Psychologists as consultants for changes of venue: The use of public opinion surveys.

Nietzel, Michael T.; Dillehay, Ronald C.

doi:10.1007/bf01044735

Cited by 32 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Essentially, PTP may bias potential jurors and impair a defendant's right to be tried by an impartial jury. The potential biasing effect of PTP has been recognized both in the research literature (Imrich, Mullins, & Linz, 1995; Minnow & Cate, 2001; Moran & Cutler, 1991; Otto et al , 1994; Simon & Eimermann, 1971; Studebaker, Robbennolt, Pathak‐Sharma, & Penrod, 2000) as well as by legal institutions such as the American Bar Association.…”

Section: Jury Instructionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Jury decision‐making biases and methods to counter them

Daftary‐Kapur

Dumas

Penrod

2010

Legal Criminol Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. The objective of this review was to give a broad overview of various biases associated with jury decision making. Specifically we review research on the impact of pretrial publicity, jury instructions, inadmissible evidence, and scientific evidence. This article elucidates various challenges jurors may face across systems around the world and remedies to counter these challenges. Results. After 50 years of scientific research on juries and juror decision making, there are still many gaps in understanding how factors such as pretrial publicity, inadmissible evidence, scientific evidence, and jury instructions influence juries. At the same time the field has developed a level of appreciation for these problems and is making strives toward understanding them. Conclusion. Based on this review some conclusions can be drawn regarding the areas of decision making reviewed. Jury instructions: Research shows that jurors have difficulties in understanding pattern instructions, at the same time we have developed some insights into ways instructions can be rewritten to increase comprehensibility. Inadmissible evidence: We are aware of the cognitive effort involved in attempting to disregard evidence but are at this point unclear on how to eliminate the associated problems. Scientific evidence: Research has illuminated the difficulties jurors have with comprehending scientific evidence. Better education of jurors and judges can help to address this issue. Pretrial publicity: The threats posed by pretrial publicity to the defendant's right to a fair trial are clear. At the same time (save change of venue) there is a need to develop cost‐effective remedies to help overcome media‐induced biases.

show abstract

Section: Jury Instructionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Jury decision‐making biases and methods to counter them

Daftary‐Kapur

Dumas

Penrod

2010

Legal Criminol Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This made the survey and its probabilistic estimate relevant. Today the survey is de rigueur (Nietzel & Dillehay, 1983) in change of venue motions and is so common that Ebbesen (1987) collected and reviewed 45 surveys in recent California felony cases. Ebbesen's review is but the tip of the iceberg, for venue surveys are not typically published.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similar motions were granted in only 20% of cases without an accompanying survey. Nietzel and Dillehay (1983) also report that 50% of their motions for change of venue were granted. From the social scientific perspective the principal question in change of venue motions has been whether pretrial publicity is associated with juror prejudice.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Prejudicial Impact of Pretrial Publicity¹

Moran

Cutler

1991

J Applied Social Pyschol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current studies examine the influence of pretrial publicity on potential jurors' attitudes toward a defendant. In Study 1, following one year of newspaper coverage of the investigation, arrest, and indictment of defendants for distributing large quantities of marijuana in southern Illinois, 604 potential jurors in that district were surveyed regarding their knowledge of the case, general attitudes toward crime, and attitudes toward the specific case. Analyses of the survey data revealed that knowledge of the case specifics was positively and significantly correlated with perceived culpability of the defendant but nonsignificantly correlated with willingness to admit partiality. Study 2 dealt with a highly publicized Dade County, Florida murder of a police officer in a drug sting operation. Again knowledge of pretrial publicity correlated significantly with perceived culpability of the defendant. As in Study 1, such knowledge did not correlate with stated ability to be impartial. We conclude that even modest pretrial publicity can prejudice potential jurors against a defendant and that self‐reports of impartiality should not be taken at face value.

show abstract

“…We have studied only newspaper coverage. Although there is research suggesting that newspaper coverage is the primary medium through which media consumers base their opinions about legal trials (Freedman & Burke, 1996;Nietzel & Dillehay, 1983), researchers should include other media. If an appreciation of real cases and real coverage is desired, certainly the inclusion of television coverage would be a step in the right direction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our decision was guided by three reasons. First, it seems to be a relatively settled issue that most pretrial news coverage is harmful to the defendant (Carroll et al, 1986;Constantini & King, 1980-1981Imrich et al, 1995;Kramer et al, 1990;Moran & Cutler, 1991;Nietzel & Dillehay, 1983;Ogloff & Vidmar, 1994;Riley, 1973;Rollings & Blascovich, 1977;Tankard et al, 1979;Wilcox, 1970). This crucial point deserves special emphasis.…”

Section: Measuring Publicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationship Between Pretrial Publicity and Trial Outcomes

Bruschke

Loges²

1999

Journal of Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research suggests that pretrial publicity influences trials. Past research has relied heavily on experimental methods. Several commentators have questioned the ecological validity of the studies, and hence the value of the findings. The present study, one of the first to examine actual trials, focused on all federal murder trials over a 3-year period. The results suggested that (a) greater probability of conviction was associated with low rather than high levels of publicity; (b) defendants fared better under moderate rather than no publicity levels; and (c) for defendants who were convicted, any degree of pretrial publicity was associated with longer sentences. In general, the results obtained from studying actual trials differed in important ways from the results obtained in laboratory research.

show abstract

Psychologists as consultants for changes of venue: The use of public opinion surveys.

Cited by 32 publications

References 2 publications

Jury decision‐making biases and methods to counter them

Jury decision‐making biases and methods to counter them

The Prejudicial Impact of Pretrial Publicity¹

Relationship Between Pretrial Publicity and Trial Outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Psychologists as consultants for changes of venue: The use of public opinion surveys.

Cited by 32 publications

References 2 publications

Jury decision‐making biases and methods to counter them

Jury decision‐making biases and methods to counter them

The Prejudicial Impact of Pretrial Publicity1

Relationship Between Pretrial Publicity and Trial Outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

The Prejudicial Impact of Pretrial Publicity¹