Abstract
Previous research on how jurors are prejudiced by pretrial publicity (PTP) has focused on the impact of print media (i.e., newspapers). However, in this “television age”, we are exposed to compelling and vivid images of crimes and cases. This raises the question of whether potential jurors may be more influenced by television media (e.g., news programs or televised hearings) then print media (e.g., newspaper and magazine articles). Using an actual case involving extensive PTP, the present study varied the type of medium (print articles, video, articles+video) presented to potential jurors. The results indicated that exposure to the various media had a prejudicial impact on people, and that they were unaware of their biases. As hypothesized, television exposure and television plus print articles biased potential jurors significantly more than exposure to print media alone.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
American Bar Association. (1968).Project on standards for criminal justice, standards relating to fair trial and free press. Washington, DC: Author.
Antunes, G. E., & Hurley, P. A. (1978). The representation of criminal events in Houston's two daily papers.Journalism Quarterly, 55, 756–760.
Barnes, C. (1992, November 30). Little Rascals: State's longest, most expensive trial finally ends.North Carolina Lawyer, May/June, 8–10.
Brown, R., & Kulik, J. (1977). Flashbulb memories.Cognition, 5, 73–99.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of theConstitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B of theCanada Act of 1982 (U.K.), 1982.
Carroll, J. S., Kerr, N. L., Alfini, J., Weaver, F. M., MacCoun, R. J., & Feldman, V. (1986). Free pressaand fair trial: The role of behavioral research.Law and Human Behavior, 10, 187–201.
Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. H. (1976). Communication modality as a determinant of message persuasiveness and message comprehensibility.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 605–614.
Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. H. (1983). Communication modality as a determinant of persuasion: The role of communicator salience.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 241–256.
Constantini, E., & King, J. (1980). The partial juror: Correlates and causes of prejudgment.Law & Society Review, 15, 9–40.
Greene, E., & Wade, R. (1987). Of private talk and public print: General pretrial publicity and juror decision making.Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2, 123–135.
Hoiberg, B. C., & Stires, L. K. (1973). The effect of several types of pretrial publicity on the guilt attributions of simulated juries.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 267–271.
Humphries, D. (1981). Serious crime news coverage and ideology: A content analysis of crime coverage in a metropolitan newspaper.Crime & Delinquency, 27, 191–205.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982).Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction.Psychological Review, 80, 237–251.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. In D. Kahneman & A. Tversky (Eds.),Judgment under uncertainty (pp. 163–178). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Kerr, N. L., Kramer, G. P., Carroll, J. S., & Alfini, J. J. (1991). On the effectiveness of voir dire in criminal cases with prejudicial pretrial publicity: An empirical study.American University Law Review, 40, 665–701.
Kramer, G. P., Kerr, N. L., & Carroll, J. S. (1990). Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies, and jury bias.Law & Human Behavior, 14, 409–438.
McConahay, J., Mullin, C., & Frederick, J. (1977). The uses of social science in trials with political and racial overtones.Law and Contemporary Problems, 23, 205–229.
McLuhan, M. (1964).Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: McGraw-Hill.
McLuhan, M. (1988).Laws of media: The new science. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980).Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.Psychological Review, 90, 339–363.
North Carolina abuse trial hears ex-day care worker. (1992, July).Los Angeles Times, Part A, p. 18.
North Carolina day-care operator convicted. (1992, July).American Bar Association Journal, July, p. 36.
Ogloff, J. R. P., & Otto, R. K. (1991). Are research participants truly informed? Readability of informed consent forms used in research.Ethics and Behavior, 1, 239–252.
Padawer-Singer, A., & Barton, A. H. (1975). The impact of pretrial publicity on jurors' verdicts. In R. Simon (Ed.),The jury system: A critical analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
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, 71–79.
Rollings, H. E., & Blascovich, J. (1977). The case of Patricia Hearst: Pretrial publicity and opinion.Journal of Communication, 27, 58–65.
Simon, R. J. (1966). Murder, juries and the press.Trans-Action, 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.
Sue, S., Smith, R. E., & Gilbert, R. (1974). Biasing effect of pretrial publicity on judicial decisions.Journal of Criminal Justice, 2, 163–171.
The Martensville scandal. (1992, June 22).Macleans, 26–30.
Timnick, L., & McGraw, C. (January 19, 1990). McMartin verdict: Not guilty.Los Angeles Times, A1, A19.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1982). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. In D. Kahneman & A. Tversky (Eds.),Judgment under uncertainty (pp. 163–178). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Vidmar, N., & Judson, J. (1981). The use of social science in a change of venue application.Canadian Bar Review, 59, 76–102.
Vidmar, N., & Melnitzer, J. (1984). Juror prejudice: An empirical study of a challenge for cause.Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 22, 487–501.
Wolf, S., & Montgomery, D. (1977). Effects of inadmissible evidence and level of judicial admonishment to disregard on the decisions of mock jurors.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 205–219.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
About this article
Cite this article
Ogloff, J.R.P., Vidmar, N. The impact of pretrial publicity on jurors. Law Hum Behav 18, 507–525 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499171
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499171