Assessing pretrial publicity effects: Integrating content analytic results

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 317-336

  Studebaker, Christina A ^a,b   Robbennolt, Jennifer K ^a,c   Pathak Sharma, Maithilee K ^a,d   Penrod, Steven D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

^b Federal Judicial Center   (United States)

^c PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d DecisionQuest   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; HUMAN; LAW; MASS MEDIUM; PUBLIC OPINION;

BIBLIOMETRICS; CIVIL RIGHTS; CRIMINAL LAW; HUMANS; NEWSPAPERS; OKLAHOMA; PUBLIC OPINION; UNITED STATES; VIOLENCE;

EID: 0034044956     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1005536204923     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. American Bar Association (1995). Model rules of professional conduct. Chicago: Author.
2. Antunes, G. E., & Hurley, P. A. (1978). The representation of criminal events in Houston's two daily papers. Journalism Quarterly, 55, 756-760.
3. Arnold, S. J., & Gold, A. D. (1978-79). The use of a public opinion poll on a change of venue application. Criminal Law Quarterly, 21, 445-464.
4. Bush, C. R., & Teilhet, D. L. (1942). The press, reader habits and reader interest. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 219, 7-10.
5. Costantini, E., & King, J. (1980/81). The partial juror: Correlates and causes of prejudgment. Law and Society Review, 15, 9-40.
6. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken identifications: The eyewitness, psychology, and law. New York: Cambridge University Press.
7. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Stuve, T. E. (1988). Juror decisionmaking in eyewitness identification cases. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 41-55.
8. DeFleur, M. L., Davenport, L., Cronin, M., & DeFleur, M. (1992). Audience recall of news stories presented by newspaper, computer, television and radio. Journalism Quarterly, 69, 1010-1022.
9. DeLuca, A. J. (1979). Tipping the scales of justice: The effects of pretrial publicity. Unpublished master's thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
10. 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, 819-832.
11. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Chaiken, S. (1978). Causal inferences about communicators and their effect on opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 424-435.
12. Eimermann, T. E., & Simon, R. J. (1970). Newspaper coverage of crimes and trials: Another look at the free press-fair trial controversy. Journalism Quarterly, 47, 142-144.
13. Estes v-Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965).
14. Facorro, L. B., & DeFleur, M. L. (1993). A cross-cultural experiment on how well audiences remember news stories from newspaper, computer, television, and radio sources. Journalism Quarterly, 70, 585-601.
15. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 21(a).
16. Fulero, S. M., & Penrod, S. D. (1990). The myths and realities of attorney jury selection folklore and scientific jury selection: What works? Ohio Northern University Law Review, XVII, 229-253.
17. Hardaway, R., & Tumminello, D. B. (1996). Pretrial publicity in criminal cases of national notoriety: Constructing a remedy for the remediless wrong. American University Law Review, 46, 39-90.
18. Hovland, C. I., Lumsdaine, A. A., & Sheffield, F. D. (1949). Experiments on mass communication. Studies in social psychology in World War II (Vol. III). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
19. Humphries, D. (1981). Serious crime news coverage and ideology: A content analysis of crime coverage in a metropolitan paper. Crime and Delinquency, 27, 191-205.
20. Hvistendahl, J. K. (1979). The effect of placement of biasing information. Journalism Quarterly, 56, 863-865.
21. Imrich, D. J., Mullin, C., & Linz, D. (1995). Measuring the extent of prejudicial pretrial publicity in major American newspapers: A content analysis. Journal of Communication, 45, 94-117.
22. Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961).
23. Kerr, N. L., Kramer, G. P., Carroll, J. S., & Alfini, J. (1991). On the effectiveness of voir dire in criminal cases with prejudicial pretrial publicity: An empirical study. American University Law Review, 40, 665-701.
24. Kline, F. G., & Jess, P. H. (1966). Prejudicial publicity: Its effects on law school mock juries. Journalism Quarterly, 43, 113-116.
25. Kramer, G. P., Kerr, N. L., & Carroll, J. S. (1990). Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies, and jury bias. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 409-438.
26. Loftus, E. (1974). Reconstructing memory: The incredible witness. Psychology Today, 8, 116-119.
27. Loftus, E. (1979). Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28. Maine v. Superior Court, 438 P.2d 372 (Cal. 1968).
29. Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310 (1959).
30. McConahay, J. B., Mullin, C. J., & Frederick, J. (1977). The uses of social science in trials with political and racial overtones: The trial of Joan Little. Law and Contemporary Problems, 4, 205-229.
31. Minow, N. N., & Cate, F. H. (1991). Who is an impartial juror in an age of mass media? American University Law Review, 40, 631-664.
32. Moran, G., & Cutler, B. L. (1991). The prejudicial impact of pretrial publicity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 345-367.
33. Mu'Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415 (1991).
34. Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794 (1975).
35. National Center for State Courts. (1999). How the public views the state courts: a 1999 national survey Williamsburg, VA: Author.
36. Nietzel, M. T., & Dillehay, R. C. (1983). Psychologists as consultants for changes of venue. Law and Human Behavior, 7, 309-355.
37. Norwood, E. A. (1986). The prosecutor and pre-trial publicity: The need for a rule. Journal of the Legal Profession, 22, 169-186.
38. Olczak, P. V., Kaplan, M. F., & Penrod, S. D. (1991). Attorney's lay psychology and its effectiveness in selecting jurors: Three empirical studies. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 431-452.
39. Otto, A. L., Penrod, S., & Dexter, H. (1994). The biasing impact of pretrial publicity on juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 453-470.
40. Padawer-Singer, A., & Barton, A. H. (1975). The impact of pretrial publicity on jurors' verdicts. In R. J. Simon (Ed.), The jury system in America: A critical overview (pp. 123-139). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
41. Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025 (1984).
42. Penrod, S., Otto, A., & Dexter, H. (1990). Assessing the impact of pretrial publicity on jury decisionmaking. Biennial Meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Williamsburg, Virginia.
43. Pollock, A. J. (1977). The use of public opinion polls to obtain changes of venue and continuances in criminal trials. Criminal Justice Journal, 1, 269-288.
44. Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (1963).
45. Ryan, M., & Owen, D. (1976). A content analysis of metropolitan news coverage of social issues. Journalism Quarterly, 53, 634-640.
46. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966).
47. Simon, R. J., & Eimermann, T. (1971). The jury finds not guilty: Another look at media influence on the jury. Journalism Quarterly, 48, 343-344.
48. Simon, T. F., Fico, F., & Lacy, S. (1989). Covering conflict and controversy: Measuring balance, fairness, defamation. Journalism Quarterly, 66, 427-434.
49. Steblay, N. M., Besirevic, J., Fulero, S. M., & Jimenez-Lorente, B. (1999). The effects of pretrial publicity on juror verdicts: A meta-analytic review. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 219-235.
50. Stroble v. California, 343 U.S. 181 (1952).
51. Studebaker, C. A., & Penrod, S. D. (1997). Pretrial publicity: The media, the law, and commonsense. Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law, 3, 428-460.
52. Sue, S., Smith, R. E., & Gilbert, R. (1974). Biasing effect of pretrial publicity on judicial decisions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 2, 163-171.
53. Sue, S., Smith, R. E., & Pedroza, G. (1975). Authoritarianism, pretrial publicity and awareness of bias in simulated jurors. Psychological Reports, 37, 1299-1302.
54. Tanford, S., & Cox, M (1988). The effects of impeachment evidence and limiting instructions on individual and group decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 477-497.
55. Tankard, J. W., Middleton, K., & Rimmer, T. (1979). Compliance with American Bar Association fair trial-free press guidelines. Journalism Quarterly, 56, 464-468.
56. Tans, M., & Chaffee, S. (1966). Pretrial publicity and juror prejudice. Journalism Quarterly, 43, 647-654.
57. U.S. v. McVeigh, 918 F. Supp. 1467 (1996a).
58. U.S. v. McVeigh (1996b). Pre-trial transcript examination of Steven Penrod. 1996 WL 39601 (W.D.Okla.-Trans.).
59. U.S. v. McVeigh (1996c). Pre-trial transcript examination of Kent Tedin. 1996 WL 34135 (W.D.Okla.-Trans.).
60. Vidmar, N., & Judson, J. (1981). The use of social sciences in a change of venue application. Canadian Bar Review, 59, 76-102.
61. Walster, E., & Festinger, L. (1962). The effectiveness of "overheard" persuasive communications. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65, 395-402.
62. Wells, G. L., & Murray, D. M. (1983). What can psychology say about the Neil v. Biggers criteria for judging eyewitness accuracy? Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 347-362.
63. Wilcox, W., & McCombs, M. (1967). Crime story elements and fair trial/free press. Unpublished paper, University of California, Berkeley, California.
64. Wilson, J. R., & Bornstein, B. H. (1998). Methodological considerations in pretrial publicity research: Is the medium the message? Law and Human Behavior, 22, 585-597.
65. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (1981). Stages in the analysis of persuasive messages: The role of causal attributions and message comprehension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 246-259.
66. Woodburn, B. W. (1947). Reader interest in newspaper pictures. Journalism Quarterly, 24, 197-201.
67. Zeisel, H., & Diamond, S. (1978). The effect of peremptory challenges on jury and verdicts: An experiment in a federal district court. Stanford Law Review, 30, 491-531.