Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Handbook of Psychology and Law pp 3–20Cite as

Exploring the First and Sixth Amendments: Pretrial Publicity and Jury Decision Making

  • Chapter

Abstract

John Poindexter, Oliver North, Klaus von Bulow, Jean Harris, General William Westmoreland, Bernhard Goetz, Leona Helmsley, Imelda Marcos, Jim Bakker, John DeLorean, the Central Park Jogger, Jennifer Levin and Robert Chambers, and Zsa Zsa Gabor are names and legal cases we probably recognize. In most instances, we may even be able to recount the crimes and legal issues associated with each. We may have a more difficult time recognizing the names Addam Swapp, Michael Ardilla, or Robert Huttenback. These defendants and the crimes they are charged with may have received only brief national attention but were highly publicized in the communities and regions in which the cases arose.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • American Bar Association. (1968). Standards relating to the administration of justice, fair trial and free press. Chicago: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Bar Association. (1983). Model rules of professional conduct. Chicago: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antunes, G. E., & Hurley, P. A. (1978). The representation of criminal events in Houston’s two daily papers. Journalism Quarterly, 756–760.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burget, L. D. (1986). Control of jury. (15th Annual Review of Criminal Procedure: U.S. Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals 1984–1985). Georgetown Law Journal, 74, 793–801.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. S., Kerr, N. L., Alfini, J. J., Weaver, F. M., MacCoun, R. J., & Feldman, V. (1986). Free press and fair trial: The role of behavioral research. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 187–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chase v. Robson, 435 F.2d 1059 (7th Cir. 1970). Chicago Council of Lawyers v. Bauer, 522 F.2d 242 (7th Cir. 1975) cert, denied sub nom. Cunningham v.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chicago Council of Lawyers, 427 U.S. 912 (1976). Coleman v. Kemp, 778 F.2d 1487 (11th Cir. 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  • Costantini, E., & King, J. (1980/1981). The partial juror: Correlates and causes of prejudgment. Law and Society Review, 15, 9–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, M., & Tanford, S. (1989). Effects of evidence and instructions in civil trials: An experimental investigation of rules of admissibility. Social Behaviour, 4, 31–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1989). The eyewitness, the expert psychologist, and the jury. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 311–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 185–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dane, F. C. (1985). In search of reasonable doubt: A systematic examination of selected quantification approaches. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 141–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deukmejian, G. (1979), November 18). Press Must Retain Freedom to Avoid Tyranny. Sacramento Bee [Forum], pp. 1, 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dexter, H. R. (1989). Unpublished dissertation. Florida International University. North Miami, Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLuca, A. J. (1979). Tipping the scales of justice: The effects of pretrial publicity. Unpublished master’s thesis, Iowa State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drechsel, R., Netteburg, K., & Aborisade, B. (1980). Community size and newspaper reporting of local courts. Journalism Quartery, 57, 71–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eastwood, J. A. (1986). Sixth Amendment issues at trial (15th Annual Review of Criminal Procedure: U.S. Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals 1984–1985). Georgetown Law Journal, 74, 826–839.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flécher v. Weir, 455 U.S. 603, (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulero, S. M. (1987). The role of behavioral research in the free press/fair trial controversy. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 259–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulero, S. M. & Penrod, S. D. (1990). Attorney jury selection folklore; What do they think and how can psychologists help? Forensic Reports, 3, 47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grannet Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillers, S. (1987, January 12). Free press-fair trial debate: A new slant on an old practice. New York Law Journal, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Globe Newspaper v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, L. & Corwin, M. (1989, July 22). UC suspends Huttenback, cuts off salary. Los Angeles Times, p. 1:27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, E., & Loftus, E.F. (1984). What’s new in the news? The influence of well-publicized news events on psychological research and courtroom trials. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 5, 211–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, E. & Wade, R. (1987). Of private false and public print: General pre-trial publicity and juror decision making. Applied Cognitue Psychology, 2, 123–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grobman, P. S. (1986). The constitutionality of statutorily restricting public access to judicial proceedings: The case of the rape shield mandatory closure provision. Boston University Law Review, 66, 271–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hans, V. P., & Vidmar, N. (1982). Jury selection. In N. Ken & R. Brag (Eds.), The Psychology of the Courtroom. New York: Academic Press, 39–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, R., & Park, B. (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review, 93, 258–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, R., Penrod, S. D., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschkop v. Snead, 594 F.2d 356 (4th Cir. 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschkop, v. Virginia State Bar, 421 F. Supp. 1137 (4th Cir. 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoiberg, B., & Stires, L. (1973). The effect of several types of pre-trial publicity on the guilt attributions of simulated jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 267–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hvistendhl, J. K. (1979). The effect of placement of biasing information. Journalism Quartery, 56, 863–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins v. Anderson, 477 U.S. 231, (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagehiro, D. K., & Stanton, W. C. (1985). Legal vs. quantified definitions of standards of proof. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 159–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Killing and kidnapping? (1989, February 13), Newsday. p. 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, F. G., & Jess, P. H. (1966). Prejudicial publicity: Its effects on law school mock juries. Journalism Quarterly, 43, 113–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krauss, E., & Bonora, B. (Eds.). (1986). Jury work: Systematic techniques (2nd ed.). New York: Clark Boardman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, M., & Srull, T. K. (1987). Processing objectives as a determinant of the relationship between recall and judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 93–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markfield v. Assoc, of Bar, 49 AD 2d 516, 370 NYS 2d 82, 1st Dept. 1975, appeal dismissed, 37 NY 2d 794, 375 NYS 2d 106, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, (1973). The effects of pretrial publicity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Broadcasting Co. v. Cooperman, 116 AD 2d 287, 501 NYS 2d 405, 2d Dept. 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nietzel, M. & Dillehay, R. (1982). Psychologists as consultants for changes fof venue; The use of public opinion surveys. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Louisville, KY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nietzel, M. T., & Dillehay, R. C. (1985). Psychologists as consultants for changes of venue: The use of public opinion surveys. Law and Human Behavior, 7, 309–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nietzel, M. T., & Dillehay, R. C. (1986). Psychological consultation in the courtroom. New York: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norwood, E. A. (1986). The prosecutor and pretrial publicity: The need for a rule. The Journal of the Legal Profession.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, P. D. (1988). Pretrial publicity, change of venue, public opinion polls—A theory of procedural justice, University of Detroit Law Review, 65, 169–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17, 776–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otto, A. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Assessing the impact of pretrial publicity on juror decisionmaking. Manuscript submitted for publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otto, A. L., Penrod, S. D., & Hirt, E. R. (1990). The influence of pretrial publicity on juror judgments in a civil case. Manuscript submitted for publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padawer-Singer, A., & Barton, A. H. (1975). The impact of pretrial publicity on jurors’ verdicts. In R. J. Simon (Ed.), The jury system in America: A critical overview (pp. 123–139). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padawer-Singer, A., Singer, A., & Singer, R. (1974). Voir dire by two lawyers: An essential safeguard. Judicature, 57, 386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padawer-Singer, A., Singer, A., & Singer, R. (1977). Legal and social-psychological research in the effects of pretrial publicity on juries, numerical makeup of juries, non-unanimous verdict requirements. Law and Psychology Review, 3, 71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 242–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penrod, S. (1979). Study of attorney and “scientific” jury selection models. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polygamists sentenced for standoff. (1989, January 27). Chicago Tribune, p. C-20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  • Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  • Read, S. J. (1987). Constructing causal scenarios: A knowledge structure approach to causal reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 288–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reardon, P. C. (1968). The fair trial-free press standards. American Bar Association Journal, 54, 343–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  • Riley, S. G. (1973). Pretrial publicity: A field study. Journalism Quarterly, 50, 17–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudinsky, P. (1986). Finding the path between an attorney’s first amendment right to free speech and a client’s Sixth Amendment right to fair trial, (case note) Levine vs. U.S. District Court—764 F.2d 590 (9th Cir. 1985). Willamette Law Review, 59, 603–640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966).

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, R. J. (1966, May-June). Murder, juries, and the press. Trans-Action, 64–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srull, T. K., & Wyer, R. S. (1983). The role of control processes and structural constraints in models of memory and social judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 497–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sue, S., Smith, R. E., & Gilbert, R. (1974). Biasing effect of pretrial publicity on judicial decisions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 2, 163–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanford, S., & Penrod, S. (1984). Social inference processes in juror judgments of multiple-offense trials. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 749–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanford, S., Penrod, S., and Collins, R. (1985). Decisionmaking in joined criminal trials: The influence of charge similarity, evidence similarity, and limiting instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 319–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tans, M. D., & Chaffee, S. H. (1966). Pretrial publicity and juror prejudice. Journalism Quarterly, 43, 647–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. v. Bailleaux, 685 F.2d 1105 (9th Cir. 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. v. McNally 485 F.2d 398 (8th Cir. 1973).

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidmar, N., & Judson, J. (1981). The use of social sciences in a change of venue application. Canadian bar Review, 59, 76–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visher, C. A. (1987). Juror decision making: The importance of evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weakland, L. F. (1986). Confusion in the courthouse: The legacy of the Gannett and Richmond Newspaper’s public right of access (case note) Gannett Co. vs. DePasquale—443 U.S. 368 (1979); Richmond Newspapers vs. Virginia—448

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. 555 (1980). Southern California Law Review, 59, 603–640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, W., & McCombs, M. (1967). Crime story elements and fair trial/free press. Unpublished study, University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wise, D. (1986, July 18). Bar report recommends curbs on pretrial comments to media (New York). New York Law Journal, 196, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zanzola, L. (1977). Effects of pretrial publicity on the verdicts of jurors and juries. Unpublished study, Department of Psychology, Northern Illinois University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeisel, H., & Diamond, S. S. (1978). The effect of peremptory challenges on jury and verdict: An experiment in a federal district court. Stanford Law Review, 30, 491–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Daniel Linz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steven Penrod
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. 19130, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Dorothy K. Kagehiro

  2. Department of Legal Studies, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 19104-6369, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    William S. Laufer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1992 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Linz, D., Penrod, S. (1992). Exploring the First and Sixth Amendments: Pretrial Publicity and Jury Decision Making. In: Kagehiro, D.K., Laufer, W.S. (eds) Handbook of Psychology and Law. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-4038-7_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-4038-7_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4757-4040-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-4038-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation