Experts in the legal field have criticized the issue of pretrial publicity. Some have argued that the pre-trial publicity has interfered with the constitutional right that aims at providing a criminal defendant with a fair trial according to the Sixth Amendment of the constitution. It is evident that media, both print and electronic, has been publishing much information about defendants of a criminal case, and this tends to interfere with the possibility of a defendant in having a fair trial. When the pre-trial publicity is done uncontrollably, it may affect the courts power of controlling the case during the trial.
Ruva and Guenther (2015), conducted a study to show how negative pre-trial publicity influences the jury processes. The study was done with an assumption that the jury deliberations enable the juror to correct errors, reject irrelevant information and control bias (Ruva, & Guenther, 2015). This assumption gives the research a good foundation and good means of reference. The study was useful because it was done in two phases; Part A involved examining how pre-trial publicity and deliberation affect jury/juror decisions, the impression of the defendant and attorney, and source memory. The effects of this publicity such as leniency bias and polarization were also examined. The other phase of the study involved seeking for explanations on the differences between the conditions highlighted in the first phase of the study. The Ruva & Guenther (2015) study was reliable because it utilized a diversified sample population. There was a good representation of people from different races such as African American, Hispanic Caucasians, and Asians. The fact that the participants were exposed to the pretrial of a real criminal case and the related processes made it possible to view how they would make a decision of the same and see the effect of pre-trial publicity is they were to handle the cases. There was inclusion of information that could lead to biasing effect on the juror’s verdict.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Similar to Ruva and Guenther (2015), Dexter et al., (1992) used college undergraduates to examine the jurors objectivity and if it was possible to utilize jury examination procedure as a remedy for the negative implications of the same (Dexter, Cutler, & Moran, 1992). Though there was a mix of the participants in terms f gender, the study was a bit shallow and considering the participants were from the same university this would mean the outcome was not reliable. The participants lacked in the experience as jurors. The fact that they were supplied with materials to read creates room for mistakes; if the participants did not read the materials critically, their response would be biased or prejudiced. The Study failed to add to the information that was available on pre-trial publicity, but it had a shortcoming of creating loopholes that could lead to unreliable research.
The Daftary-Kapur study was an effective one because it used participants who were naturally close to the place where the case took place and others who were a distant from for the venue of the case- these people were not naturally exposed to the pretrial publicity. The participants were exposed to almost real justice process then there was an examination of the participant’s response to the publicity. This study stands out as a superior study that is well focused and would obtain reliable results of the publicity issues. The research was systematic and followed clear hypotheses and research questions. The participants were exposed to a manipulation checks to ensure they were conversant with the study and the justice processes. Therefore this is a well-designed research and provides important information on how pre-trial publicity would occur in a naturalistic setting (Daftary-Kapur, Penrod, O'connor, & Wallace, 2014).
References
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 (5), 462.
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 (10), 819-832.
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 human behavior , 39 (3), 294.
