The media representation of criminal cases can strengthen public oversight, but it may sometimes lead to prejudgment or pressure to reach a predetermined decision. This article asks what criteria distinguish such pressure from legitimate reporting and criticism, and how it relates to judicial independence and the rights of parties to proceedings. Using a descriptive-analytical method and documentary research, the study proposes a two-layer test and examines its explanatory function through six reports concerning two judicial settings. The first layer addresses the stage of proceedings, language, identifying information, the source of allegations, the opportunity to respond, and the manner in which a particular outcome is demanded. The second layer assesses the distribution and coordination of publication only to the extent that they can be established on the basis of available evidence. The analysis concludes that the notoriety of a case, the harshness of criticism, or a call to pursue lawful remedies does not, in itself, constitute undue pressure. Such pressure must be linked to a specific infringement or an improper method of constraining independent decision-making. Moreover, harm to the rights of the parties must be distinguished from a demonstrable effect on the judge. The absence of distributional or judicial data precludes a finding but does not establish the absence of the phenomenon. A proportionate response should be grounded in the correction of information, protection of identity, the right of reply, and accountability based on attributable conduct. The proposed test provides a framework for legal reasoning; it does not claim empirical validity or establish a causal relationship between media reporting and judicial decisions.