Advertisement

Exploring the First and Sixth Amendments: Pretrial Publicity and Jury Decision Making

  • Daniel Linz
  • Steven Penrod

Abstract

John Poindexter, Oliver North, Klaus von Bulow, Jean Harris, General William Westmoreland, Bernhard Goetz, Leona Helmsley, Imelda Marcos, Jim Bakker, John DeLorean, the Central Park Jogger, Jennifer Levin and Robert Chambers, and Zsa Zsa Gabor are names and legal cases we probably recognize. In most instances, we may even be able to recount the crimes and legal issues associated with each. We may have a more difficult time recognizing the names Addam Swapp, Michael Ardilla, or Robert Huttenback. These defendants and the crimes they are charged with may have received only brief national attention but were highly publicized in the communities and regions in which the cases arose.

Keywords

News Story Fair Trial Trial Court Mock Juror Trial Judge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Bar Association. (1968). Standards relating to the administration of justice, fair trial and free press. Chicago: Author.Google Scholar
  2. American Bar Association. (1983). Model rules of professional conduct. Chicago: Author.Google Scholar
  3. Antunes, G. E., & Hurley, P. A. (1978). The representation of criminal events in Houston’s two daily papers. Journalism Quarterly, 756–760.Google Scholar
  4. Burget, L. D. (1986). Control of jury. (15th Annual Review of Criminal Procedure: U.S. Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals 1984–1985). Georgetown Law Journal, 74, 793–801.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chase v. Robson, 435 F.2d 1059 (7th Cir. 1970). Chicago Council of Lawyers v. Bauer, 522 F.2d 242 (7th Cir. 1975) cert, denied sub nom. Cunningham v.Google Scholar
  7. Chicago Council of Lawyers, 427 U.S. 912 (1976). Coleman v. Kemp, 778 F.2d 1487 (11th Cir. 1985).Google Scholar
  8. Costantini, E., & King, J. (1980/1981). The partial juror: Correlates and causes of prejudgment. Law and Society Review, 15, 9–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cox, M., & Tanford, S. (1989). Effects of evidence and instructions in civil trials: An experimental investigation of rules of admissibility. Social Behaviour, 4, 31–55.Google Scholar
  10. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1989). The eyewitness, the expert psychologist, and the jury. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 311–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 185–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dane, F. C. (1985). In search of reasonable doubt: A systematic examination of selected quantification approaches. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deukmejian, G. (1979), November 18). Press Must Retain Freedom to Avoid Tyranny. Sacramento Bee [Forum], pp. 1, 6.Google Scholar
  14. Dexter, H. R. (1989). Unpublished dissertation. Florida International University. North Miami, Florida.Google Scholar
  15. DeLuca, A. J. (1979). Tipping the scales of justice: The effects of pretrial publicity. Unpublished master’s thesis, Iowa State University.Google Scholar
  16. Drechsel, R., Netteburg, K., & Aborisade, B. (1980). Community size and newspaper reporting of local courts. Journalism Quartery, 57, 71–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eastwood, J. A. (1986). Sixth Amendment issues at trial (15th Annual Review of Criminal Procedure: U.S. Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals 1984–1985). Georgetown Law Journal, 74, 826–839.Google Scholar
  18. Flécher v. Weir, 455 U.S. 603, (1982).Google Scholar
  19. Fulero, S. M. (1987). The role of behavioral research in the free press/fair trial controversy. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 259–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fulero, S. M. & Penrod, S. D. (1990). Attorney jury selection folklore; What do they think and how can psychologists help? Forensic Reports, 3, 47.Google Scholar
  21. Grannet Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (1979).Google Scholar
  22. Gillers, S. (1987, January 12). Free press-fair trial debate: A new slant on an old practice. New York Law Journal, 1. Google Scholar
  23. Globe Newspaper v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982).Google Scholar
  24. Gordon, L. & Corwin, M. (1989, July 22). UC suspends Huttenback, cuts off salary. Los Angeles Times, p. 1:27.Google Scholar
  25. Greene, E., & Loftus, E.F. (1984). What’s new in the news? The influence of well-publicized news events on psychological research and courtroom trials. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 5, 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Greene, E. & Wade, R. (1987). Of private false and public print: General pre-trial publicity and juror decision making. Applied Cognitue Psychology, 2, 123–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grobman, P. S. (1986). The constitutionality of statutorily restricting public access to judicial proceedings: The case of the rape shield mandatory closure provision. Boston University Law Review, 66, 271–310.Google Scholar
  28. Hans, V. P., & Vidmar, N. (1982). Jury selection. In N. Ken & R. Brag (Eds.), The Psychology of the Courtroom. New York: Academic Press, 39–82.Google Scholar
  29. Hastie, R., & Park, B. (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review, 93, 258–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hastie, R., Penrod, S. D., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hirschkop v. Snead, 594 F.2d 356 (4th Cir. 1979).Google Scholar
  32. Hirschkop, v. Virginia State Bar, 421 F. Supp. 1137 (4th Cir. 1976).Google Scholar
  33. Hoiberg, B., & Stires, L. (1973). The effect of several types of pre-trial publicity on the guilt attributions of simulated jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hvistendhl, J. K. (1979). The effect of placement of biasing information. Journalism Quartery, 56, 863–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jenkins v. Anderson, 477 U.S. 231, (1980).Google Scholar
  36. Kagehiro, D. K., & Stanton, W. C. (1985). Legal vs. quantified definitions of standards of proof. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 159–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Killing and kidnapping? (1989, February 13), Newsday. p. 16.Google Scholar
  38. Kline, F. G., & Jess, P. H. (1966). Prejudicial publicity: Its effects on law school mock juries. Journalism Quarterly, 43, 113–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Krauss, E., & Bonora, B. (Eds.). (1986). Jury work: Systematic techniques (2nd ed.). New York: Clark Boardman.Google Scholar
  40. Lichtenstein, M., & Srull, T. K. (1987). Processing objectives as a determinant of the relationship between recall and judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 93–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Markfield v. Assoc, of Bar, 49 AD 2d 516, 370 NYS 2d 82, 1st Dept. 1975, appeal dismissed, 37 NY 2d 794, 375 NYS 2d 106, 1975.Google Scholar
  42. Nelson, (1973). The effects of pretrial publicity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
  43. National Broadcasting Co. v. Cooperman, 116 AD 2d 287, 501 NYS 2d 405, 2d Dept. 1986.Google Scholar
  44. Nietzel, M. & Dillehay, R. (1982). Psychologists as consultants for changes fof venue; The use of public opinion surveys. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Louisville, KY.Google Scholar
  45. Nietzel, M. T., & Dillehay, R. C. (1985). Psychologists as consultants for changes of venue: The use of public opinion surveys. Law and Human Behavior, 7, 309–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nietzel, M. T., & Dillehay, R. C. (1986). Psychological consultation in the courtroom. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  47. Norwood, E. A. (1986). The prosecutor and pretrial publicity: The need for a rule. The Journal of the Legal Profession. Google Scholar
  48. O’Donnell, P. D. (1988). Pretrial publicity, change of venue, public opinion polls—A theory of procedural justice, University of Detroit Law Review, 65, 169–197.Google Scholar
  49. Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17, 776–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Otto, A. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Assessing the impact of pretrial publicity on juror decisionmaking. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  51. Otto, A. L., Penrod, S. D., & Hirt, E. R. (1990). The influence of pretrial publicity on juror judgments in a civil case. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  52. 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
  53. Padawer-Singer, A., Singer, A., & Singer, R. (1974). Voir dire by two lawyers: An essential safeguard. Judicature, 57, 386.Google Scholar
  54. Padawer-Singer, A., Singer, A., & Singer, R. (1977). Legal and social-psychological research in the effects of pretrial publicity on juries, numerical makeup of juries, non-unanimous verdict requirements. Law and Psychology Review, 3, 71.Google Scholar
  55. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 242–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Penrod, S. (1979). Study of attorney and “scientific” jury selection models. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  57. Polygamists sentenced for standoff. (1989, January 27). Chicago Tribune, p. C-20.Google Scholar
  58. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986).Google Scholar
  59. Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974).Google Scholar
  60. Read, S. J. (1987). Constructing causal scenarios: A knowledge structure approach to causal reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 288–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Reardon, P. C. (1968). The fair trial-free press standards. American Bar Association Journal, 54, 343–344.Google Scholar
  62. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980).Google Scholar
  63. Riley, S. G. (1973). Pretrial publicity: A field study. Journalism Quarterly, 50, 17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rudinsky, P. (1986). Finding the path between an attorney’s first amendment right to free speech and a client’s Sixth Amendment right to fair trial, (case note) Levine vs. U.S. District Court—764 F.2d 590 (9th Cir. 1985). Willamette Law Review, 59, 603–640.Google Scholar
  65. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966).Google Scholar
  66. Simon, R. J. (1966, May-June). Murder, juries, and the press. Trans-Action, 64–65.Google Scholar
  67. Srull, T. K., & Wyer, R. S. (1983). The role of control processes and structural constraints in models of memory and social judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 497–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sue, S., Smith, R. E., & Gilbert, R. (1974). Biasing effect of pretrial publicity on judicial decisions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 2, 163–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tanford, S., & Penrod, S. (1984). Social inference processes in juror judgments of multiple-offense trials. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 749–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tanford, S., Penrod, S., and Collins, R. (1985). Decisionmaking in joined criminal trials: The influence of charge similarity, evidence similarity, and limiting instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 319–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tans, M. D., & Chaffee, S. H. (1966). Pretrial publicity and juror prejudice. Journalism Quarterly, 43, 647–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. U.S. v. Bailleaux, 685 F.2d 1105 (9th Cir. 1982).Google Scholar
  73. U.S. v. McNally 485 F.2d 398 (8th Cir. 1973).Google Scholar
  74. Vidmar, N., & Judson, J. (1981). The use of social sciences in a change of venue application. Canadian bar Review, 59, 76–102.Google Scholar
  75. Visher, C. A. (1987). Juror decision making: The importance of evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Weakland, L. F. (1986). Confusion in the courthouse: The legacy of the Gannett and Richmond Newspaper’s public right of access (case note) Gannett Co. vs. DePasquale—443 U.S. 368 (1979); Richmond Newspapers vs. Virginia—448Google Scholar
  77. U.S. 555 (1980). Southern California Law Review, 59, 603–640.Google Scholar
  78. Wilcox, W., & McCombs, M. (1967). Crime story elements and fair trial/free press. Unpublished study, University of California.Google Scholar
  79. Wise, D. (1986, July 18). Bar report recommends curbs on pretrial comments to media (New York). New York Law Journal, 196, 1.Google Scholar
  80. Zanzola, L. (1977). Effects of pretrial publicity on the verdicts of jurors and juries. Unpublished study, Department of Psychology, Northern Illinois University.Google Scholar
  81. Zeisel, H., & Diamond, S. S. (1978). The effect of peremptory challenges on jury and verdict: An experiment in a federal district court. Stanford Law Review, 30, 491–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Linz
  • Steven Penrod

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations