Voir Dire and Trial Publicity - PSYC 375 Chapter 12

Voir Dire and Trial Publicity Chapter 12  Voir Dire: Definitions and Challenges THE VOIR DIRE PROCESS Voir dire is a procedure in which prospective jurors are questioned in an effort to determine if they are prejudiced Judge has discretion to determine...

Voir Dire and Trial Publicity Chapter 12  Voir Dire: Definitions and Challenges THE VOIR DIRE PROCESS Voir dire is a procedure in which prospective jurors are questioned in an effort to determine if they are prejudiced Judge has discretion to determine type of voir dire.  Limited VOIR DIRE A limited form of voir dire involves yes-or- no questions asked by the judge and answered by the group, not individuals. Example question: “Do you know of any reason you may be prejudiced for or against the plaintiffs or defendants because of the nature of the case?”  Limited Voir Dire Are responses predictive of legal decisions? Not really… (Salerno, 2021) Why? Offer little insight Implicit Bias May also create a social desirability effect  Extended VOIR DIRE Extended voir dire in which the judge and attorneys ask open- ended questions and question jurors individually Encourages jurors to talk more about their feelings and experiences. Can result in disclosures jurors might not otherwise offer. Typically see a compromise between limited and extended.  Two types of challenges are part of the voir dire Challenge process s in voir Challenge for Cause Peremptory dire challenge Challenge For Cause Challenge for Cause Prospective jurors can be excluded because they are biased or unfit to serve. Unlimited number allowed Very few jurors are dismissed for bias  Peremptory Challenge Peremptory challenge Exclude a designated number of jurors without a stated reason. Exact number allowed depends on jurisdiction and charge e.g. Federal death penalty gets 20 per side e.g. Federal trial where there might be more than 1 year of imprisonment gets 6 per side e.g. Civil trials in NY get 3 per side.  Purpose of Peremptory challenges Peremptory challenges have multiple purposes: Challenge potential jurors who attorneys believe will be unsympathetic to their side Allow those in a lawsuit to play a role in selecting the people who decide the outcome Indoctrination of prospective jurors ”Do you agree with the rule of law that requires acquittal in the event there is reasonable doubt?”  Limits on Peremptory Challenges The Supreme Court has ruled that peremptory challenges may not be based solely on a juror’s race. Batson v. Kentucky (1986) The logic of Batson was extended to peremptory challenges based solely on a juror’s gender J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B., 1994  Batson Challenge When a defense attorney believes that the prosecution’s peremptory challenge was motivated by race or gender, they initiates a “Batson challenge.” 1. Judge asks prosecutor their reason. 2. The prosecutor typically advances a race/gender- neutral explanation for the challenge.  Is This A Problem Today? Flowers v. Mississippi (2019) The Sunshine Project (Wright et al. 2018) Prosecutors excluded non-white jurors at 2x more often than white jurors. Particularly profound effects for black male jurors. Defense attorneys excluded non-white jurors less than half as often as they excluded white jurors Judges excluded non-white jurors more often Voir Dire: Selecting Jurors  Trying to select the best jury Implicit personality theory Organized preconceptions of how attributes relate to behavior Stereotypes Often come from implicit personality theories. Assumption that certain characteristics are true of all members of a group.  Similarity-Leniency Hypothesis The more demographically similar a juror is to a defendant, the more Other lenient they will be. psychologic al theories Black Sheep Effect When a member of your demographic group commits a crime, you want to punish them harsher.  Do Jurors’ Demographics Predict Verdicts? Answer: It depends… Type of Case Example: Sexual Harassment Cases and Gender Personality/Attitudinal Factors Authoritarianism extent to which you rigidly adhere to traditional values, identify and submit to powerful figures, and are punitive to norm violators. Need for Cognition A person’s inclination to engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive work. Extraversion Scientific Jury selections Trial Consultants use empirically based procedures including: focus groups shadow juries surveys of the community Is scientific jury selection effective? Likely to be most effective Pre- and Midtrial Publicity  Pre-and Midtrial Publicity Pretrial publicity Exposure to information about the crime prior to being selected as a jury Midtrial publicity Information that is picked up from and shared on social media during a Conflicting rights of Trial Publicity Conflicting Rights Pre- and mid-trial publicity highlights tensions between two rights protected by the U.S. Constitution: 1) freedom of the press as guaranteed by the First Amendment, and 2) the right to a speedy and public trial before an impartial jury, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.  Legal Rulings on Pretrial publicity Legal Rulings on Pretrial Publicity Rideau v. Louisiana (1963) Exposure to news with information strongly pointing to the defendant’s guilt was a violation of due process. Mu’Min v. Virginia (1991) If prospective jurors claim they can be impartial, defendants do not have a constitutional right to ask them about the specifics of their exposure to pretrial publicity.  Experimental Effects of Pretrial Publicity Pretrial publicity has been found to impact juror evaluations of: Defendant’s character = more negative Defendant’s criminality = more criminal Sympathy with the defendant = less sympathy Pretrial sentiments about guilt =More likely to think the person is guilty prior to trial Final Verdicts  Experimental Effects of Pretrial Publicity Why do these effects occur? May bias jurors’ interpretations of evidence at trial Source Monitoring Error Pretrial Publicity often elicits emotional responses Specific Pretrial publicity Generic Prejudice Prejudice that arises from media coverage of issues that are thematically related to the issues of the trial.  Field Study EFFECTS OF PRETRIAL PUBLICITY Field Studies of the Effects of Naturally Occurring Publicity. Researchers have found that persons exposed to pretrial publicity: Possess more knowledge about the events in question, Are more likely to have prejudged the case, and Are more knowledgeable about incriminating facts that would be inadmissible at the trial.  Midtrial Publicity “reliance on new media has become so ingrained that it would require conscious effort for many jurors to refrain from [using media] for the duration of the trial” (Hannaford-Agaor et al., 2021) Issues with mid-trial publicity Information is not vetted by judge or introduced in a formal way Prejudicial coverage of information Nearly 1/3 of jurors want to use the internet during a trial (Hannaford-Agaor et al., 2012) 15% say they wouldn’t be able to stop themselves from doing so, even if told not to REMEDIES FOR THE EFFECTS OF PRETRIAL PUBLICITY 1. Continuance (postpone trial). 2. Expanded voir dire (most popular method). 3. Judicial instructions. (Unfortunately, research suggests that the three above techniques are largely ineffective.) 4. Change of venue (probably most effective).