Additionally, when experts are testifying in a
change-of-venue hearing, they may provide the court
with data they have collected to assess the level of
prejudice in that particular case by comparing the
responses from community members in the current
venue with community members’ reports of bias in
alternative venues. The expert may present differences
in the amount of PTP exposure reported by commu-
nity members, their level of knowledge about case
facts, and their perceptions of the defendant’s charac-
ter and likelihood of guilt as a function of the commu-
nity in which the respondents live. Additionally, the
expert may present results from content analyses of
the quantity and quality of PTP in the current venue as
well as possible alternative venues. The expert may
then testify about differences in media exposure between
the communities, including the number of articles
reporting on the case, the types of prejudicial informa-
tion divulged, and the amount of emotional PTP in
each of the venues.
PTP continues to be a concern to defendants, the
courts, and researchers. Research has consistently
demonstrated that exposure to negative information
about the defendant pretrial affects jurors’ perceptions
of the defendant, that these negative perceptions
persist even after trial evidence is presented, and
that these perceptions have been shown to influence
jurors’ verdict decisions. Additionally, many of the
most commonly implemented remedies to counteract
PTP have proved to be ineffective when empirically
tested. Of the remedies, change of venue seems to be
the best method for reducing the negative effects of
PTP. Expert testimony addressing these research find-
ings as well as results from surveys assessing the com-
munities’ level of prejudice against the defendant may
assist the courts in their quest to provide the defendant
with a fair and impartial jury.Sarah Greathouse, Julia C. Busso,
and Margaret Bull KoveraSee alsoInadmissible Evidence, Impact on Juries; Juries and
Judges’ Instructions; Jury Selection; Public Opinion About
Crime; Trial Consulting; Voir DireFurther Readings
Bornstein, B. H., Wisenhunt, B. L., & Nemeth, R. J. (2002).
Pretrial publicity and civil cases: A two-way street? Law
and Human Behavior, 21,3–17.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.
Kovera, M. B. (2002). The effects of general pretrial
publicity on juror decisions: An examination of
moderators and mediating mechanisms. Law and Human
Behavior, 26,43–72.
Lieberman, J. D., & Arndt, J. (2000). Understanding the
limits of limiting instructions: Social psychological
explanations for the failures of instructions to disregard
pretrial publicity and other inadmissible evidence.
Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 3,677–711.
Steblay, N. M., Besirevic, J., Fulero, S. M., & Jiminex-
Lorente, V. (1999). The effects of pretrial publicity on
juror verdicts: A meta-analytic review. Law and Human
Behavior, 23,219–235.
Studebaker, C. A., & Penrod, S. D. (2005). Pretrial publicity
and its influence on juror decision making. In N. Brewer &
K. D. Williams (Eds.),Psychology and law: An empirical
perspective(pp. 254–275). New York: Guilford Press.
Studebaker, C. A., Robbennolt, J. L, Penrod, S. D., Pathak-
Sharms, M. K., Groscup, J. L., & Davenport, J. L. (2002).
Studying pretrial publicity effects: New methods for
improving ecological validity and testing external validity.
Law and Human Behavior, 26,19–41.PRISONOVERCROWDING
With well over 2 million individuals confined in jails
and prisons in the United States, it is easy to under-
stand why the federal prison system and 24 state
prison systems were above their rated capacity at the
end of 2004. The data supplied by the Bureau of
Justice Statistics revealed that the federal prison sys-
tem had the highest rate of overcrowding in 2004
(140%), but this was only because states such as
Alabama, California, Delaware, and Illinois housed a
significant portion of their inmate populations in pri-
vate and contract facilities. Local and county jails held
747,529 offenders in mid-2005, which represents
approximately one third of the incarcerated popula-
tion. These facilities were at 95% capacity, although
this figure is deceptive because research indicates that
smaller jails often operate well below their rated
capacity, whereas larger metropolitan jails often oper-
ate well above their rated capacity.
Prison overcrowding is of particular interest in the
United States, in part because of the number of people618 ———Prison OvercrowdingP-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 618