Skip to main content
Log in

The Effects of Pretrial Publicity on Juror Verdicts: A Meta-Analytic Review

  • Published:
Law and Human Behavior

Abstract

The effect of pretrial publicity (PTP) on juror verdicts was examined through a meta-analysis of 44 empirical tests representing 5,755 subjects. In support of the hypothesis, subjects exposed to negative PTP were significantly more likely to judge the defendant guilty compared to subjects exposed to less or no negative PTP. Greater effect sizes were produced in studies which included a pretrial verdict assessment, use of the potential juror pool as subjects, multiple points of negative information included in the PTP, real PTP, crimes of murder, sexual abuse, or drugs, and greater length of time between PTP exposure and judgment. The effect was attenuated with student subjects, use of general rather than specific PTP information, certain types of PTP content, a post-trial predeliberation verdict, and specific types of crimes. Implications of these results are discussed, along with possible mechanisms that underlie the PTP effect.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Bennett, W. L., & Feldman, M. S. (1981). Reconstructing reality in the courtroom: Justice and judgment in American culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. S., Kerr, N. L., Alfini, J. J, Weaver, F. M., MacCoun, R. J., & Feldman, V. (1986). Free press and fair trial: The role of behavioral research. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 187-201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costantini, E., & King, J. (1980/81). The partial juror: Correlates and causes of prejudgment. Law and Society Review, 15, 9-40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costley, C. L. (1988). Meta-analysis of involvement research. Advances in Consumer Research, 15, 554-562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, R. W. (1986). Pretrial publicity, the timing of the trial, and mock jurors' decision processes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 590-607.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLuca, A. J. (1979). Tipping the scales of justice: The effects of pretrial publicity. Unpublished master's thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.

  • Dexter, H. R., Cutler, B. L., & Moran, G. (1992). A test of voir dire as a remedy for the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 819-832.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, E., & Wade, R. (1988). Of private talk and public print: General pretrial publicity and juror decision making. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2, 123-135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulero, S. M. (1987). The role of behavioral research in the free press/fair trial controversy: Another view. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 259-264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulero, S., Olsen-Fulero, L., & Wulff, K. (1991, June). Stability and structure of mediating story variables in rape juror decision making. Paper presented at the American Psychological Society convention, Washington, D. C.

  • Fulero, S., & Penrod, S. (1990). The myths and realities of attorney jury selection folklore and scientific jury selection: What works? Ohio Northern Law Review, 17, 229-253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, R., Penrod, S., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoiberg, B., & Stires, L. (1973). The effect of several types of pretrial publicity on the guilty attributions of simulated jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 267-275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hvistendahl, J. K. (1979). The effect of placement of biasing information. Journalism Quarterly, 56, 863-865.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kovera, M. (1994). The media and allegations of sexual misconduct: The effect of agenda-setting on appraisals of credibility. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

  • Kramer, G. P., & Kerr, N. L. (1989). Laboratory simulation and bias in the study of juror behavior: A methodological note. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 89-100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, G. P., Kerr, N. L., & Carroll, J. S. (1990). Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies, and jury bias. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 409-438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linz, D. & Penrod, S. (1992). Exploring the First and Sixth Amendments: Pretrial publicity and jury decision making. In D. K. Kagehiro & W. S. Laufer (Eds.), Handbook of psychology and law (pp. 3-20). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 233-346). New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, A. J. (1989). Trial by schema: Cognitive filters in the courtroom. UCLA Law Review, 37, 273-341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moran, G., & Cutler, B. L. (1991). The prejudicial impact of pretrial publicity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 345-367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moran, G., & Cutler, B. L. (1997). Bogus publicity items and the contingency between awareness and media-induced pretrial prejudice. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 339-344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullin, C., Imrich, D., & Linz, D. (1989, August). The effects of date-rape information and prejudicial and nonprejudicial pretrial publicity on jury decision making in a sexual assault case. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association meeting, New Orleans, LA.

  • Nelson, M. D. (1972). Free press-fair trial: The effects of “sensational” and “non-sensational” pretrial news stories and of a judge's admonition upon “juror” and “non-juror” guilt assessment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

  • Note. (1846). Trial by jury in New York. Law Reports, 9, 193-201.

  • Ogloff, J. R. P., & Vidmar, N. (1994). The impact of pretrial publicity on jurors. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 507-525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen-Fulero, L., & Fulero, S. (1997). Common sense rape judgments: An empathy-complexity theory of rape juror story making. Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law, 3, 402-427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen-Fulero, L., Fulero, S., & Wulff, K. (1989, August). Who did what to whom? Modeling rape jurors' cognitive processes. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association convention, New Orleans, LA.

  • Otto, A., Penrod, S., & Dexter, H. (1994). The biasing impact of pretrial publicity on juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 453-462.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otto, A., Penrod, S., & Hirt, E. (1990) The influence of pretrial publicity on juror judgments in a civil case. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Padawer-Singer, A., & Barton, A. H. (1975). The impact of pretrial publicity on jurors' verdicts. In R. J. Simon (Ed.), The jury system in America: A critical overview (pp. 123-139). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, N. (1981). Causal reasoning and decision making: The case of juror decisions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

  • Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1981, August). Juror decision making: Story structure and verdict choice. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association convention, Los Angeles, CA.

  • Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 242-258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1988). Explanation-based decision making: Effects of memory structure on judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 521-533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1990). Practical implications of psychological research on juror and jury decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 90-105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1991). A cognitive theory of juror decision making: The story model. Cardozo Law Review, 13, 519-557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence: Tests of the story model for juror decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 189-206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polvi, N., Jack, L., Lyon, D. Laird, P., & Ogloff, J. (1996). Mock juror's verdicts in a child sexual abuse case: The effects of pretrial publicity. Paper presented at American Psychology-Law Society Conference, Hilton Head, S.C.

  • Riedel, R. (1973). Effects of pretrial publicity on male and female jurors and judges in a mock rape trial. Psychological Reports, 73, 819-832.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, R. J. (1966). Murder, juries, and the press. Trans-Action, 1966 (May–June), 64-65.

  • Simon, R. J., & Eimermann, T. (1971). The jury finds not guilty: Another look at media influence on the jury. Journalism Quarterly, 48, 343-344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V. L. (1991). Prototypes in the courtroom: Lay representations of legal concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 857-872.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V. L. (1993). When prior knowledge and law collide: Helping jurors use the law. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 507-536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steblay, N. M. (1992). A meta-analytic review of the weapon-focus effect. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 413-424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steblay, N. M. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 283-297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Studebaker, C. A., & Penrod, S. D. (1997). Pretrail publicity: The media, the law and common sense. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 3, 428-460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sue, S., Smith, R. E., & Gilbert, R. (1974). Biasing effects of pretrial publicity on judicial decisions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 2, 163-171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sue, S., Smith, R. E., & Pedroza, G. (1975). Authoritarianism, pretrial publicity and awareness of bias in simulated jurors. Psychological Reports, 37, 1299-1302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tans, M., & Chaffee, S. (1966). Pretrial publicity and juror prejudice. Journalism Quarterly, 43, 647-654.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80, 352-373.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nancy Mehrkens Steblay.

About this article

Cite this article

Steblay, N.M., Besirevic, J., Fulero, S.M. et al. The Effects of Pretrial Publicity on Juror Verdicts: A Meta-Analytic Review. Law Hum Behav 23, 219–235 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022325019080

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022325019080

Keywords

Navigation