Pre-trial publicity influencing jury decision-making Flashcards
Define “pre-trial publicity (PTP)”.
When information is presented in the media (coverage on TV, newspapers and social media) before a trial
How does pre-trial publicity affect juror decision-making? (3 points)
Jurors cannot distinguish between memories of pre-trial publicity (potentially misinformation) and memories of courtroom evidence when reaching a verdict
May bias the members of the jury - gives them pre-conceived expectations of the previously ambiguous defendant, possibly leading to an unfair trial
Juries are instructed to base their verdicts only on evidence presented to the court - can be hard to find jurors who haven’t been exposed to info if publicity is widespread
What are the 2 types of pre-trial publicity?
Factual - knowledge of the defendant’s link to the case
Emotional - responses (e.g. the defendant’s or victim’s past) which are more likely to cause a more long-lasting impact - leads to difficult-to-change perceptions
What are the 2 supporting and 3 alternate factors for pre-trial publicity affecting juror decision-making?
Supporting:
Steblay et al (1999)
Ruva & LeVasseur (2012)
Alternative factors:
Competence of jurors
Social loafing
Expert witness
How does Steblay et al (1999) support pre-trial publicity affecting juror decision-making? (3 points)
Undertook a meta-analysis of mock-jury studies, including 5000+ participants
They found jurors who were exposed to negative PTP were more likely to judge the defendant as guilty
The bigger the delay between PTP and trial, the greater the effect of PTP on guilty verdicts
How does Ruva & LeVasseur (2012) support pre-trial publicity affecting juror decision-making? (4 points)
Undertook a content analysis of 30 mock-trial deliberations
Jurors who were exposed to negative publicity (anti-defendant) were more likely to discuss ambiguous trial facts in a manner that supported the prosecution
They also rarely discussed them in a manner that supported the defendant
Shows that PTP gives expectations of the defendant, which is not reliable evidence gained from the court process
How are Steblay et al and Ruva & LeVasseur limited in credibility? (3 points)
They were mock jury trials and therefore lacked ecological and task validity
Real jury trials are emotional experiences as a real human’s fate is in your hands
- not the case for mock jury studies
Mock trials are much shorter than an actual trial and they often ask jurors to make decisions on their own - does not apply to real-life
How is pre-trial competence an alternative factor affecting juror decision-making? (2 points)
Competence of jurors in understanding technical evidence during the trial can affect their decision-making - the information may exceed their knowledge base
Forster Lee (1993):
Found that giving instructions and key term definitions to jury members before a presentation of technical information increased their ability to:
+ Focus on the content
+ Filter out irrelevancies
+ Make sense of the case
How is social loafing an alternative factor affecting juror decision-making? (3 points)
Social loafing - a reduction of individual effort on a collective task by a jury member
Some individuals may be less inclined to meticulously review the information and input compared to when they are on an individual task
Thus, they are more susceptible to majority influence or a charismatic foreperson’s opinions and bias
Define “expert witness”.
A person whose level of specialised knowledge in a particular field qualifies them to present their opinion on the facts of a case
How can an expert witness affect juror decision-making? (4 points)
Whether an expert witness presents or not may affect the jury decision
Loftus (1980):
+ Found that an expert testimony promoted more discussion
+ Appeared to increase doubt about the defendant’s guilt
+ Those with no expert gave more guilty verdicts
