing Kyle and his friend, could possibly receive what can be called a "fair" trial. I mean, I am pretty sure he is guilty, however, it is being argued by defense that it was self defense as he thought that Kyle was going to kill HIM. Anyhow, just wondering if there are any great legal minds here on ATS that can speak on this. This movie was being pitched on every TV channel for the last three months. Could it be argued by the defense that their client cannot expect a fair trial? I mean, this movie is already being accused of being a propaganda film, to garner further support for the war=mongering US. Just imagine how the feelings could just automatically convict this man just because of Kyle's notoriety. Thoughts?

Are you suggesting that the release was timed to affect the trial? Not likely. It takes about three years to make a film and, as someone has pointed out, the release was timed to qualify for Academy Award nominations. The jury will be narrowed down to people who have not seen the film and have not seen the ads for the film. No problem.

a reply to: Tangerine

No, I am not suggesting that. Im suggesting that people have known about this movie for quite a while now, and coincidentally it hit theaters right about the time of the trial. Again, I am wondering if the hype about the movie and the likleyhood that some jurors have seen at least a commercial portraying a hero, could it be likely they would be biased in any way.

ETA: I know people that have been on a jury that told them they had not seen any news footage or stories about a case, and even though they had they said no. Trust me, it is not a fool proof system weeding them out. I cant go 5 minutes (at least last month) without seeing a commercial or story about it. I guarantee there are not that many that have honestly not seen anything about it.

a reply to: thesmokingman

I think the overwhelming majority of people in that area knew who Chris Kyle was already. Either through him living there and being active, the murder, the funeral, and so on. I really don't see the movie tainting te juror pool any further than it was already.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: thesmokingman
I have a question regarding the blockbuster hit American Sniper, and the timing of its release BEFORE the trial. I just dont see how the man suspected of killing Kyle and his friend, could possibly receive what can be called a "fair" trial. I mean, I am pretty sure he is guilty, however, it is being argued by defense that it was self defense as he thought that Kyle was going to kill HIM. Anyhow, just wondering if there are any great legal minds here on ATS that can speak on this. This movie was being pitched on every TV channel for the last three months. Could it be argued by the defense that their client cannot expect a fair trial? I mean, this movie is already being accused of being a propaganda film, to garner further support for the war=mongering US. Just imagine how the feelings could just automatically convict this man just because of Kyle's notoriety. Thoughts?

Are you suggesting that the release was timed to affect the trial? Not likely. It takes about three years to make a film and, as someone has pointed out, the release was timed to qualify for Academy Award nominations. The jury will be narrowed down to people who have not seen the film and have not seen the ads for the film. No problem.

No, but who's to say the trial wasn't scheduled to coincide with Oscar season?