In recent years, a corrosive phenomenon has emerged: trials held outside the courtroom, in digital and media arenas. What was once background noise becomes a pre-judgment, capable of influencing the reconstruction of facts. Rapid and viral narratives consolidate opinions that precede cross-examination in the trial.

The contamination between information and judgment affects guarantees: even magistrates are subject to social pressure, while media consensus seems to measure the legitimacy of the ruling more than its arguments. Thus, the law ceases to guide public opinion and becomes its victim.

The defense is the most penalized: ensuring a trial also means challenging pre-trial convictions, reconstructing evidence but also compromising reputations. The prosecution, in turn, risks succumbing to the logic of media "victories," reducing the rigor and quality of its investigations.

The greatest harm falls on the accused: criminal justice distinguishes facts from individuals, while the media confuses them, stigmatizing the accused well beyond a possible acquittal. The stigma endures longer than the trial itself.

These are not isolated journalistic errors, but a systemic issue affecting the media, platforms, and civil society. A balance between the right to information and the right to a fair trial is needed, with stricter rules on judicial reporting, greater accountability in news reporting, and effective reputational protection tools.

Ultimately, it's a cultural challenge: defending the process means defending the civil community, accepting the slowness of verification and the value of doubt. If the court of opinion prevails, the loser is not only the accused, but justice itself and trust in institutions.