The biasing impact of pretrial publicity on juror judgments.

Otto, Amy L.; Penrod, Steven D.; Dexter, Hedy Red

doi:10.1007/bf01499050

Cited by 86 publications

(111 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Well-founded concerns that jurors might be improperly influenced by media accounts of cases (Daftary-Kapur et al 2014;Otto et al 1994, Moran & Cutler 1991 have prompted jury instructions (9th Cir. Model Jury Instruction 1.7, 2007) and even sequestion (Strauss 1996).…”

Section: Deciding On the Record Alone: Inadmissible Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Judging the Judiciary by the Numbers: Empirical Research on Judges

Rachlinski¹,

Wistrich²

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

 AbstractDo judges make decisions that are truly impartial? A wide range of experimental and field studies reveal that several extra-legal factors influence judicial decision making. Demographic characteristics of judges and litigants affect judges' decisions. Judges also rely heavily on intuitive reasoning in deciding cases, making them vulnerable to the use of mental shortcuts that can lead to mistakes. Furthermore, judges sometimes rely on facts outside the record and rule more favorably towards litigants who are more sympathetic or with whom they share demographic characteristics. On the whole, judges are excellent decision makers, and sometimes resist common errors of judgment that influence ordinary adults. The weight of the evidence, however, suggests that judges are vulnerable to systematic deviations from the ideal of judicial impartiality.

show abstract

Section: Deciding On the Record Alone: Inadmissible Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Judging the Judiciary by the Numbers: Empirical Research on Judges

Rachlinski¹,

Wistrich²

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although one can discover relationships between variables using correlational data, correlations do not provide conclusive evidence that PTP causes differential verdicts. Second, surveys only indirectly test the relationship between PTP and juror decision making, because participants are not exposed to a trial, which could mitigate any effects of PTP (Otto et al, 1994).…”

Section: Means Of Presenting Ptpmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methodological considerations in pretrial publicity research: Is the medium the message?

Wilson

Bornstein

1998

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two methodological issues within the pretrial publicity (PTP) literature were examined in the present experiment: the effect of emotional versus factual PTP and the effect of presenting PTP through different media. Emotional and factual PTP were constructed that differed in level of emotionality, but produced the same degree of bias. The PTP was presented in either a videotaped or ;vritten format. Although there was a significantly biasing effect of PTP overall compared to a control condition, no significant difference was found either between factual and emotional PTP or between video and written PTP.

show abstract

“…Many studies have examined the effect of pretrial publicity on jury decisions and how it may contribute to the use of availability heuristics (DaftaryKapur, Penrod, O'Connor, & Wallace, 2014;Otto, Penrod, & Dexter, 1994;Platania & Crawford, 2012). Media coverage of certain court cases influences how common people believe those types of cases to be and creates the illusion that uncommon situations occur more frequently than in reality (Folkes, 1988).…”

Section: Heuristics In the Court Roommentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mock jurors who read about negative aspects of a defendant's character were more likely to rule that the defendant was guilty than jurors who did not read about negative characteristics, despite the information presented during the trials being the same (Otto et al, 1994). Jurors who read the nega tive information entered the trial with preconceived notions that the defendant was a bad person and allowed that information to bias the final verdict.…”

Section: Heuristics In the Court Roommentioning

confidence: 99%

The 2017–2018 Psi Chi Presidential Initiative: Help Helped Me

Landrum¹

2018

PsiChiJournal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The biasing impact of pretrial publicity on juror judgments.

Cited by 86 publications

References 20 publications

Judging the Judiciary by the Numbers: Empirical Research on Judges

Judging the Judiciary by the Numbers: Empirical Research on Judges

Methodological considerations in pretrial publicity research: Is the medium the message?

The 2017–2018 Psi Chi Presidential Initiative: Help Helped Me

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About