Effects of Pretrial Publicity on Juror Decision Making - Literature review Example

Literature Review on the Effects of Pretrial Publicity on Juror Decision Making Institution: Name: Background information Pretrial publicity (PTP) entails the exposure of information before court trial takes course (Kovera & Cutler, 2012). In other words, it is a form of leaking information to others. However, researches have shown that it has a significant effect on the final decisions of the juror. Pretrial Publicity can take place in the social media or through articles. Different literatures that research on the jurors decisions has found out that the Pretrial Publicity influences juror decisions either negatively or positively. The effect of PTP has seen many defendants denied a fair trial by courts because the judges and the attorneys also develop informed opinions after the pretrial publicity (Shaw & Skolnick, 2004). Recently, psychologists and social scientists have been putting up efforts of coming up with remedies of PTP problems (Daftary-kapur, Dumas & Penrod, 2010). They are recommending that courts must be first to identify proposals to deal with this problem at their superior levels. Starr and McCormic (2009) find out the remedies available for cases which has pretrial publicity. On the other hand, the literature also evaluates the effectiveness of the remedies. Most importantly, the literature seeks to find out if voire dire can help jurors in articulating concerns on the influence that emotions have on pretrial publicity and how public views are necessary in such cases. Starr and McCormic (2009) claim that a detailed research carried out by psychologists for the past thirty years shows support for the potential pretrial publicity prejudicial influence on cases. Pretrial publicity has various influences including sympathy towards the defiant, final verdicts and defendant’s likeability evaluation (Ruva & McEvov, 2008). This research uses meta-analysis that selects various studies and looks at the trends of the data. Starr and McCormic (2009) summarise the research as and infers that jurors exposed to negative pretrial publicity about defendants have a higher potential of judging defendants guilty as compared to jurors who have little exposure to pretrial publicity. Meta-analysis in this context demonstrates that pretrial publicity affects juror judgement at about three levels as trial process proceeds (Starr & McCormic2009). The researchers infer that PPT has the greatest effect on the defiant prejudgement. The other stages include post-deliberation and post-trial also have affected by pretrial publicity. However, the remedies of the PPT effect must integrate all the trial stages. To deal with these problems amicably, early intervention is significant due to functionality of the courtrooms. On the other hand, courts are the only places where remedies will influence juror decisions because pretrial publicity is most observable at the pretrial stage (Lieberman & Krauss, 2009). Possible remedies to pretrial publicity effects When negative effects of PPT are evident, changing the venue or venire can be a good remedy the other remedies will include judicial instructions and expanding voir dire or using supplemental juror (Starr & McCormic, 2009). This literature recommends that changing the venue is the most efficient solutions to the PPT effects. This strives to avoid the use of judges who have had a prolonged exposure to PPT. Starr & McCormic (2009) in chapter 8 explains the procedures, methods and analysis of the change in the results of changing the venues. In addition, the literature also recommends judicial admonitions as the second best remedy to PPT problems. The judge in particular gives jurors admonitions regarding pretrial publicity. This remedy in particular reduces factual and emotional impacts of pretrial publicity. The critics of these researchers always questioned the methodology that they employed in their research as well as the target group or the participants (Rosenfeld & Penrod, 2011). Kovera & Cutler (2012) infers that PTP impacts cuts across all kinds of cases. The PTP does not only affect the guilty verdicts of the criminal trials, but researches have shown that it also affects civil cases. This implies that the prejudicial information that exist against the defiant especially in personal injury cases means that the court can find the defiant liable. This literature gives the advantages of meta-analysis. It compares the use of meta-analysis to non-statistical literature review. The outstanding advantage of this method is that it allows the researcher to concentrate on studies that have large participants and creates room for testing the characteristics or variables of these studies (Kovera & Cutler, 2012). The possibility of eliminating jurors from the panel when they have challenges for course Kovera & Cutler (2012) also recommends voir dire for negative effects of PTP. In this case, the judge always opts to extend questioning sessions to determine if PTP has resulted to biases among the members. On the other hand, attorneys can go an extra to mile of educating the jurors on the effects of pretrial publicity. This is a move towards ensuring that jurors ignore any information they have collected prior to trial. It also commits the jurors in ignoring PTP when they are making decisions. However, empirical researches have shown that there are issues that prevent effectiveness of the voir dire (Kovera & Cutler, 2012). Firstly, people are always unaware of factors behind their judgements as psychological studies have shown. To verify this fact, it is necessary to survey communities with high publicity and those that are non-exposed or remote. It comes out clearly that defendants from remote areas are likely to prove guilty than from areas with higher PTP. However, the results also show that there is no difference on the way the two different groups will deliver their judgements. All the groups will obvious keep open minds when they are delivering judgements. Smith (2008) explains the circumstances under which facts of the case can be become inadmissible. One of the reasons for turning down these facts is pretrial publicity, which leads to inadmissible evidence. On the other hand, the court can also render PPT unreliable but not considering the facts presented but also on the emotional inflammatory. If the court considers PPT during the process of deliberation, it automatically deprives the defiant the right to receive justice from any impartial jury. Smith (2008) also claims that PTP influences the decisions of the jury by painting a bad picture about the defiant. The influence of PTP on the jurors has made researchers look for influence that it has on the cognitive framework of the jurors. Researches infer that jurors with prolonged PTP exposure exhibit greater pre-decision alteration than individuals who have limited PPT exposure. Smith (2008) uses the Story Model theory to base his arguments. This theory is primarily juror decision-making in nature (Smith 2008). It suggests that jurors usually organize evidence trial evidence so as to make a story which determines their final verdict. This is further supported by Shaw & Skolnick (2004)) who asserts that jurors verdict on different versions of the stories predicts the final judgement decision. On the other hand, Smith records that there has been no research done on the influence of pretrial publicity on the stories that jurors construct. He further ascertains that there have been no systematic researches that investigate the influence that different pretrial publicity has on the judgement decisions of the jurors. The most outstanding point about Smith (2008) literature is the explanation of the story theory. He collects information from different literatures. On the other hand, he mentions other models explaining the criteria that jurors use to arrive at their verdict. Some of these models include Bayesian, Information integration and Sequental weighting (Smith, 2008). These models in use numerical values on evidences as well as algebraic operation in evaluating the likelihood of innocence or guilt among the defiant. The limitation of these models is that they use mathematical analysis, but jurors never use them when they are delivering judgements. Story model works as an alternative to the mathematic models. Smith (2008) argues that story model mainly focuses on the organization and knowledge in constructing any story. In general, jurors can use this model to organize the stories in a coherent manner based on the facts or events of the trial. This model also assumes that individuals present a lot of evidences in court for long durations using the question-answer format. Smith (2008) postulates that jurors develop constructive understanding when reviewing the evidences. In a nut shell, the theory claims that the stories that jurors construct will eventually determine their decisions. Rosenfeld and Penrod (2011) also use the multi analysis to determine if PTP has bias influence. On the other hand, the literature postulates the effect on the extent of exposure to preferences of verdict. Analyses in this context revealed that nature of exposure systematically influences the participants’ verdicts. In addition, PTP effect on the pretrial judgements in natural conditions depends on the levels of familiarity. This implies that participants who have had a chance to read persecution articles becomes more familiar with the case and can easily rate the accused as guilty. This confirms the durability effect of PTP on the cases (Ruva & McEvov, 2008). Studies on the effects of PTP have an array of advantages because it not only has importance for the courts but also to actors within the legal system especially the trial consultants (Starr & McCormick, 2009). The research on this area is also helpful since it helps trial consultants in devising ways to deal with the PTP problems. Most significant, it avails the methodologies that consultants can use to carry out their daily practices. Rosenfeld and Penrod (2011) recommend that the use of multi-methods by consultants helps in capitalising the on the strengths of other methodologies. Eventually, this research aid consultants in providing support to clients. Ruva, Guenther and Yarbrough (2013) investigate the effect that prolonged exposure to PTP on the juror emotion, impression formation and pre decision. They found out that mock jurors mostly review articles that have negative PPT, as well as those containing positive PTP. A week later, the same jurors viewed the video tape about a murder trial and finally gave their verdict on the guilt. In this article, the researchers measured emotions of the jurors three times while carrying out the experiment. The stages of measurements include before PTP exposure, immediately after PTP exposure and immediately after the trial (Ruva, Guenther & Yarbrough, 2013). Just as other literatures infer negative and positive PTP exposure affects verdicts, defendant credibility, emotions and distortion before the decision making. In summary, the article postulates that juror’s emotions, defendant’s credibility and distortions before decision making are determinants of the effect of PTP on rating the guilt of the accused. Daftary-kapur, Dumas, and Penrod (2010) review all the biases that an analyst can associate with jury decisions. Critically, the article talks about impacts of Pretrial Publicity, inadmissible evidence, jury instructions and the scientific evidences. Most significant, the article digs out the challenges that jurors face and the best ways to deal with these problems. In its findings, the article explains that there are still gaps in understanding factors that influence juror decisions. The authors are right to infer that scientific research for the past 50 years has not solved the problem on the existence of gaps in comprehending or understanding how PTP, scientific evidence, jury instructions and inadmissible evidence influence the jury decisions (Daftary-kapur, Dumas & Penrod, 2010). However, researchers are putting many efforts to develop levels of appreciating the problems. This is a great move towards understanding the problems. Daftary-kapur, Dumas and Penrod (2010), are laudable for drawing some important facts about decision making. Though jurors do have difficulties on comprehending patterns of instructions, the authors have recommended ways through which judicial systems can rewrite the instructions to help the help the jurors in understanding (Daftary-kapur, Dumas & Penrod, 2010). However, the article is unable to find solutions to the problems associated to inadmissible evidence. In understanding the scientific evidence, the article recommends better education of the judges and jurors as the best way to deal with the issue. The main concern is on Pretrial publicity. This piece of work confirms the pretrial publicity threat because it denies the defendant the right to obtain a fair trial. In addition to changing the venue, the authors propose that cost-effect remedies will help the judicial systems in overcoming biases induced by the media. Shaw and Skolnick (2004) have also written a journal article that is vital in studying the effects of PTP on the jurors decisions. The authors in their research compared effects of PTP from the physical evidence as well as witness evidence on both trained and untrained juror decisions. In this case, the mock jurors had a chance to view video tape of a rape trial and eventually participated on the deliberations. This training mainly consisted of the completing a degree course on law and psychology. The final results showed that physical evidence of PTP had more votes on guilt than witnesses who lacked PTP. It is evident from the study that the two types of PTP (positive and negative) influenced the untrained jurors preferences on punishment as well as their fairness and fairness perception. On the other hand, perceptions of PTP did not affect trained jurors decisions. Furthermore, the study found out that trained jurors adopted task-oriented approach in their decisions and they also concentrated on the relevant facts as compared to untrained mock jurors. Ruva and McEvov (2008) mainly focus on the delay of juror memory and decisions. In this study, the authors studied mock jurors who had to read negative PTP and positive PTP. The research then conducted a follow up study on the jurors five days later and noted how they made their decisions on a murder case. Interestingly, the participants (jurors) confirmed that they had information prior to the trial, and it was precisely the same as presented in the case. The research also carried out test on the source-memory immediately and two days after. The implication was the same as the authors had earlier anticipated. They found that exposure to PTP affected guilty verdicts, defendant credulity, juror prosecution ratings and the defence attorneys. In this context, delays increases errors of source-memory but does not affect guilty ratings (Ruva, McEvoy & Bryant 2007). On the other hand, defendants’ credibility and ratings of both jurors and attorneys clearly indicate the effect of PTP on the rating of guilty verdicts. Ruva and McEvov (2008) also question the validity of researchers that examine effects of PTP on the appraisal of the defendant and the decision making. They are internally valid but social scientist are now questioning if they have external importance. To make matters serious, even the judges and lawyers are questioning the effectiveness of these researches. This article proposes that the internet can be the best means of carrying out research on PTP because it allows for higher verisimilitude at low costs. This is one of the researches that have employed the use of internet in studying PTP effects on the jury decisions. Besides, the article discusses the importance of carrying out psychological and law researchers using the internet. One of the advantages is the scope of research because it covers a large area within a limited time. The findings are the same for most researches carried out on PTP, but the emphasis on using internet PTP study is a point to note from this journal article. Erastus-Obilo (2008) acknowledges the growth of the effect of PTP on causing prejudices. The author also commends the willingness of courts to deal with this issue particularly at the top or superior level. He gives the example of English courts where the courts have overturned convictions citing the influence of pretrial publicity that renders fair trials impossible. This literature claims that very few studies have carried out researches on the influence of PTP at higher levels. However, Erastus-Obilo (2008) asserts the occurrence of biases that result from PTP. On the other, negative PTP has resulted to higher convictions (Ruva & McEvov, 2008).). Just like the other research, this study uses meta-analysis that cuts across different jurors at the top level. Jurors on the hand consider that processing of the information they have prior to trials is their right (Lieberman & Krauss, 2009). Any effort that thwarts juror rights runs against the global justice concepts. This implies that the pretrial publicity is poised to influence court trials for a long time. The problem is here to stay. The suggestions that admonitions ignore prior information can lead to resistance and may make the jurors reconsider the information that these admonitions discourage them from using. For instance, inadmissible evidence may become strong evidence if the court is putting pressure on the jurors to abandon such information. Denial of freedom can be attractive to jurors because they will not ignore the evidences but instead make them critical information. Lieberman and Kraus (2009) show that inadmissible evidence that experience judicial admonition becomes more powerful than the ones that do not face admonitions. The reactance idea states that “the greater the limits of jurors perceive to exist on their deliberative freedom, the greater the likelihood that they will be influenced by inadmissible evidence” (Lieberman & Krauss, 2009). Theories of resistance undermine courts efforts that aim at reducing pretrial publicity effects (Lieberman & Krauss, 2009). One of the assumptions is that the court must motivate individuals in order to consider inadmissible evidence. Encouraging the consideration of the inadmissible evidence is one way of ensuring that PTP exist in most cases. Recommendations for further research Most literatures talk about effects of pretrial publicity without considering the root course of this problem. Adverse impacts of pretrial publicity are as a result of juror beliefs (Ruva & McEvov, 2008). It is necessary to carry out tests on the jurors to determine if they have information prior to trial. This provision lacks in most of the literatures that claim to research on the effects of pretrial publicity. Psychologists and social scientists must also put initiatives that will determine or predict the jurors’ memory with regard to the information that they have. Most significant, the experimental designs that researchers will use in this context must be consistence (Campbell, 2009). However, in the unpredictable cases, inconsistent experimental designs may become useful. References Campbell, D.S. (2009). Theoretical assessments of Pretrial PUBLICITY Effects: A pioneering Attemp at measuring the Tenedndcy of Agenda-setting Statement and Framing Interpratations to Produce Assumptions of Guilt. Michigan: ProQuest. Daftary-kapur, T., Dumas, R. & Penrod, S. D. (2010). Jury decision-making biases and methods to counter them. Legal and criminology Psychology, 15(1), 133-154. Doi: 10.1348/135532509X465624 Erastu-Obilo, B. G. A. (2008). The place of the explained Verdict in the English Criminal Justice System: Decision-making and Criminal Trials. Boca Raton, Florida: Universal-Publishers. Kovera, M. B & Cutler, B. L. (2012). Jury selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press Lieberman, J. L & Krauss, D. A. (2009). Psychology in the Courtroom. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd Rosenfeld & Penrod, S. D. (2011). Research methods in forensic psychology. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Ruva, C. L., McEvoy, C. & Bryant, J. B. (2007). Effects of pretrial publicty and collaboration on jour bias and source monitoring errors. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(1), 45-67. doi:10.1002/acp.1254 Ruva, C. L. & McEvov, C. (2008). Negative and positive pretrial peublicity affect juror memory and decicion making. J Exp Psychol Appl, 14(3), 226-35. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.14.3.226. Ruva, C. L., Guenther, C. C. & Yarbrough, A. (2013). The effect of Agency Scandal on Public Views towards Correctional System. Criminal Justice Review 38(1), 5-28. Shaw, J. I. & Skolnick., P. (2004), Effects of Prejudicial Pretrial Publicity From Physical and Witness Evidence on Mock Jurors' Decision Making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(1), 2132–2148. Doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02693.x Smith, K. L. (2008). Effects of Pretrial Publicity (PTP) on Mock Jurors’ Distortion (PDD), Story construction and judgements. Michigan: ProQuest. Starr, V. H & McCormick, M. (2009). Jury selection. Alphe aan den Rijn: Aspen Publishers Online. Read More