show that most of these methods successfully
decrease the effects of PTP on juror judgments.
One of the most common methods used to combat
PTP effects is voir dire. During voir dire, attorneys
and/or judges question potential jurors about biases they
may hold that would prevent them from hearing the case
fairly. When PTP is a concern, the judge has the option
to extend voir dire questioning to uncover any juror bias
that may be the result of exposure to PTP. Empirical
research, however, has identified several issues concern-
ing voir dire that prevent its effectiveness. Research has
shown that attorneys’ ability to uncover general juror
bias is limited. It may be difficult to identify biased
jurors in part because attorneys must rely on jurors to
self-report their bias, and jurors may lack the ability to
recognize the factors that influence their decision mak-
ing, including exposure to PTP. Exacerbating the prob-
lem of self-report is jurors’ motivation to answer voir
dire questions in socially desirable ways, feeling a
responsibility to the court to remain unbiased. Although
it is possible that voir dire may be a vehicle for encour-
aging jurors to set aside their biases, research thus far
has failed to show its effectiveness in reducing the bias
produced by PTP exposure.
Another potential remedy for PTP effects is judi-
cial instruction to jurors about their duty to avoid
being influenced by PTP. The instructions emphasize
the importance of disregarding previously heard infor-
mation about the case and relying solely on the infor-
mation presented during the trial. Although research
has shown that jurors generally do not follow judicial
instructions to disregard information, these instruc-
tions have been found to be more effective when
paired with a rationale for why the information should
be disregarded. Early research found support for judi-
cial instructions as a remedy for PTP; however, the
methodologies of these early studies have been criti-
cized. Methodologically sound research is yet to pro-
vide support for the usefulness of these instructions.
Continuance—delaying the start of a trial—has
been used as a remedy to PTP, with the hope that the
effects of PTP will decrease as time passes since the
last exposure to the prejudicial media. Research on
continuance is limited, but some studies have indi-
cated that the passage of time can decrease the effects
of factual PTP but not emotional PTP. A meta-analysis,
however, suggests that longer delays between PTP
and a trial can actually increase PTP effects. These
findings may be due to a sleeper effect—the tendency
of unreliable information to become more influentialover time because the information becomes detached
from the unreliable source in memory. Similarly,
information presented in PTP may be difficult to
disregard even when jurors are instructed to do so,
because the information becomes separated from its
source over time, making it impossible for jurors to
identify which information in memory came from the
trial evidence and which information came from PTP.
Finally, a trial may be moved from one venue to
another that is less saturated by PTP in an attempt to
minimize the effects of PTP on juror judgments.
Empirical research shows that a change of venue is the
most effective way to remedy PTP effects, as studies
have found that jurors in areas more heavily saturated
by PTP are more biased in support of the prosecution
and against the defendant than jurors in areas less sat-
urated by PTP. It has been argued that in extremely
high-profile cases, finding a venue where potential
jurors have not been tainted by PTP is impossible.
However, content analyses of actual media coverage
have shown that even in highly publicized cases such
as the Oklahoma City bombing, alternative venues
with little, or at least reduced, PTP can be found.
Thus, even if a change of venue cannot eliminate PTP
effects, it may be able to reduce them.Psychological Consultation
in PTP Cases
When a defendant believes that community members
have been exposed to a significant amount of PTP con-
cerning the case, his or her counsel may file a motion to
seek remedies to counteract the bias that may result
from the prejudicial information. When such motions
are filed, either side may call an expert who may provide
testimony to the judge making determinations about
whether to implement any remedies, such as expanded
voir dire or a change of venue. The expert may testify
about experimental psychological research on PTP,
including the negative impact it has on jurors’ percep-
tions of the defendant and on verdict decisions. The
expert may make comparisons between the types of
PTP used in research and the types of publicity that have
been released in the current case. The expert may also
testify about experimental research testing the effective-
ness of the suggested remedies. Although research indi-
cates that most traditional remedies besides change of
venue are ineffective, judges themselves report a strong
belief in the effectiveness of remedies such as extended
voir dire and judicial instruction.Pretrial Publicity, Impact on Juries——— 617P-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 617