Field and Lab Studies of the Effects of Pretrial Publicity on Jurors' Trial Judgments

庭前公开对陪审员审判判决影响的现场和实验室研究

• 批准号: 0617152
• 负责人: Steven Penrod
• 金额: $ 27.46万
• 依托单位: CUNY John Jay College of Criminal Justice
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Continuing Grant
• 财政年份: 2006
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2006-08-01 至 2009-07-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=0617152&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Field; Lab; Studies; Effects; Pretrial

Abstract The Problem of Pretrial Publicity (PTP). Minow & Cate (2001) estimate that in the 1980s at least 3,100 defendants claimed they could not be tried in a fair manner due to the significant amounts of negative PTP surrounding their case. A new search replicating their methods indicates the number of defendants who claimed a fair trial was impossible as a result of PTP between 1994 and 2005 is well over 7000. Defendants have reason to be concerned. Research conducted over the past 40 years indicates that pretrial publicity (PTP) can negatively influence jurors' perceptions of a defendant in cases receiving substantial PTP; however, some have argued that conclusions are being drawn largely from laboratory research using methods which do not accurately and completely reflect what occurs during a real trial. PTP lab experiments in which mock jurors are exposed to PTP and then make a decision based on a short trial presentation are mostly based on artificial PTP, artificial exposure to PTP, sparse trial evidence, and student jurors. Courts have been hesitant to rely on these studies when handling PTP-related issues e.g., judge Richard Matsch in his venue-change decision for the Timothy McVeigh trial voiced his concerns about research consisting largely of simulated trials (U.S. v McVeigh, 1996, p. 1473). Survey studies examining the effects of exposure to real PTP in real cases using jury-eligible adults also indicate that PTP can influence pretrial judgments (the effects are even stronger than those found in lab experiments). However, the survey studies cannot address the possibility that PTP effects are reduce by exposure to trial evidence. As a further problem, judges rely on jurors' representations that they can put aside PTP and decide a case impartially though some studies and our pilot work casts doubts on that proposition. Research Goals. The proposed research is designed to address concerns about experimental and survey methods by combining the strengths of both methods to study the impact of real PTP, natural and manipulated exposure to real PTP using real cases and case evidence. The research uses representative samples of jury-eligible community members to further enhance external validity. The studies will examine theory-based hypotheses about mediational processes thorough which PTP is thought to exert its effects, and determine how components of PTP negatively or positively influence jurors' inferences about the defendant and negatively or positively influence final judgments. Experiments. Field and laboratory studies of PTP effects will be conducted: Study 1 will make use of an actual on-going case with high PTP in the region where the trial takes place using a representative sample of jury-eligible research participants recruited from that region (with natural levels of PTP-exposure assessed) and participants recruited from nearby areas where the case has been much-less publicized. The second group of participants will be exposed to experimentally-manipulated low- and high-levels of PTP that favors either the prosecution/plaintiff or the defendant and which is presented in either newspaper form or TV-news form (equated for content). Participants' verdict predispositions and a variety of demographic and trial-relevant attitudes will be assessed prior to trial. During the course of the actual trial, participants will be given (via a website) summaries of the actual opening statements, trial evidence and witness testimony, closing arguments and legal instructions (all based on the actual trial transcript). Verdict preferences (and other measures particularly measures that tap into theory-based mediating mechanisms) will be assessed at each point in time. Particular strengths of the studies are that they will allow comparisons of PTP effects across experimental and natural exposure conditions (at present the studies are completely independent of one-another), will make use of actual PTP and actual trials (common in survey studies, virtually non-existent in experimental studies), and will make use of rich trial stimulus materials (non-existent in survey studies and rare in experimental studies). Pilot work has demonstrated the viability of the research plan and demonstrated both PTP effects and a lack of awareness of PTP effects among prospective jurors. Studies 2 and 3 will make use of PTP and trial materials from actual trials to experimentally test theoretical predictions drawn from the story model and predecisional bias theory concerning mechanisms through which PTP effects occur. This study will use a mix of a representative sample of jury eligible adults and students and will examine PTP effects in jury deliberations. Broader Impact. The proposed research will use a novel methodology that will provide much better insights into the impact and mechanisms through which PTP influences jurors' initial perceptions of defendants, jurors' subsequent interpretations and evaluations of trial evidence and their verdicts. This project will offer substantial research opportunities to students (from the undergraduate to the post-doctoral level). The primary site for the research is John Jay College-CUNY. John Jay has an extremely diverse student body 37% Hispanic, 21% African American, 6% Asian at the undergraduate level and significant diversity in the graduate programs. Nationally, John Jay is ranked 25th among four-year colleges for Hispanic enrollment and the psychology major ranks third highest nationally for the number of degrees awarded to Hispanics. The students participating in the research will reflect the college's diverse student population.

摘要审前公开问题。 Minow Cate（2001）估计，在20世纪80年代，至少有3，100名被告声称，由于围绕他们的案件的大量负面PTP，他们无法以公平的方式受到审判。 一项复制他们方法的新搜索表明，1994年至2005年期间，声称由于PTP而不可能进行公平审判的被告人数远远超过7000人。被告有理由担心。 过去40年进行的研究表明，审前宣传（PTP）可以负面影响陪审员的被告在案件中接受大量PTP的看法;然而，有些人认为，结论主要是从实验室研究中得出的，使用的方法并不能准确和完整地反映真实的审判过程中发生的事情。 模拟陪审员接触PTP，然后根据简短的审判陈述做出决定的PTP实验室实验大多基于人工PTP，人工接触PTP，稀疏的审判证据和学生陪审员。 法院在处理与PTP有关的问题时一直不愿依赖这些研究，法官Richard Matsch在他对Timothy McVeigh审判的地点变更决定中表达了他对主要由模拟审判组成的研究的担忧（美国诉McVeigh，1996，第1473页）。 在真实的案件中，对符合陪审员资格的成年人进行的调查研究表明，接触真实的PTP的影响也表明PTP可以影响审前判断（这种影响甚至比实验室实验中发现的影响更大）。 然而，调查研究不能解决PTP效应因暴露于试验证据而降低的可能性。 另一个问题是，法官依赖陪审员的陈述，即他们可以搁置PTP并公正地裁决案件，尽管一些研究和我们的试点工作对这一主张提出了质疑。 研究目标。 拟议的研究旨在解决有关实验和调查方法的关注，结合这两种方法的优势，研究真实的PTP的影响，自然和操纵暴露于真实的PTP使用真实的案件和案件证据。 本研究使用具有代表性的样本陪审团合格的社区成员，以进一步提高外部效度。 本研究将探讨以理论为基础的假设，调解过程通过该PTP被认为发挥其效果，并确定如何PTP的组件消极或积极影响陪审员对被告的推断和消极或积极影响最终判决。 实验 将进行PTP效应的现场和实验室研究：研究1将利用试验发生地区的一个实际正在进行的高PTP病例，使用从该地区招募的具有陪审团资格的研究参与者的代表性样本（评估PTP暴露的自然水平）和从病例较少宣传的附近地区招募的参与者。 第二组参与者将接触到实验操纵的低水平和高水平的PTP，这些PTP有利于控方/原告或被告，并以报纸形式或电视新闻形式呈现（等同于内容）。 参与者的裁决倾向和各种人口统计学和试验相关的态度将在试验前进行评估。 在实际审判过程中，将（通过网站）向参与者提供实际开庭陈述、审判证据和证人证词、终结辩论和法律的指示的摘要（所有这些都以实际审判记录为依据）。 将在每个时间点评估判决偏好（以及其他措施，特别是利用基于理论的调解机制的措施）。这些研究的特殊优势在于，它们将允许在实验和自然暴露条件下比较PTP效应（目前这些研究完全相互独立），将利用实际PTP和实际试验（在调查研究中很常见，在实验研究中几乎不存在），并将利用丰富的试验刺激材料（在调查研究中不存在，在实验研究中很少）。 试点工作证明了研究计划的可行性，并证明了PTP效应和未来陪审员对PTP效应缺乏认识。研究2和研究3将利用PTP和来自实际试验的试验材料，对从故事模型和决策前偏差理论中得出的关于PTP效应发生机制的理论预测进行实验检验。 本研究将使用陪审团合格的成年人和学生的代表性样本的组合，并将研究在陪审团审议的PTP效果。更广泛的影响。 拟议的研究将使用一种新的方法，将提供更好的洞察的影响和机制，通过PTP影响陪审员的被告，陪审员的初步看法，随后的解释和审判证据的评估和他们的判决。 该项目将为学生提供大量的研究机会（从本科到博士后）。 研究的主要地点是纽约市立大学约翰杰伊学院。 约翰杰伊有一个非常多样化的学生团体37%西班牙裔，21%非洲裔美国人，6%亚洲在本科水平和研究生课程的显着多样性。在全国范围内，约翰·杰伊在西班牙裔四年制大学中排名第25位，心理学专业在授予西班牙裔学位的数量上排名第三高。 参与研究的学生将反映学院的多元化学生群体。