Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:18:56.621Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Pretrial Publicity’s Effects on Jurors’ and Judges’ Decisions

from Part II - Pretrial Phase Decision-Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2024

By
Christine L. Ruva
Edited by
Monica K. Miller ,
Logan A. Yelderman ,
Matthew T. Huss  and
Jason A. Cantone
Monica K. Miller
Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Reno
Logan A. Yelderman
Affiliation:
Prairie View A & M University, Texas
Matthew T. Huss
Affiliation:
Creighton University, Omaha
Jason A. Cantone
Affiliation:
George Mason University, Virginia
Get access

Summary

This chapter will discuss the psychological processes by which pretrial publicity (PTP) can affect jurors’ and judges’ decisions. Pretrial publicity includes all media coverage (traditional and social media) of cases making their way to trial. Although many jurors believe they can ignore what they have read or heard about the case, and many judges believe they can effectively rehabilitate jurors exposed to PTP, this is typically not the case. These efforts and their effectiveness are examined in detail. Both positive and negative PTP can influence decisions in a variety of trial types (including civil and criminal). Jurors tend to examine this information through lenses such as predecisional influences that tend to focus on a particular side. Research also suggests they employ long-established narratives such as the story model in these situations. The chapter will synthesize this body of research and offer future directions and implications for the legal field.

Keywords

juror decision-makingpretrial publicityjury deliberationjuror biasvoir dire
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making , pp. 103 - 116
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Bar Association. (2016). Model rules of professional conduct. www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents.html.Google Scholar
Anderson, N. H. (1971). Integration theory and attitude change. Psychological Review, 7, 172–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030834.Google Scholar
Anderson, C. A., Lepper, M. R, & Ross, L. (1980). The perseverance of social theories: The role of explanation in the persistence of discredited information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1037–1049. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077720.Google Scholar
Anderson, C. A., & Lindsay, J. J. (1998). The development, perseverance, and change of naive theories. Social Cognition, 16, 8–30. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1998.16.1.8.Google Scholar
Bakhshay, S., & Haney, C. (2018). The media’s impact on the right to a fair trial: A content analysis of pretrial publicity in capital cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(3), 326–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000174.Google Scholar
Bodenhausen, G. V., Sheppard, L. A., & Kramer, G. P. (1994). Negative affect and social judgment: The differential impact of anger and sadness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420240104.Google Scholar
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, 26(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013825124011.Google Scholar
Bright, D. A., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2006). Gruesome evidence and emotion: Anger, blame, and jury decision-making. Law and Human Behavior, 30(2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9027-y.Google Scholar
Carlson, K. A., & Russo, J. E. (2001). Biased interpretation of evidence by mock jurors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7(2), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.7.2.91.Google Scholar
Chang, L., & Krosnick, J. A. (2010) Comparing oral interviewing with self-administered computerized questionnaires: An experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(1), 154–167, https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp090.Google Scholar
Crocker, C. B., & Kovera, M. B. (2010). The effects of rehabilitative voir dire on juror bias and decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 212–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9193-9.Google Scholar
Cuc, A., Ozuru, Y., Manier, D., & Hirst, W. (2006). On the formation of collective memories: The role of a dominant narrator. Memory and Cognition, 34(4), 752–762. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193423.Google Scholar
Daftary-Kapur, T., & Penrod, S. D. (2018). Pre- and midtrial publicity in the age of internet and social media. In Najdowski, C. & Stevenson, M. (Eds.), Criminal juries in the 21st century: Psychological science and the law (pp. 1–19). Oxford Scholarship Online. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190658113.001.0001.Google Scholar
Daftary-Kapur, T., Penrod, S. D., O’Connor, M., & Wallace, B. (2014). Examining pretrial publicity in a shadow jury paradigm: Issues of slant, quantity, persistence, and generalizability. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 462–477. http://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000081.Google Scholar
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00926.x.Google Scholar
Dumas, R., Lepastourel, N. & Testé, B. (2014). Press articles and influence processes: The different effects of incriminating information and crime story information on judgments of guilt. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20, 659–672. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2013.854790.Google Scholar
Feigenson, N. (2016). Jurors’ emotions and judgments of legal responsibility and blame: What does the experimental research tell us? Emotion Review, 8, 26–31. http://doi.org/10.1177/1754073915601223.Google Scholar
Franiuk, R., Seefelt, J. L., Cepress, S. L. & Vandello, J. A. (2008). Prevalence and effects of rape myths in print journalism: The Kobe Bryant case. Violence Against Women, 14, 287–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801207313971.Google Scholar
Gabbert, F., Memon, A., Allan, K., & Wright, D. B. (2004). Say it to my face: Examining the effects of socially encountered misinformation. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9(2), 215–217. https://doi.org/10.1348/1355325041719428.Google Scholar
Girvan, E. J. (2016). Wise restraints? Learning legal rules, not standards, reduces the effects of stereotypes in legal decision-making. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000068.Google Scholar
Goldberg, J. H., Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Rage and reason: The psychology of the intuitive prosecutor. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29(5–6), 781–795. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199908/09)29:5/6<781::AID-EJSP960>3.0.CO;2-3.Google Scholar
Hans, V. P., Virtual juries (2021). DePaul Law Review, Vol. 71 (Forthcoming), Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 21-16. SSRN. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3860165.Google Scholar
Hans, V. P., & Jehle, A. (2003). Avoid bald men and people with green socks? Other ways to improve the voir dire process in jury selection. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 78(3), 1179–1201. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/298.Google Scholar
Honess, T. M., Charman, E. A., & Levi, M. (2003). Factual and affective/evaluative recall of pretrial publicity: Their relative influence on juror reasoning and verdict in a simulated fraud trial. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1404–1416. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01955.x.Google Scholar
Hope, L., Memon, A., & McGeorge, P. (2004). Understanding pretrial publicity: Predecisional distortion of evidence by mock jurors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 111–119. http://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.10.2.111.Google Scholar
Hurlstone, M. J., Hitch, G. J., & Baddeley, A. D. (2014). Memory for serial order across domains: An overview of the literature and directions for future research. Psychological Bulletin, 140(2), 339–373. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034221.Google Scholar
Imrich, D. J., Mullin, C., & Linz, D. (1995). Measuring the extent of prejudicial pretrial publicity in major American newspapers: A content analysis. Journal of Communication, 45(3), 94–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1995.tb00745.x.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.3.Google Scholar
Jones, S. E. (1987). Judge- versus attorney-conducted voir dire: An empirical investigation of juror candor. Law and Human Behavior, 11(2), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01040446.Google Scholar
Kelly, A., Carroll, M., & Mazzoni, G. (2002). Metamemory and reality monitoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 407–428. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.803.Google Scholar
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. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2692773.Google Scholar
Kerr, N. L., Niedermeier, K. E., & Kaplan, M. F. (1999). Bias in jurors vs. bias in juries: New evidence from the SDS perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80, 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2855.Google Scholar
Kline, G. G., & Jess, P. H. (1966) Prejudicial publicity: Its effect on law school mock juries. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 43(1)113–116 https://doi.org/10.1177/107769906604300115.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. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044220.Google Scholar
Lerner, J. S., Goldberg, J. H., & Tetlock, P. E. (1998). Sober second thought: The effects of accountability, anger, and authoritarianism on attributions of responsibility. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(6), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167298246001.Google Scholar
Lieberman, J. D. (2011). The utility of scientific jury selection: Still murky after 30 years. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(1), 48–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410396628.Google Scholar
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(3), 677–711.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S., Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027568.Google Scholar
Mu’Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415 (1991)Google Scholar
Nuñez, N., Estrada-Reynolds, V., Schweitzer, K., & Myers, B. (2016). The impact of emotions on juror judgments and decision making. In Bornstein, B. H. & Miller, M. K. (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law, Vol. 2 (pp. 55–92). Springer.Google Scholar
Otto, A. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1994). The biasing impact of pretrial publicity on juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 18(4), 453–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pantazi, M., Klein, O., & Kissine, M. (2020). Is justice blind or myopic? An examination of the effects of meta-cognitive myopia and truth bias on mock jurors and judges. Judgement and Decision Making, 15(2), 214–229.Google Scholar
Patriarca v. United States, 402 F.2d 314, 318 (1st Cir. 1968).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(3), 521–533. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.14.3.521.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(2), 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.189.Google Scholar
Qualls, K. F. (2015). The answer to trial publicity is a better question. Journal of Criminal Justice and Legal Issues, 3, 1–15. www.aabri.com/manuscripts/152308.pdf.Google Scholar
Robbennolt, J. K., & Studebaker, C. A. (2003). News media reporting on civil litigation and its influence on civil justice decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 27(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021622827154.Google Scholar
Ruva, C. L. (2018). From the headlines to the jury room: An examination of the impact of pretrial publicity on jurors and juries. In Miller, M. K. and Bornstein, B. H. (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law. (Vol. 3, pp. 1–39). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75859-6_1.Google Scholar
Ruva, C. L., & Coy, A. (2020). Your bias is rubbing off on me: The impact of pretrial publicity and jury composition on guilt decisions, trial evidence interpretation, and impression formation. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 26(1), 22–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/law0000220.Google Scholar
Ruva, C. L., Diaz Ortega, S. E., & O’Grady, K. A. (2022). What drives a jury’s deliberations? The influence of pretrial publicity and jury composition on deliberation slant and content. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 28(1), 32–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000310.Google Scholar
Ruva, C. L., & Guenther, C. C. (2015). From the shadows into the light: How pretrial publicity and deliberation affect mock jurors’ decisions, impressions, and memory. Law and Human Behavior, 39(3), 294–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000117.Google Scholar
Ruva, C. L., & Guenther, C. C. (2017). Keep your bias to yourself: How deliberating with differently biased others affects mock-jurors’ guilt decisions, perceptions of the defendant, memories, and evidence interpretation. Law and Human Behavior, 41(5), 478–493. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000256.Google Scholar
Ruva, C. L., Guenther, C. C., & Yarbrough, A. (2011). Positive and negative pretrial publicity: The roles of impression formation, emotion, and predecisional distortion. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 511–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854811400823.Google Scholar
Ruva, C. L., & LeVasseur, M. (2012). Behind closed doors: The effect of pretrial publicity on jury deliberations. Psychology. Crime & Law, 18(5), 431–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2010.502120.Google Scholar
Ruva, C. L., & McEvoy, C. (2008). Negative and positive pretrial publicity affect juror memory and decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14(3), 226–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.14.3.226.Google Scholar
Ruva, C., McEvoy, C., & Bryant, J. D. (2007). Effects of pre-trial publicity and jury deliberation on juror bias and source memory errors. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(1), 45–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1254.Google Scholar
Salerno, J. M., Campbell, J. C., Phalen, H. J., et al. (2021). The impact of minimal versus extended voir dire and judicial rehabilitation on mock jurors’ decisions in civil cases. Law and Human Behavior, 45(4), 336–355. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000455.Google Scholar
Salerno, J. M., & Peter-Hagene, L. C. (2013). The interactive effect of anger and disgust on moral outrage and judgments. Psychological Science, 24(10), 2069–2078. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613486988.Google Scholar
Schum, D. A. (1993). Argument structuring and evidence evaluation. In Hastie, R. (Ed.), Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision making (pp. 175–191). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sommers, S. R., & Kassin, S. M. (2001). On the many impacts of inadmissible testimony: Selective compliance, need for cognition, and the overcorrection bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1368–1377. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672012710012.Google Scholar
Steblay, N. M., Besirevic, J., Fulero, S. M., & Jimenez-Lorente, B. (1999). The effects of pretrial publicity on juror verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 23(2), 219–235. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022325019080.Google Scholar
Steblay, N., Hosch, H. M, Culhane, S. E., & McWethy, A. (2006). The impact on juror verdicts of judicial instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 30(4), 469–492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9039-7.Google Scholar
Studebaker, C. A., & Penrod, S. D. (1997). Pretrial publicity: The media, the law, and common sense. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3(2–3), 428–460. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.3.2-3.428.Google Scholar
Thorley, C., Beaton, L., Deguara, P., et al. (2020). Misinformation encountered during a simulated jury deliberation can distort jurors’ memory of a trial and bias their verdicts. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 25(2), 150–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12174.Google Scholar
Tiedens, L. Z., & Linton, S. (2001). Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: The effects of specific emotions on information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 973–988. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.973.Google Scholar
Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (1997). The flexible correction model: The role of naive theories of bias in bias correction. In Zanna, M. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 141–208). Academic Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×