Pretrial Publicity and the Jury: Research and Methods

  • Lisa M. Spano
  • Jennifer L. Groscup
  • Steven D. Penrod
Chapter

Abstract

Research conducted over the past 40 years demonstrates that pretrial publicity (PTP) can negatively influence jurors’ perceptions of parties in criminal and civil cases receiving substantial news coverage. Changes in the news media over the same period of time have made news coverage more accessible to the public as traditional media including newspapers, television, and radio are complemented with new media such as the Internet. The development of specialized media services such as Court TV has further complicated the task of finding jurors who have not been exposed to potentially biasing PTP. In short, contemporary media pose growing challenges to those involved in trials, especially highly publicized cases.

Keywords

Attenuation Abate Asbestos Vioxx Glean 

References

  1. ABA Standards for Fair Trial and Free Press. (1992). Retrieved from http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/standards/fairtrial_toc.html.
  2. Abramson, J. (2000). We the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. American Bar Association. (2004). Model rules of professional conduct. Chicago. Retrieved from January 2007 http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/rule_3_6.html.
  4. Arbuthnot, J., Myers, B., & Leach, J. (2002). Linking juror prejudgment and pretrial publicity knowledge: Some methodological considerations. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 20, 53–71.Google Scholar
  5. Bornstein, B. H., Whisenhunt, B. L., Nemeth, R. J., & Dunaway, D. L. (2002). Pretrial publicity and civil cases: A two-way street? Law and Human Behavior, 21, 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carroll, J. S., Kerr, N. L., Alfini, J. J., Weaver, E. M., MacCoun, K. G., & Feldman, V. (1986). Free press and fair trial: The role of behavioral research. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 187–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chrzanowski, L. M., Groscup, O’Neil, Penrod, Garcia, Solomonson, et al. (2006). Testing the effects of pretrial publicity: A field experiment with an actual trial. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  8. Costantini, E., & King, J. (1980–1981). The partial juror: Correlates and causes of prejudgment. Law and Society Review, 15, 9–40.Google Scholar
  9. DeLuca, A. J. (1979). Tipping the scales of justice: The effects of pretrial publicity. Unpublished master’s thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dixon, T., & Linz, D. (2002). Television news, prejudicial pretrial publicity and the depiction of race. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 46, 112–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Flood, M. (2004, November 9). Skilling seeks escape from Houston heat: Ex-Enron chief files for a change of venue after poll finds unflattering perceptions here. Houston Chronicle, 9.Google Scholar
  13. Fowler, T. (2004). Verdict from Houston residents polled: guilty. Houston Chronicle. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Greene, E., & Wade, R. (1988). Of private talk and public print: General pre-trial publicity and juror decision-making. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2, 123–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Horowitz, I., & Willging, T. (1984). The psychology of law: Integrations and applications. Boston: Little, Brown, & Co.Google Scholar
  16. Hvistendahl, J. K. (1979). The effect of placement of biasing information. Journalism Quarterly, 56, 863–865.Google Scholar
  17. Imrich, D. I., Mullin, C., & Linz, D. (1995). Measuring the extent of prejudicial pretrial publicity in major American newspapers: A content analysis. The Journal of Communication, 45, 94–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 7 17, 727 (1961).Google Scholar
  19. Kerr, N. L., Kramer, G. P., Carroll, J. S., & Alfini, J. J. (1991). On the effectiveness of voir dire in criminal cases with pretrial publicity: An empirical study. American University Law Review, 40, 665–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kline, F. G., & Jess, P. H. (1966). Prejudicial publicity: Its effects on law school mock juries. Journalism Quarterly, 43, 113–116.Google Scholar
  21. Kovera, M. B. (2002). The effects of general pretrial publicity on juror decisions: An examination of moderators and mediating mechanisms. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 43–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kramer, G. P., Kerr, N. L., & Carroll, J. S. (1990). Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies, and jury bias. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 409–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lieberman, J. D., & Arndt, J. (2000). Understanding the limits of limiting instructions: Social psychological explanations for the failures of instructions to disregard pretrial publicity and other inadmissible evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 677–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Minow, N. N., & Cate, F. H. (2001). Who is an impartial juror in an age of mass media? The American University Law Review, 40, 631–664.Google Scholar
  25. Moran, G., & Cutler, B. L. (1991). The prejudicial impact of pretrial publicity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 345–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mu’Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415 (1991).Google Scholar
  27. Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 799–802 (1975).Google Scholar
  28. Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976).Google Scholar
  29. Nietzel, M. T., & Dillehay, R. C. (1983). Psychologists as consultants for changes of venue: The use of public opinion surveys. Law and Human Behavior, 7, 309–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ogloff, J. R. P., & Vidmar, N. (1994). The impact of pretrial publicity on juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 453–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Otto, A., & Penrod, S. D. (1991). Assessing mediators of pre-trial publicity effects. San Francisco: APA.Google Scholar
  32. Otto, A., Penrod, S., & Hirt, E. (1990). The influence of pretrial publicity on juror judgments in civil case. Unpublished manuscript.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Otto, A. L., Penrod, S., & Dexter, H. (1994). The biasing impact of pretrial publicity on juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 453–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Padawer-Singer, A. M., Singer, A. N., & Singer, R. L. (1977). Legal and social-psychological research in the effects of pre-trial publicity on juries, numerical makeup of juries, non-unanimous verdict requirements. Law and Psychology Review, 3, 71–79.Google Scholar
  35. Penrod, S. D., Groscup, J. G., & O’Neil, K. O. (2001). Assessing the effects of pretrial publicity in the case of Elizabeth “Lizzie” Grubman. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  36. Penrod, S. D., O’Neil, K. O., & Groscup, J. G. (2002). Assessing the effects of pretrial publicity in the case of John Walker Lindh. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  37. Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia (1980).Google Scholar
  38. Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (1963).Google Scholar
  39. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 362 (1966).Google Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Steblay, N. M., Besirevic, J., Fulero, S. M., & Jimenez-Lorente, B. (1999). The effects of pretrial publicity on juror verdicts: A meta-analytic review. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Studebaker, C. A., & Penrod, S. D. (1997). Pretrial publicity: The media, the law and commonsense. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 428–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Studebaker, C. A., Robbennolt, J. K., & Pathak-Sharma, M. K. (2000). Assessing pretrial publicity effects: Integrating content analytic results. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 317–333.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tankard, J. W., Middleton, K., & Rimmer, T. (1979). Compliance with American Bar Association fair trial-free press guidelines. Journalism Quarterly, 56, 464–468.Google Scholar
  45. Tans, M., & Chaffee, S. (1966). Pretrial publicity and juror prejudice. Journalism Quarterly, 43, 647–654.Google Scholar
  46. U.S. Department of Justice. 28 C.F.R. $50.2.Google Scholar
  47. U.S. v. McVeigh, 918 F. Supp. 1467 (1996).Google Scholar
  48. Van Dyke, J. M. (1977). Jury selection procedures. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  49. Vidmar, N. (2003). Symposium:III. The jury in practice: When all of us are victims: Juror prejudice and “terrorist” trials. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 1143, 1–42.Google Scholar
  50. Wilson, J. R., & Bornstein, B. H. (1998). Methodological considerations in pretrial publicity research: Is the medium the message? Law and Human Behavior, 12, 477–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lisa M. Spano
    • 1
  • Jennifer L. Groscup
  • Steven D. Penrod
  1. 1.PhaseOne CommunicationsLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations