Case studies of pre- and midtrial prejudice in criminal and civil litigation

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 73-105

  Vidmar, Neil ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; COMMUNITY; COURT; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; HUMAN; LAW SUIT; MASS MEDIUM; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; TERRORISM; CIVIL RIGHTS; CRIMINAL LAW; LEGAL ASPECT; PUBLIC OPINION;

CIVIL RIGHTS; CRIMINAL LAW; HUMANS; MASS MEDIA; PREJUDICE; PUBLIC OPINION;

EID: 0036484056     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1013881208990     Document Type: Article

References (104)

1. Allen, M., Mabry, E., & McKelton, D. (1998). Impact of juror attitudes about the death penalty on juror evaluations of guilt and punishment: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 715-732.
2. Allport, G., & Postman, L. (1948). The psychology of rumor. New York: Henry Holt.
3. Anastasio, P., Rose, K., & Chapman, J. (1999). Can the media create public opinion? A social identity approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 152-155.
4. Angus Reid Group. (1993, December 29). Public opinion on publication bans and the Homulka trial. The National Angus Reid Poll. Angus: Author.
5. Appleby, T. (2001, January 26). Mother cleared in killing of girl, 7. The Globe and Mail, p. A1.
6. Attorney-General for NSW v. John Fairfax Publications, Pty. Ltd., NSWSC 318 (1999).
7. Australian Law Reform Commission. (1986). Prejudicial publicity and the courts. Sydney: Author.
8. Bailis, D., & MacCoun, R. (1996). Estimating liability risks with the media as your guide. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 419-430.
9. Barak, G. (1996). Representing O.J.: Murder, criminal justice and mass culture. Guilderland, NY: Harrow and Heston.
10. Blackstone, W. (1769/1966). Commentaries on the Laws of England. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
11. Bogart, L. (1989). Press and public. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Bornstein, B. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-91.
13. Bravos v. Madison, Pillsbury and Sutro, California Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco, No. 971620 (1997).
14. Bronson, E. (1989). The effectiveness of voir dire in discovering prejudice in high publicity cases: An archival study of the minimization effect. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Political Science, California State University, Chico.
15. Carroll, J., Kerr, N., Alfini, J., Weaver, F., MacCoun, R., & Feldman, V. (1986). Free press and fair trial: The role of behavioral research. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 187-201.
16. Chase, O. (1995). Helping jurors determine pain and suffering awards. Hofstra Law Review, 23, 763-790.
17. Chesterman, M. (2000). Criminal trial juries in Australia. From penal colonies to a federal democracy. In Neil Vidmar (Ed.) World Jury Systems: Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18. Chesterman, M., Chan, J., & Hampton, S. (2001). Managing prejudicial publicity. Sydney: Justice Research Center, Law and Justice Foundation of New South Wales.
19. City of Durham v. Carolina Waste Equipment and Lodal, General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division (Durham County), No. 91-CVS-00729 (1991).
20. City of Durham v. Lodal, North Carolina Court of Appeals (Fourteenth District), No. COA95-43 (1995).
21. Corker, D., & Levi, M. (1996). Pretrial publicity and its treatment in the English courts. Criminal Law Review, 1996, 622-632.
22. Daniels, S., & Martin, J. (1995). Civil juries and the politics of reform. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
23. Durkheim, E. (1893/1967). The division of labor in society (G. Simpson, Trans.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
24. Freckelton, I. (1999). Social psychology, survey evidence and prejudicial publicity. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 6, 215-231.
25. Fulero, S. (1987). The role of behavioral research in the free press/ fair trial controversy: Another view. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 259-264.
26. Galanter, M. (1997). An oil strike in hell: Contemporary legends about the civil justice system. Arizona Law Review, 40, 717-752.
27. Garber, S., & Bower, A. (1999). Newspaper coverage of automotive product liability verdicts. Law and Society Review, 33, 93-102.
28. Gertner, N., & Mizner, J. (1997). The law of juries. Little falls, NJ: Glaser Legal Works.
29. Gibb, F. (1996, January 30). The result of the Maxwell brothers case has put the system under the spotlight. The Times, p. 31.
30. Ginger, A. (2000). Jury Selection in Civil and Criminal Trials (June 2000 Suppl.). Westport, CT: Lawpress Corp.
31. Goodman, J., Loftus, E., & Greene, E. (1990). Matters of money: Voir dire in civil cases. Forensic Reports, 3, 303-330.
32. Graber, D. (1988). Processing the news (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
33. Graham, S., Weiner, B., & Zucker, G. (1997). An attributional analysis of punishment goals and public reactions to O. J. Simpson. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 331-346.
34. Greene, E. (1990). Media effects on jurors. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 439-450.
35. Greene, E., & Loftus, E. (1984). What's new in the news? The influence of well-publicized news events on psychological research and courtroom trials. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 5, 211-221.
36. Greene, E., & Wade, R. (1987). Of private talk and public print: General pretrial publicity and juror decision-making. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2, 123-135.
37. Hans, V. (2000). Business on trial. New Haven: Yale University Press.
38. Hans, V., & Slater, D. (1984). "Plain crazy:" Lay definitions of legal insanity. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 7, 105-114.
39. Herek, G. (1986). On heterosexual masculinity. American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 563-577.
40. Herek, G., & Berrill, K. (1992). Hate crimes: Confronting violence against lesbians and gay men. Newbury Park: Sage.
41. Imrich, D., 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.
42. In re: Air Crash Near Cali, Columbia, U.S. District Court, S. D. Fla, No. 96-MD-1125 (1996).
43. In re: Air Crash Near Morrisville, North Carolina on December 13, 1994, U.S. District Court, Middle District, MDL No. 1084 (1998).
44. Irvin v. State, 66 S. 2d 288 (Fla.1953).
45. Johnson, C., & Haney, C. (1994). Felony voir dire: An exploratory study of its content and effect. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 487-506.
46. Jost, A. (1995). The jury system: Are major changes needed? CQ Researcher, 42, 993-996.
47. Kennedy, J. (1826). Law and practice of juries. Publisher unknown.
48. Kerr, N., Kramer, G., Carroll, J., & 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.
49. Kovera, M. B. (2002). The effects of general pretrial publicity on juror decisions: An examination of moderators and mediating mechanisms. Law and Human Behavior, 26(1), 43-72.
50. Knapp, G. (1992). Scope of voir dire examination. 114 L.Ed 2d 763.
51. Kramer, G., Kerr, N., & Carroll, J. (1990). Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies, and jury bias. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 409-438.
52. Lozano v. State, 584 S. 2d 19 (Fla. 3d District Court of Appeals, 1991).
53. Marshall, L., & Smith, A. (1986). The effects of demand characteristics, evaluation anxiety, and expectancy on juror honesty during voir dire. The Journal of Psychology, 120, 205-217.
54. McConahay, J. Mullin, C., & Frederick, J. (1977). The uses of social science in trials with political and racial overtones: The trial of Joan Little. Law and Contemporary Problems, 41, 205-229.
55. Mize, G. (1999). On better jury selection: Spotting unfavorable jurors before they enter the jury room. Court Review, 36, 10-15.
56. Moran, G., & Cutler, B. (1991). The prejudicial impact of pretrial publicity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 345-352.
57. Moran, G., Cutler, B., & DeLisa, A. (1994). Attitudes toward tort reform, scientific jury selection, and juror bias: Verdict inclination in criminal and civil trials. Law and Psychology Review, 18, 309-328.
58. Moran, G., Cutler, B., & Loftus, E. (1990). Jury selection in major controlled substance trials: The need for extended voir dire. Forensic Reports, 3, 331-348.
59. Mueller, C. (1978). Jurors' impeachments of verdicts and indictments in federal court under rule 606b. Nebraska Law Review, 57, 935-956.
60. Mullin, C., Imrich, D., & Linz, D. (1996). The impact of acquaintance rape stories and case-specific pretrial publicity on juror decision-making. Communication Research, 23, 100-135.
61. Mu'Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415. 111 S.Ct. 1899 (1991).
62. Nietzel, M., & Dillehay, R. (1982). The effects of variations in voir dire procedures in capital murder trials. Law and Human Behavior, 6, 1-14.
63. Nietzel, M., & Dillehay, R. (1983). Psychologists as consultants for changes of venue: The use of public opinion surveys. Law and Human Behavior, 7, 309-336.
64. Nietzel, M., Dillehay, R., & Himelin, M. (1987). Effects of voir dire variations in capital trials: A replication and extension. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5, 467-477.
65. Nisbett, R., & Wilson, T. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental process. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259.
66. North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency v. Carolina Power and Light (Courtfile CV-1362, 1988) (unreported).
67. Ogloff, J., & Vidmar, N. (1994). The impact of pretrial publicity on jurors: A study to compare the relative effects of television and print media in a child sex abuse case. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 507-526.
68. O'Hara, J. (2001, May 14). Dead wrong. Macleans, pp. 53-62.
69. Patterson, A., & Neufer, N. (1997). Removing juror bias by applying psychology to challenges for cause. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, 7, 97-106.
70. Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025, 104 S. Ct. 2885 (1984).
71. Pennington, N. & Hastie, R. (1991). A cognitive theory of juror decision making: The story model. Cardozo Law Review, 13, 519-577.
72. Pollock, A. (1977). The use of public opinion polls to obtain changes of venue and continuances in criminal trials. Criminal Justice Journal, 1, 269-288.
73. R. v. Bernardo, Ontario Court of Justice (February 18, 1993) (unreported).
74. R. v. Bowers, Ontario Supreme Court (1986) (unreported).
75. R. v. Iutzi. Ontario Supreme Court (1980) (unreported).
76. R. v. Kenny, Newfoundland Supreme Court (1991) (unreported).
77. R. v. Maxwell, (1990) High Court of England (unreported).
78. R. v. McGregor, Ontario Court of Justice, General Division (1992) (unreported).
79. R. v. Musson, Ontario Court of Justice, Central West Region (1995) (unreported).
80. R. v. Reynolds. Superior Court of Justice, East Region. Court File 3015/98 (1998) (unreported).
81. R. v. Taylor et al., British Columbia Supreme Court (1983) (unreported).
82. R. v. Theberge, Ontario Court of Justice, Northeast Region (1994) (unreported).
83. Regents of the University of California v. Genentech, U.S. District Court, Northern Dist. California, No. C90-2232-Cal (Motion for mistrial due to prejudicial publicity, May 12, 1999).
84. Seltzer, R., Venuti, M., & Lopes, G. (1991). Juror honesty during the voir dire. Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, 451-462.
85. Stalans, L. (1993). Citizens' crime stereotypes, biased recall, and punishment preferences in abstract cases: The educative role of interpersonal sources. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 451-470.
86. Steblay, N., Besirevic, J., Fulero, S., & Jiminez-Lorente, B. (1999). The effects of pretrial publicity on juror verdicts: A meta-analytic review. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 219-235.
87. Studebaker, C., & Penrod, S. (1997). Pretrial publicity: The media, the law and common sense. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 3, 428-460.
88. Studebaker, C., Robbennolt, J., Pathak-Sharma, M., & Penrod, S. (2000). Assessing pretrial publicity effects: Integrating content analytic results. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 317-336.
89. Thaler, P. (1994). The watchful eye: American justice in the age of the television trial. Westport, CT: Praeger.
90. U.S. v. Allsup, 566 F 2d 68 9th Cir. (1997).
91. U.S. v. Burr (1807) reported in John Elliott and Ellen Hammett (eds.) (1986). Charged with Treason. Parsons, W. Va.: McClain Print Co.
92. U.S. v. Horton, 646 F.2d 181 5th Cir. (1981).
93. U.S. v. McVeigh, 918 F. Supp. 1467 (1996).
94. U.S. v. McVeigh, 955 F. Supp. 1281 (1997).
95. U.S. v. Pinto, 486 F. Supp. 578 (1980).
96. Vidmar, N. (1997). Generic prejudice and the presumption of guilt in sex abuse trials. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 5-26.
97. Vidmar, N. (Ed.) (2000a). World jury systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
98. Vidmar, N. (2000b). The Canadian criminal jury: Searching for a middle ground. In N. Vidmar (Ed.), World jury systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
99. Vidmar, N. (2001). Retributive justice: Its social context. In M. Ross, & D. Miller (Eds.), Social justice research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
100. Vidmar, N., & Judson, J. (1981). The use of social science data in a change of venue application: A case study. Canadian Bar Review, 59, 77-102.
101. Vidmar, N., & Melnitzer, J. (1984). Juror prejudice: An empirical study of a challenge for cause. Osgoode Hall Law Journal 22, 487-511.
102. Wetherington, G., Lawton, H., & Pollock, D. (1999). Preparing for the high profile case: An omnibus treatment for judges and lawyers. Florida Law Review, 51, 425-488.
103. Wilson, J., & Bornstein, B. (1998). Methodological considerations in pretrial publicity research: Is the medium the message? Law and Human Behavior, 22, 585-597.
104. Young, W., Cameron, N., & Potter, S. (1999). Juries survey: Report of findings. Wellington: New Zealand Law Commission.