Citation

Freedman JL, Martin CK, Mota VL. Leg. Crim. Psychol. 1998; 3(2): 255-270.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1998, British Psychological Society, Publisher John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/j.2044-8333.1998.tb00365.x

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Purpose. To assess the effect of pretrial publicity on mock jurors' post-trial opinions and verdicts, and to investigate the role of the judge's admonition to ignore information obtained outside the trial and the role of asking jurors for their opinions before the trial.Methods. In two studies, university students were exposed to pretrial publicity that was either negative or neutral towards the defendant, a week or more later were shown a videotape of a trial, and asked for their opinions about guilt and their verdicts. In Study 1, with 99 participants, the judge's instruction either did or did not contain a specific admonition to ignore information outside the trial. In Study 2, with 78 participants, pretrial opinions either were or were not solicited.Results. Neither study found any main effect of pretrial publicity. In Study 1, jurors given the specific admonition were less likely to think the defendant was guilty. In Study 2, only when participants were asked for their pretrial opinions of guilt were their post-trial opinions and verdicts significantly affected by negative pretrial publicity.Conclusions. The post-trial effects of pretrial publicity are not strong and robust, but rather appear to depend on other factors in the situation. We interpret the effect of the specific admonition as being due to a leaning-over-backwards phenomenon. We interpret the effect of soliciting pretrial opinions as magnifying the effects of pretrial publicity and producing an overestimate of their strength.

Language: en