Pretrial publicity and civil cases: A two-way street?

Abstract

effects of PTP concerning both parties. Although prosecutorial behavior may provide fodder for media reports about criminal trials (e.g., coercion, fabricated evidence, police misconduct), the criminal justice system's paramount concern with defendants' rights understandably leads to an emphasis on PTP regarding the defendant. In a civil trial, on the other hand, either the plaintiff's or the defendant's right to a fair trial could be compromised by prejudicial PTP. The present research was designed to examine the effects of PTP in a civil case.How much prejudicial PTP in civil cases is actually released? Imrich, Mullin, and Linz (1995) conducted a content analysis of 14 popular U.S. newspapers over a period of 8 weeks. Overall, Imrich et al. found that 27% of the suspects in crime stories during the period were described in a prejudicial manner. Although a comparable analysis of PTP in civil cases has not been performed, Bailis and MacCoun (1996) sampled a number of national newsmagazines (e.g., Time, Newsweek) and found that they gave steady coverage to tort litigation. Moreover, they found that most of the coverage distorted actual court statistics. For example, the media considerably overrepresented plaintiffs' victory rate at trial. These studies suggest that a nontrivial percentage of participants in both the criminal and civil justice systems are subjected to media coverage containing information prejudicial to their case. More important for the legal system is the question of whether exposure to PTP influences jurors' verdicts. Although researchers disagree about whether there is enough empirical support to help the courts in establishing guidelines for PTP (Carroll et al., 1986;Fulero, 1987), in general, research has shown that exposure to PTP can serve to prejudice the jury against criminal defendants (

Behind closed doors: the effect of pretrial publicity on jury deliberations

“…Social science research suggests that the courts may hold an overly optimistic view of the jury's ability to correct errors, reduce bias, and follow judicial instructions (Bornstein, Whisenhunt, Nemeth, & Dunaway, 2002;Lecci & Myers, 2009;Studebaker & Penrod, 1997). For example, research has found that mock-jurors typically discuss PTP during deliberations even when admonished not to (Davis, 1986;Kline & Jess, 1966).…”

The CSI Effect and the Canadian and the Australian Jury*,†

“…Other authors have suggested that jurors are not influenced particularly by CSI‐type shows but that a “tech effect” exists as a result of much broader cultural influences related to modern technological advances, and hence, it is reasonable for jurors to expect more from the prosecution in the way of scientific evidence than they have in the past (2). While it has been argued that pretrial publicity can have a prejudicial impact on juror verdicts in both criminal (3,4) and civil cases (5), little scientific research exists specifically on the CSI effect and the Australian and Canadian juror. As a result, this article will focus on some of the preliminary results from a survey given to 605 Canadian jury‐eligible individuals asking specific questions related to popular crime‐related television shows, specifically CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and the subsequent series and the findings of the survey given to actual Australian jurors about their deliberations in trials in which forensic evidence played an important part (6).…”

Decision‐making in civil litigation: Effects of attorney credibility, evidence strength, and juror cognitive processing

“…Participants watched a videotaped mock trial adapted from a previous study (Bornstein, Whisenhunt, Nemeth, & Dunaway, ). The plaintiff alleged that she developed ovarian cancer from drinking water contaminated with a hazardous chemical produced by the defendant, Chemco Chemicals Inc. Because of her injuries, the plaintiff was asking for $500,000 in compensatory damages for medical costs, lost income, and pain and suffering.…”