The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. constitution guarantees criminal defendants, among other things, the right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. The First Amendment, on the other hand, protects the freedom of the press. The First Amendment rights of the media and the Sixth Amendment rights of the defendants tend to be at odds, especially in high profile cases such as those involving heinous crimes or public figures. As demonstrated by Ruva et al. (2011), the resulting conflict creates a dilemma for the courts, as they are faced with the difficult task of sitting an impartial jury in the jurisdiction in which the alleged crime was committed. The issue of the influence of pretrial publicity on juror’s deliberation is not a new issue. As a matter of fact, considerable numbers of literatures and resources have attempted to examine the relationship between pretrial publicity and juror’s decisions, with many of these studies finding a strong relationship between the two variables.
For instance, in their study on the roles of impression formation, emotion, and pre-decisional distortion, Christine L. Ruva et al. (2011) found out that jurors exposed to negative pretrial publicity (P-PTP) where more likely to render guilty verdicts. They also found a significant relationship between positive pretrial publicity (P-PTP) and juror’s verdict, establishing that most of the jurors exposed to P-PTP where more likely to render not-guilty vertices (Ruva et al., 2011). Ruva et al. (2011) study was based on an empirical analysis of participants assigned randomly to one of the three pretrial publicity conditions including Positive-PTP, Negative-PTP, and No-PTP (non-exposed) conditions. Conversely, in their study on the effect of pretrial publicity and deliberation on the decisions, impressions, and memory of mock Juror’s, Ruva and Guenther (2015) found out that, compared to Jurors exposed to No-PTP conditions, Jurors exposed to Neg-PTP conditions where more likely to render guilty verdicts. The two authors also found out that Neg-PTP jurors were more likely to provide higher guilt ratings.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The findings presented by Ruva and Guenther (2015), therefore, are consistent with the findings obtained by Ruva et al. (2011). Besides, the findings from the two studies are confirmed by the findings obtained by Ruva (2016) in her recent study. In particular, Ruva (2016) et al examined the influence of Neg-pretrial publicity and need for cognition on the decisions and deliberation behaviors of jurors, ascertaining that when jurors are exposed to Neg-PTP, they often end up rendering guilty verdicts. The implications of these studies are that most defendants are likely to be denied the opportunity to receive fair trial because pretrial publicity takes away the impartiality of the Jurors. In line with their findings, Ruva and Guenther (2015) argued further that judicial admonishments and deliberations are not sufficient to minimize PTP bias. In particular, they ascertained that the memory errors, biased impressions, and prejudicial distortions caused by Neg-PTP are often too strong to the extent that jurors would ignore other variables critical for making decisions during pretrial such as evidence.
In light of the findings presented by the three studies, one can easily speculate that cases that receive extensive media coverage are likely to be characterized by unfair verdicts on the part of the jurors. To a large degree, the manner in which cases are portrayed through the media or in public platform would always have significant influence on the decisions of the Jurors. The main aim of this study is to ascertain the validity and credibility of Ruva (2016) study by focusing exclusively on the effect of negative pretrial publicity on the deliberation behaviors of the jury. While significant numbers of studies have focused on the assessment of the relationship between pretrial publicity and jury’s decision-making behaviors, few studies have focused exclusively on the assessment of how the deliberation process of the jury is determined by the exposure of the jury to negative extensive media coverage of criminal cases. For that reason, the study aims to build on the existing literature by examining extensively the relationship between negative pretrial publicity and the deliberation process of the jury. The study hypothesizes that, compared to jurors not exposed to pretrial publicity, jurors exposed to negative media coverage of criminal cases are more likely to begin the deliberation process with higher guilt ratings and, as such, as likely to render guilty verdicts.
Method
The study assessed the influence of negative pretrial publicity (extensive media coverage of criminal case) on the deliberation process of the jury. The study is empirical in nature, as it utilizes sample base of mock juries. In order to increase the reliability of the findings, the researcher included a control experiment consisting of participants randomly allocated to non-exposed or No-PTP condition. The section explains extensively the methods the researcher utilized including the participants, materials, design, and procedure implemented during the study.
Participants:
The participants consisted of a sample of 200 university students considered jury-eligible. In terms of gender, the participants included 75 and 125 male students and female students respectively. The participants were between the ages of 20 and 35, with the medium age (M) being 25 with a standard deviation (SD) of 3.2. Conversely, in respect to racial diversity of the participants, 80 were Caucasian, 60 were African Americans, 35 were Hispanics, and 15 where Asians. The main incentive for the study was that the participants received extra course credit following their participation for the study. The participants were randomly categorized into two distinct conditions including the exposed (Neg-PTP) condition and the non-exposed condition. The non-exposed condition acted as the control experiment for the study and comprised of 80 participants. The remaining 120 participants were placed in the exposed condition.
Stimuli
Trial
The study utilized an actual videotaped rape trial as the trial stimulant. In particular, the videotape depicted a man that had been accused of sexual aggressiveness towards a woman. The researcher edited the tape, making it run for 45 minutes. As presented in the tape, the defendant pled not guilty, claiming that the woman that had accused her of sexual assault had consented to the sexual act. In other words, the defendant revealed that the woman had willingly engaged in sexual relations with him. In addition, the key elements contained in the trial include (1) prosecution and the defense’s opening and closing statements, (2) judicial instructions, and (3) the direct and cross-examinations the prosecution and defense witnesses. The prosecution witness comprised of three individuals including police detective, the victim’s friend, and the victim’s husband. Conversely, defense witness comprised of three individuals including the defendant, chief medical examiner, and the defendant’s counselor. The trial, as highlighted by previous research studies including study by Ruva et al. (2011), was determined as ambiguous as to guilt. These previous studies also perceived this trial to be realistic and believable.
Pretrial
Participants randomly placed under Neg-PTP condition were given media materials (e.g. newspapers, blogs, and TV channels) that had covered the case. The media stories and materials contained information pertaining to the case, that is, information perceived to have biasing effect on the decisions and verdicts of the jurors. These information and data had not been presented at the trial. The materials also contained information pertaining to the whereabouts of the victims including the personality of the victim, the nature of the crime, and the place in which the crime took place.
On the other hand, the researcher gave the participants placed under non-exposed PTP condition actual news that involves an unrelated crime. In brief, the crime consisted of a government official that had been accused of corruption. As in the previous conditions, various news sources including newspapers, magazines, and news coverage aired on television. The interactions among the participants from the two conditions were highly minimized during the research study, especially after they had been presented with the media materials.
Measures:
The study utilized the verdicts and guilt rating s as well as personality measures to collect relevant data for the study. In respect to verdicts, the researcher asked the participants for their verdicts, that is, “not guilty” or “guilty verdict”. Conversely, in respect to guilt ratings, the participants were presented with a rating scale ranging from 1 to 7 (1 = I am certain he is guilty to 7 = I am certain he is not guilty). In tandem to this, the researcher ensured that each participant completed two personality measures. The main aim of the personality measures were to engage the participant’s reasons for reading and watching the news materials as well as the influence of their personalities on their memory and emotional response 0t the news stories. Both Interaction Anxious Scale developed by Mark R. Leary in 1883 and the Locus of Control Scale developed by Rotter in 1966 where used to measure the personality of the participants.
Design:
The study utilized a between-group study design. In particular, as highlighted in the previous section, two groups of participants were used during the study, with each group being subjected to a predetermined condition. The first group of participants was put in an exposed (Neg-PTP) condition. This group received media coverage or PTP pertaining to the case under study. On the other hand, the second group of participants was placed in non-exposed condition, meaning that they were asked to read or watch unrelated crime stories.
Procedure:
The experiment was conducted in two distinct phases. The second phase was completed about 7 days after the completion of the first phase. This section describes the two phases in details.
Phase I
The participants from the respective groups were asked to read/watch the media coverage/stories, with the individuals in the first group being asked to read/watch stories pertaining to the case and individuals in the second group being asked to read/watch unrelated stories. From then on, the researcher asked each participant to complete a personality test. The personality tests were administered about 20 minutes of the participants had completed reading/watching the stories. The researcher asked each participant to recall and indicate his or her emotional response in respect to the news stories he or she was given. It goes without mentioning that, prior to the administration of the personality tests, the researcher gave the participants a cover story indicating that the study was a two-phase study that aimed to ascertain the emotional stability of jurors when presented with different types of information. The cover story also indicated that the participant would be presented with a different type of information 7 days after they had been exposed to the first set of information. The cover story was highly necessary because it prevented the participants from realizing that they were part of that wanted to ascertain their bias in relation to media coverage. The findings of the questionnaires presented to the two groups indicated that they both believed the cover story.
Phase II
The activities in this phase were conducted a week after the completion of the first phase. During the phase, the participants were asked to view the videotaped trial. At the beginning of the phase, researcher informed the participant that although they might have read or watched stories pertaining to the videotaped trial, they were not required to use their prior knowledge when passing their verdicts during the deliberation process. The researcher emphasized that the participants only had to use the evidence presented during the trial (as depicted in the videotape) to make their verdict decisions. After watching the video, the participants were asked to provide a pre-deliberation verdict and guilt rating. From then on, they were asked to deliberate and come up with unanimous group decision after 20 minutes. In addition, each participant was asked separately to give verdict concerning whether the defendant was guilty.
Materials
The researcher used a video camera to record the deliberation process of the participants (mock jury). Afterwards, the researcher converted the videos tot mpeg files. The videos were analyzed using coding software known as the Observer Video-Pro. The software is highly flexible enabling researchers to collect, manage, and present time-structured data from digital files and videotapes.
Findings and discussion
Data obtained from the study was analyzed using the loglinear ANOVAs. Researcher set the significance let at 0.05 in order to increase the accuracy and the validity of the study. Table I below summarizes the findings of the study.
Pretrial publicity condition |
|||||
| Quilt Measure | Neg-PTP | Non-exposure | |||
|
Individual verdict and Guilt Rating (pre-deliberation) |
|||||
| Guilty verdict | 97 (80%) | 40 (50%) | |||
| Guilt Ratings | 11.30 (3.61) | 8.1 (4.91) | |||
|
Individual Verdict and Guilt Ratings (Post-deliberation) |
|||||
| Guilty verdict | 84 (70%) | 31 (39%) | |||
| Guilt Ratings | 10.80 (3.40) | 6.70 (4.10) | |||
Table I: PTP condition
As highlighted in Table I above, 80 percent of the participants in the Neg-PTP group rendered guilty verdict while only 50 percent of the participants from the nonexposed group found the defendant guilty during the pre-deliberation session. Besides, compared to Guilt Ratings in non-exposure group (8.1), the Guilt Ratings was also significantly higher in Neg-PTP group (11.30). In post deliberation, the numbers of participants in the Neg-PTP group that rendered guilty verdict were 70 percent. Conversely, only 31 percent of participants from non-exposure rendered guilty verdict. The findings therefore, support the hypothesis that that, compared to jurors not exposed to pretrial publicity, jurors exposed to negative media coverage of criminal cases are more likely to begin the deliberation process with higher guilt ratings and, as such, as likely to render guilty verdict.
Conclusion
Based on the findings obtained from the experiment, the study concludes that pretrial publicity has profound influence on Jurors’ decisions and deliberation behaviors. The findings, therefore, emphasizes the findings obtained by Christine L. Ruva (2016), which indicated that when jurors are subjected to pretrial publicity, their verdicts are likely to be influence. The implication of these findings is that jurors exposed to pretrial publicity, especially negative pretrial publicity, are likely to confuse the publicity with the evidence actual presented in the trial. In order enhance the generalizability and validity of this study, future research studies should utilize large sample base.
References
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), 294-3.
Ruva. C. L. (2016). The Impact of Pretrial Publicity and Need for Cognition on Mock-Jurors’ Decisions and Deliberation Behavior. International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 6 (1), 20-31.
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 (5), 511-534.
