Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy

Prejudicial Impact on Hypothetical Oswald Trial

If Lee Harvey Oswald had been tried for the November 22 murders, the Dallas authorities’ public disclosure policy would have caused severe harm to both the prosecution and defense. The widespread misinformation could have been used by the defense to undermine the reliability of the entire state’s case, and the volume of early police misstatements would have helped a skilled defense attorney sway juror attitudes. The disclosures also critically endangered Oswald’s constitutional right to an impartial jury: given the case’s massive public profile and intense public emotion, the release of specific evidence linking Oswald to the killings led the public (the jury pool) to prejudge issues that would be decided at trial. Additionally, multiple pieces of inadmissible evidence (including Chief Curry’s claim that Oswald had refused a lie detector test, District Attorney Wade’s false statement that a paraffin test proved Oswald had fired a gun, and Wade’s disclosure of Marina Oswald’s statement about rifle ownership) were shared publicly, meaning jurors could have been familiar with these facts even if they were excluded from trial. Officials’ repeated public assertions of Oswald’s guilt further prejudiced the jury pool.

Legal and Commission Assessment of Disclosure Harm

The American Bar Association declared in December 1963 that widespread publicizing of Oswald’s alleged guilt and disclosed evidence details would have made it extremely difficult to impanel an impartial jury and ensure a fair trial, a view shared by local bar associations. The Commission agrees that Oswald’s right to a trial by 12 jurors free of preconceptions of guilt or innocence would have been seriously jeopardized by the premature disclosure and public weighing of evidence against him. The Commission also notes that even if police had not released specific case evidence, biographical information shared independently by the press could still have had a prejudicial effect on the public.