(citing CBS, 729 F.2d at 1180) (the court must examine the capacity of pretrial publicity “to inflame and prejudice the entire community"). Both demonstrate that this case is simply not one of the rare instances in which pretrial publicity mandates prior restraints, This civil trademark infringement action involves issues that are far more banal than the subject matters of the criminal trials in which pretrial publicity has presented serious constitutional problems. See, e.g., CBS, 729 F.2d at 1181 (collecting cases that involved armed robbery, kidnapping, bludgeoning, and murder, and concluding prosecution of prominent defendant for conspiracy to import cocaine was not lurid or highly inflammatory); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 356, 363, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966) (<HOLDING>). And, as we have long held, pretrial publicity
holding that indictment for murder in the first degree charges murder by whatever means it may have been committed regardless of the theory of murder presented to the grand jury holding that media coverage contributed to due process violation in murder trial that intrigued and captivated the public fancy to a degree perhaps unparalleled in recent annals holding that in similar factual situation no due process violation occurred holding that the crime of attempted first degree felony murder does not exist holding different rule applicable for conviction of second degree murder