entrenching jurors’ opinions about the defendant’s
guilt before they hear the evidence that is introduced
at trial. Empirical research suggests that exposure to
pretrial publicity causes jurors to be more conviction
prone, especially when the publicity is designed to
elicit an emotional response rather than present facts.
Results from trial simulation studies suggest that tra-
ditional remedies for the negative influence of pretrial
publicity on juror decisions, including voir dire, judi-
cial instruction, and continuances, may not be effec-
tive in eliminating bias.Effects of Pretrial Publicity
on Juror Decisions
Some of the information provided to the general pub-
lic, such as comments on the defendant’s character,
discussion of a defendant’s prior criminal record, or
presentation of evidence against the defendant (e.g., a
confession made by the defendant), may create bias in
a potential jury member and prevent him or her from
hearing the case fairly. In fact, some of the evidence
that the media report pretrial may be ruled inadmissi-
ble at trial. A community member exposed to inadmis-
sible evidence via pretrial publicity (PTP) may be
unable to put aside or ignore the prohibited informa-
tion if he or she is chosen to serve as a juror for the
case. These kinds of biases violate the defendant’s
Sixth Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury.
Researchers have typically examined the effects of
PTP through field studies and experimental studies. In
field studies, PTP is assessed by surveying commu-
nity members from the venue in which a case will be
tried regarding the extent of their exposure to media
regarding the case, the information they know or
remember about the case, and their perceptions of the
defendant’s guilt. Similar information is obtained
from community members in other venues to which
the case may be moved, generally locations in which
the media coverage of the case was less or nonexis-
tent. Knowing this information, researchers can com-
pare both the amount of PTP and the perceived guilt
of the defendant between the different venues. The
relationship between PTP exposure (as reported by
the community members) and pretrial judgments of
the defendant’s guilt can also be examined. In general,
field studies have shown that community members
who reside in the venue in which the trial is to be held
and therefore have received the most PTP exposure
possess significantly more biased attitudes against thedefendant than community members in remote
venues. Field studies have the benefit of studying PTP
in naturally occurring environments; however, this
method also has its shortcomings. Field studies cannot
estimate the effects of PTP after the presentation of
evidence, its processing, and deliberation with other
jurors. Experimental methods are needed to make
such assessments.
As opposed to field studies, experimental studies
are typically conducted in a laboratory in which the
nature and extent of PTP are manipulated while hold-
ing other variables constant. Typically, after exposure
to PTP, participants watch a trial stimulus and are
asked to judge the guilt of the defendant, either on
their own or after deliberation with other mock jurors.
The effects of varying levels of PTP on verdict
choices are examined. The primary advantage of
experimental methods is the ability to make causal
conclusions about the effects observed. However,
experimental studies have often used relatively artifi-
cial PTP exposure, as well as undergraduate college
students as participants, and therefore have been crit-
icized for their low ecological validity.
In general, experimental research indicates that
PTP negatively influences perceptions of the defen-
dant; as more pieces of prejudicial information are
presented pretrial, jurors’ pretrial perceptions of the
defendant become more negative. The prejudicial
impact of the PTP persists even after jurors hear trial
evidence. Mock jurors who are presented with nega-
tive PTP are more likely to find the defendant guilty
than jurors who are not presented information pretrial.
The prejudicial effect of PTP has been found in both
criminal and civil cases and is greater when the PTP
is emotionally based (e.g., graphic details of a brutal
rape) rather than factual (e.g., details of the defen-
dant’s past criminal history). Furthermore, research
indicates that even publicity that is topically, but not
directly, related to a case (known as general PTP) can
influence jurors’ evaluations of trial evidence as well
as their verdict choices.Potential Remedies for
Prejudicial Effects of PTP
The American Bar Association recognized the harm
that prejudicial PTP can cause and has suggested a
number of methods to counteract its effects, including
voir dire, judicial instruction, continuance, and
change of venue. Unfortunately, research has failed to616 ———Pretrial Publicity, Impact on JuriesP-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 616