Contemporary digital media ecosystems challenge the presumption of innocence—a cornerstone of fair trial rights enshrined in ICCPR Article 14(2) and ECHR Article 6(2)—through rapid dissemination of sensationalized pretrial information that biases public and judicial perceptions. This article examines how social media amplifies "trial by media" effects, analyzing empirical evidence from high-profile cases like Chauvin and Anthony, alongside ECHR jurisprudence such as Salabiaku v. France (1988), to identify regulatory shortcomings in juror exposure mitigation and cross-border content control.Employing a doctrinal and comparative legal methodology, it evaluates sub judice rules, contempt powers, and emerging digital protocols, revealing their limited efficacy against algorithmic amplification and user-generated prejudice. Key findings highlight the need for recalibrated balances between expression freedoms and procedural safeguards, particularly for marginalized defendants facing stereotyping.The study proposes actionable reforms: mandatory digital literacy for jurors, harmonized international takedown mechanisms, and enhanced media ethics training. These measures aim to preserve judicial impartiality amid informational ubiquity, offering a framework for policymakers and courts in the digital era.