126 5 Court and the Legal System—Adult Forensicsremedies for such effects have been investigated, yet their effectiveness has not
been well established. One of these remedies is the voir dire, or jury examination,
process. The use of the voir dire process as a remedy for pretrial publicity assumes
that upon extensive questioning by the prosecution, defense, and/or judge, the
impact of pretrial publicity on that juror can be assessed. Thus, each juror could
be examined for potential biases resulting from media exposure to the case and
discarded from the pool if it is suspected that they will be unable to remain impartial
in rendering a verdict. In theory, using extended voir dire to assess for biases should
work. However, research in this area has failed to reach a conclusive status. Dexter
ct til. (1992) found that subjects who were exposed to pretrial publicity perceived the
defendant as more culpable (guilty) and that subjects who were exposed to extensive
voir dire (as opposed to minimal voir dire) perceived the defendant as less culpable.
It is safe to assume, then, that pretrial publicity has an impact on juror perceptions
of culpability, and extended voir dire may be beneficial in these types of cases.
In the 197()s, the concept of scientific jury selection was introduced. This notion
examined whether social scientists could be employed by the defense to select
the most favorable jurors in an effort to increase chances of acquittal. Generally,
a telephone survey was used to interview people who met the same eligibility
standards of prospective jurors. Questions concerning biographical information and
general beliefs and attitudes about the defendant which may influence their verdict
were posed. The interviewees were also presented a brief description of the case and
questioned as to how they would vote if they were part of the jury (Abadinsky &
Wmfree, 1992). By measuring sociological variables, general beliefs, and attitudes
of those who could potentially be jurors, it could be determined how certain types
of jurors would vote before the jury selection process began. Thus, the defense
would be able to predict how members of the jury pool might vote based on
personal characteristics in an effort to increase the probability of acquittal. Lawyer-
conducted voir dire could be used to determine whether the potential jurors "fit"
their desired profile. The results of scientific jury selection have been noted as
modest at best, and it is generally believed that the success of such a process will
continue to decrease in the future, as national trends regarding the jury selection
process will render scientific jury selection nearly useless (Diamond, 1990).
Forensic Psychology and Policy Implications
When considering jury selection, a number of controversial issues arise. One of
the most pervasive concerns in the modern system of justice is whether a truly
representative jury is possible. The effects of pretrial publicity, particularly in highly
publicized cases (e.g., O. J. Simpson, Theodore Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh),
creates a situation where trying to find jurors who are impartial about the case is
extremely unlikely and perhaps even futile. Thus, in many cases, defendants (and
their legal representatives) leave their freedom in the hands of jurors who most likely