The MEdia Trial Synthesis (METS) project

The METS project is concerned primarily with the empirical research findings on pretrial publicity, and secondarily with how those findings might inform legal practice.  It serves as a sort of white paper for codifying research findings and areas for future research.  It is primarily based on the book Free Press vs. Fair Trials (2004; Jon Bruschke and Bill Loges, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).  That volume provided the most comprehensive literature review available anywhere, reviewed some crucial methodological issues, and provided directions for future research.  The METS project is designed to be concise, comprehensive, and to continually update the current state of thinking as new research is produced.

This page is divided into two main sections.  One section provides a quick summary of all available empirical research.  The second section provides an updated list of research priorities, hypotheses for testing, and “best practices” methodology.

In very brief terms, these are conclusions that can be advanced as the best state of knowledge:

1)       Any pretrial publicity effect is probably vastly overstated (see Bruschke & Loges, p. 137), and in particular overstated by empirical researchers.

2)       Pretrial publicity probably does not effect trials in large measure because of court agent vigilance and the effectiveness of remedies; conclusion #1 is a reason for ongoing attention to remedies, not a reason that they are unnecessary.

3)       The Knowledge-Guilt hypothesis: Media exposure to a case absent any exposure to trial evidence does bias potential jurors

4)       The Cumulative Remedy hypothesis: A variety of remedies generally succeed in eliminating a biasing influence of PTP, even if several remedies studied in isolation may fail individually.

5)       Trial evidence is the most powerful factor in determining trial outcomes; any account of PTP must explain how it interacts with trial evidence.

SECTION ONE: CURRENT RESEARCH FINDINGS

Consistent with Free Press vs. Fair Trials, research is divided five ways:

·         Laboratory studies with no trial evidence

·         Laboratory studies that included trial evidence and found support for an anti-defendant bias

·         Laboratory studies that included trial evidence and found partial support for an anti-defendant bias

·         Laboratory studies that included trial evidence and did NOT found partial support for an anti-defendant bias

·         Field research

LABORATORY STUDIES WITH NO TRIAL EVIDENCE

Vidmar & Judson (1981): Phone sample of a high-profile Canadian fraud cause; more likely to conclude “probably guilty” if you had any knowledge of the case (76%) versus no knowledge of the case (67%).

Constantini & King (1980-81): Cases in California ; well informed conclude guilt (54-61%) more often than uniformed (2-30%) respondents.

Moran & Cutler (1991): Cases in Illinois ; linear relationship between knowledge of a case and conclusion that there was “a lot of evidence” against a defendant.

Other studies with similar conclusions: Ogloff & Vidmar (1974); Riley (1973); Shaffer (1986); Simon & Eimermann (1971): Sohn (1976); Tans & Chaffee (1966).

Hvistendahl (1979) studied story placement; significant anti-defendant in only 1 of 6 conditions.

Rollings & Blascovich (1977): No pro-defendant shift in the Patty Heart case, over 90% of respondents both before and after publicity about her “brainwashing” defense felt she would probably be found guilty, hence measuring a “third person” effect rather than guilt judgments themselves.

Greene & Loftus (1984): Studied whether general stories of injustice against defendants could cause a pro-defendant shift, studied only 36 respondents and found no differences on 2 of 3 tests.

Boccaccini, Mundy, Clark, & John (2008): Did an study of the Kobe Bryant case, and found that race was enormously significant and that attending to PTP (knowing more about the case) helped Bryant.  The only study to contradict the knowledge-guilt hypothesis, and it does show that publicity in a rape case can help the defendant.  Also discovered that a public apology after a criminal case is interpreted as guilt in a subsequent civil case.

LABORATORY STUDIES THAT INCLUDED TRIAL EVIDENCE AND FOUND AN ANTI-DEFENDANT BIASING EFFECT

 

Article	Sample	Nutshell	Conviction rates	PTP exposure	Deliberation	Delay	Comments
Sue, Smith, & Gilbert (1974)	102 undergraduates	Robbery case where PTP connected a gun to the crime (not presented at trial); conviction rates jumped from 23% to 43%	Overall average 33%	Newspaper articles that both reported a gun; one article linked it to the crime.	No	No	No “no publicity” control group. PTP included probative evidence not presented at trial.
Padawer-Singer & Barton (1975)	120 from actual jury rolls	2 studies; PTP was a retracted confession and criminal history; both individual and jury convictions increased, with many hung juries	Overall rate 45-55%	Retracted confession and criminal record	Yes	No	1. Very damaging PTP 2. Used voir dire, reported that finding elsewhere, and it was effective in eliminating PTP bias 3. “Neutral” PTP condition still anti-defendant, no true control
Sue, Smith, & Pedroza  (1975)	158 Undergraduates	Similar stimulus to ’74 study; conviction jumps from 23% to 53%	Highest is 53%	Defendant in possession of murder weapon	No	No	PTP included probative evidence not presented at trial.  Found that PTP influenced perceptions of evidence strength
Kramer & Kerr (1989)	529 Undergraduates	Both factual and emotional publicity produce an effect, shorter trial increase conviction rates, no interaction.  Conviction rates jump from about 43% to 53-57%	Highest is 57%	Defendant ran over and killed 7-year-old girl; prior record; incriminating evidence at girlfriend’s house	No	No	Also studied trial length; PTP manipulation seems extreme. Trial length may have confounded with evidence quality.
Kramer, Kerr, & Carroll (1990)	791 mock jurors; 617 recruited from jury rolls and 174 students.	Same stimulus as Kramer & Kerr; 12 day delay that eliminated emotional but not factual publicity effects.  No predeliberation differences.	49% guilt in predeliberation verdicts; 50% is highest postdeliberation	Same as Kramer & Kerr	Yes	Yes; 12 days for one group	1. Deliberation limited to 1 hour 2. Ran over little girl very damaging 3. They conclude deliberation fails as a remedy, but the data only show a more limited prodefendant shift 4. Many hung juries 5. Only emerged for factual (vs emotional) publicity
Dexter, Moran, & Cutler (1992)	68 Undergrads	6 day delay and extended or brief voir dire; PTP effect after extended voir dire of 47% vs 33%.  Defendants better off in the PTP + voir dire than in no PTP + no voir dire condition.	Chosen because conviction rates were 40%	Prior record, retracted confession, drug use, physical abusiveness, negative character statements, none presented at trial	No	Yes; 1 week	1. Respondents encouraged to rehearse PTP information 2. Very high correlation between verdict and evidence strength 3. Very damaging PTP
Wilson & Bornstein (1998)	88 Undergrads	Compared broadcasts vs newspapers; no effect for medium but 73% vs. 39% convictions for PTP.	31-47% in control groups	8 pre-tested inadmissible items	No	No	1. Studied emotional-factual distinction and trial medium 2. Actual defendants rarely have more than 2 pieces of inadmissible information 3. Murder vs. manslaughter; no innocence option
Bornstein, Whisenhunt, Nementh & Dunaway (2002)	Undergraduates	2 studies on civil trials; 25% vs. 75% shift due to PTP (47% in control).  In study 2 instructions lowered convictions overall but didn’t eliminate PTP bias.	47-58% in control groups	5 most damaging items pretested from a group of 30	No	No	PTP damaging; pretested for 5 most damaging pieces of information (of 30 possible). Authors contended it lacked ecological validity.
Hope, Memon, & McGeorge (2004)	116 Undergraduates	PTP creates a leader before the trial starts, and jurors interpret evidence to support the leader.	Pre-test conviction rates 39%	1 article to show the defendant negatively but not include evidence	No	No	Strong evidence that asking for a predeliberation judgement creates the bias
Ruva, Guenther, & Yarbrough (2011)	201 undergraduates	PTP causes a bias but it can't be traced to anger; predecisional distortion and defendant credibility ratings mediate the effect	Pilot tested to be ambigous (same trial as Hope et al.)	9 articles that included positive and negative information and facts not presented at trial	No	7 days	Asked for predecisional verdicts.  Postive PTP benefits defendants.  Emotion plays an unimpressive role.
Ruva, McEvoy, & Bryant (2007)	558 undergraduates	PTP has an effect through predecisional distortions; deliberation is better if jurors exposed to PTP.	Pilot tested to be ambigous (same trial as Hope et al.)	9 articles that included positive and negative information and facts not presented at trial	Yes	4 or 7 days; no difference between the 2	The raw data show that deliberation benefits defendants if PTP is present, but the authors don't discuss it.  Deliberation increases accuracy of recall
Ruva & McEvoy (2008).	159 undergraduates	Both negative and positive PTP creates bias, but unable to discover a predecisional distortion effect	Pilot tested to be ambigous (same trial as Hope et al.)	9 articles that included positive and negative information and facts not presented at trial	No	7 days	Generally shows that a PTP effect is mediated by perceptions of the trial in a fairly global way.

LABORATORY STUDIES THAT INCLUDED TRIAL EVIDENCE AND FOUND PARTIAL SUPPORT FOR AN ANTI-DEFENDANT BIASING EFFECT

Article	Sample	Nutshell	Conviction rates	PTP exposure	Deliberation	Delay	Comments
Kline & Jess (1966)	48 Undergraduates; all male	Studied only 4 juries; all discussed PTP information, but 3 rejected it.	n/a	Bad driving record, prior arrest, left the schene	Yes	No	1. Convictions in 1 of 4 trials for both PTP and control groups. 2. Were instructed not to consider evidence; did discuss it, 3 juries did reject it
Hoiberg & Stires (1973)	337 High school students	PTP influenced women but not men in a rape-murder case	Pretested for 50%	Arrest; retracted confession	No	No	Dependent variable scale was continuous, not a verdict.
Padawer-Singer, Singer, & Singer (1974)	266 from Actual jury rolls	Voir dire dropped convictions in the PTP condition from 78% to 60%	Overall rate 45-55%	Retracted confession and criminal record	Yes	No	1. Didn’t lower conviction rates in non-PTP conditions 2. Compared to Dexter, more realistic jurors and deliberation present
Greene & Wade (1988)	120 and 140 Undergraduates	Studied “general” PTP effects and found a strong effect for pro-defendant coverage, no effect for the anti-defendant effect	n/a	General PTP , pro- and anit-defendant	No	No	Guilt on a 4-point scale; trial in a booklet
Otto, Penrod, & Dexter (1994)	262 Undergraduates	Path analysis; no direct PTP effect and modest indirect effects.  Other mediating trial factors far more substantial; authors describe the PTP results as “modest”		5 pieces of damaging information; disturbing the peace charge	No	No	1. Found modest pretrial and posttrial guilt judgment correlations 2. Evidence strength obviously dominant, and most probative information had strongest effect 3. Some situations where pretrial guilt judgments actually help the defendant.
Fein, Morgan, Norton, & Sommers (1997)	86 Undergrads	Studied whether a defense strategy of race to cast suspicion on the prosecution would work; the strategy completely offset PTP effects, but only if the race card was played	Pretested for 50%	5 or 6 articles, some were general PTP but one was specific	3 days	No	PTP effect was 78% vs 44% for control, but conviction rates in the PTP condition were only 45% if the race card was played.
Fein, McCloskey, & Tomlinson (1997)	91 Undergrads	PTP produced 80% convictios; dropped to 35% when defense introduced suspicion strategy	45%	3 or 4 articles, editorial calling for conviction, fingerprints on murder weapon, beat wife, eyewitness identified, alcoholic	No	No	1. 2nd study showed suspicion strategy also worked for inadmissible evidence 2. Suspicion condition also included pro-defendant publicity
Studebaker, Robbennolt, Penrod, Pathak-Sharma, Groscup, & Davenport (2002)	Non-student samples	Used internet to collect data at 6 points of the McVeigh trial; no direct PTP effect after the 2nd collection, indirect effects 6-7% which extrapolate to less than 1% total	n/a	Actual McVeigh trial	No	Not specific, but realistic	1. Study concluded before trial evidence presented. 2. More a methodology study than a PTP study. 3. Strong evidence-guilt correlations. 4. Sample more likely to be white, male, and educated than overall population.
Shaw & Skolnick (2004)	88 undergraduates	Physical but not witness evidence creates a bias	Control group 50% convictions for trained, 10% for untrained jurors	3 news articles, one with physical evidence, one with witness evidence, and a control	yes	7 days	1. Witness evidence helped defendants with trained jurors 2. Trained jurors may be less influenced 3. Very few references to PTP in deliberations
Honess, Charman, & Levi (2003)	50 community members	Emotional PTP matters and factual doesn't, and it emerges as the trial goes on.  Evidence ratings are the key mediator	48/50 vote guilty after prosecution case, 36/50 after defense	Actual exposure; included a mock version of a real trial	No	Actual	The "sleeper" effect challenges the predecisional distortion research of Hope and Ruva. All effects mediated by interpretations of trial evidence.

LABORATORY STUDIES THAT DID NOT FIND A PRETRIAL PUBLICITY EFFECT

 

Article	Sample	Nutshell	Conviction rates	PTP exposure	Deliberation	Delay	Comments
Simon (1966)	107 registered voters	Found a pretrial PTP effect that disappeared after the trial		Arrest, evidence found in defendant’s home, prior record	Yes	No	Both trial and deliberation happened after initial guilt judgments
Davis (1986)	224 undergrads	No pretrial or posttrial effects; sensational coverage discussed by discounted; jurors not confused by it	Posttrial rates all around 30%	Sensational (crime rate, victim name, prior record, negative character, opportunity to destroy evidence) vs neutral (crime rate, victim name, # of suspects, lack of clues, police statements)	Yes	1-week vs no delay	1. Lacked a true control 2. Delay may have made juror less resistant to negative PTP
Riedel (1993)	342 undergrads	Negative PTP helped defendants with male jurors in a rape trial, although longer sentences were recommended	.	General PTP about a mistaken acquittal	No	No	Supports the finding that sentencing is affected even if conviction rates are not
Mullin, Imrich, & Linz (1996)	66 and 62 Undergrads	In 1 of 2 studies, negative general PTP made males more acquittal-prone in a rape trial	Pretested for 50%	Negative (prior record, negative character statements), neutral (arrest and investigation), general (anti-acquaintance rape)	No	2- and 1-week PTP exposure before the trial	1. Very similar findings to Reidel 2. Realistic media exposure manipulations
Freedman & Burke (1996)	155 adults from the general population	Trial evidence eliminated pretrial PTP bias	n/a	Actual coverage in Paul Bernardo rape & murder case	No	Yes	1. 400-word summary of trial; rape and murder considered separately 2. Was a nonsignificant tendency for the most biased jurors to vote guilty on the murder charge, not when rape charge was combined 3. Coverage fully realistic 4. Confirms knowledge-guilt hypothesis
Freedman, Martin, & Mota (1998)	undergrads	No PTP effect; jurors “bent over backwards” to give defendant benefit of doubt when biasing PTP present; a 2nd study showed predeliberation biasing effects	Control conditions 18-35%	4-5 articles that included actual information but did not prove guilt	Yes	1-week gap between articles and trial	1. Edited, 1-hour version of actual trial 2. In the 2nd study PTP effects emerged only if respondents expressed a negative pretrial judgment (63% conviction) than those exposed who did not express an opinion (20%) or controls (31%)
Kovera (2002)	undergrads	PTP effects are very sensitive to attitudes before media exposure; media exposure in any direction eliminates bias	57% in control groups	1 of 10 stories pro-defense or pro-prosecution	No	No	1. Measured attitudes before media exposure 2. Observed an agenda setting effect 3. Author concludes media influence expectations about evidence
Woody & Viney (2007)	356 undergrads	Replicated Kovera; PTP eliminated sex differences in a rape trial, and no PTP effects	35.9% for men, 61.1% conviction for women in no-PTP condition	4 simulated news articles; 1 was wrongful conviction or wrongful acquittal	No	No	1. Trial was a 1,399 word trial summary 2. General PTP in a rape case

FIELD RESEARCH

Devine, Buddenbaum, Houp, Studebaker, & Stolle (2009): Queried actual jurors and judges after real trials, and found that PTP effects (a) were very modest, and (b) emerged only when evidence was ambiguous.  Evidence allows correct predictions in 77% of cases, adding all extra-evidentiary factors raises it to 80%, and PTP didn't emerge as a significant extra-evidentiary factor.  Juror foreperson demographics is far more important.

Butler (2007): Did a field study about an actual murder/rape case in Florida, and found that death-qualified jurors were more likely to attend to PTP and be much harsher on defendants.

SECTION TWO: RESEARCH PRIORITIES

“BEST PRACTICES” METHODOLOGY

• Studies should include deliberation plus trial evidence.  All actual trials always involve both.  There is enough research to support the conclusion that they make at least some difference.  Research without these two elements is unlikely to be informative.  This is especially true of the research on deliberation (Kerr et al., 1979; London & Nunez, 2000; MacCoun & Kerr, 1988)
• Studies should examine both sentencing and conviction rates.  Enough research has demonstrated sentencing effects that are different from trial verdicts to suggest that the two should not be collapsed.  Both are significant to defendants and constitutional issues, and especially so since plea bargain outcomes are so prevalent.
• Studies should NOT ask respondents for pre-deliberation verdicts.  If pre-deliberation verdicts are obtained, a separate control group not asked for a pre-deliberation verdict should be maintained.  Freedman, Martin, and Mota (1998) have findings that strongly suggest that asking for a pre-deliberation verdict can result in a PTP effect where none would otherwise exist.
• Studies should measure bias prior to media exposure.  Kovera’s (2002) results strongly suggest desirable attitude shifts due to any type of media exposure; PTP resulting in bias can only truly be measured if attitudes before exposure to PTP are known.
• Including delays are crucial (MacCount & Kerr, 1998; Vidmar, 2002).  Again, delays occur in all trials.
• Measuring the quality of a remedy is advised; especially for voir dire (XXXX) and instructions.  Reinard (XXXX), for example, has demonstrated that agenda-setting instructions might work the best.
• Generally, research should examine 4 dependent variables, ideally all variables in every study: Pretrial plea bargaining rates, pleaded vs. non pleaded sentences, trial verdicts, and post conviction sentencing.

Ongoing methological questions

• Should high-exposure cases be treated as outliers and excluded, or are they important in their own right?  Most actual trails that involve any coverage at all are covered by two articles or fewer (less is known about television coverage).  A very few cases become instances of a "media circus," however, those are the cases where defendant interests are most likely to be threatened and generally those that drive concern about publicity in the first place.  Research, however, usually simulates trial coverage with 1-5 articles that are presented immediately before a trial and to all jurors.
• Can the type of case that generates massive publicity be separated from the publicity itself?  In other words, do the case features drive both the media coverage and the trial outcomes?  Any reasonable explantion of pretrial publicity probably concludes that they do, however, not all henious crimes generate publicity and many cases that involve celebrities that do draw coverage involve offenses that are so minor that they may not warrant serious concern.  Standard social science pratice would involve studying both case features and publicity separately, however, if in actual cases features of the case drive the publicity, then for all practical purposes the variables are the same. 

EXPOSURE QUESTIONS

• How often must a potential juror see media coverage of a trial before they remember it?  This is a baseline question, but there is virtually no research on the question.
• How long do jurors retain information they’ve seen?  Memory research makes it clear that memory erodes over time.  In the instance of passive viewing of media content that later becomes salient (watching for general interest versus becoming a juror), how much information can we expect that jurors will retain, and how much of it will be accurate?
  • Is certain content more biasing than other content?
  • Does exposure to factual vs. emotional content make a difference?
  • Does exposure to probative information not presented at trial make a difference (this is strongly suggested in Bruschke & Loges but not yet tested)
  • Does general PTP matter more than defendant-specific PTP?  Do overall media agenda-setting functions overwhelm specific case coverage, or interact with it in some way?
• Actual levels of media exposure are binomial and not linear; that is, a very small number of cases generate enormous and almost unmeasureable levels of coverage; typical cases involve only a hand ful of articles (usually 1).  Do “media circus” levels of coverage (those cases that present the greatest constitutional concerns) produce different effects than moderate levels of negative coverage (those cases that are the most widely studied in literature)? 
• The “Knowledge-guilt” hypothesis; knowledge of the trial produces bias against the defendant in the absence of trial evidence.  This hypothesis was derived by Bruschke and Loges on the basis of reasonably conclusive research findings but has not been directly tested.
• How do juries process information if some but not all jurors have been exposed to pretrial information?  In virtually all research, jurors are all exposed to exactly the same information at the same time.  This has never happened in any actual trial.  Can non-exposed jurors weed out unwanted pretrial information (see Davis, 1986; Freedman, Martin, & Mota, 1998)?  Does it make a difference if the pretrial information is probative, or answers key questions the jurors may not otherwise be able to answer?
• GGiven the predominance of trial evidence in determining the outcome of the trial, how does publicity interact with trial evidence?  Does publicity color how juries view the trial evidence or cause them to discard it?  Does it emerge only when evidence as balanced (see Devine et al., 2009)?  This relationship is often supposed and is even given as a justification when selecting trial facts as study manipulations, but it has never been tested.
• Is there a certain type of information that is damaging?  Current research has explored distinctions between factual and emotional publicity, sensational versus neutral publicity, physical vs. witness testimony, and general or specific publicity.  There does not appear to be a single sort of publicity that has emerged as more or less damaging, and even research to suggest that even negative publicity might benefit defendants under some circumstances.  Kovera's (2002) research suggests publicity might shift pre-existing attitudes in positive direction, regardless of its valence.  Coming up with meaningful ways to categorize publicity content is an obvious and immediate research need. 

TRIAL QUESTIONSo:p>

• The “Cumulative remedy hypothesis” – will a combination of remedies usually work, even if some fail individually?
• EEvidence is key factor (Dexter et al., 1992; Devine et al. 2009; Kramer & Kerr, 1989; Sue et al., 1975; Visher, 1987), especially demonstrated by Otto et al. (1994).  How does pretrial publicity interact with trial evidence.  In particular, does a PTP effect emerge only if trial evidence is close?  Does PTP color the way that evidence is processed?

THEORIZING:o:p>

Generally speaking, while pretrial publicity has been widely studied it tends to be under-theorized.  A priority for research is to develop a theory that can explain why a publicity effect does or does not exist.

1)       Psychological theories: Why the subliminal effect? The conclusion that publicity produces influences despite direct judicial admonitions not to consider such information, an in the face of trial evidence which jurors are continually asked to attend to, suggests that information that has not been attended to can overwhelm information that has received a considerable amout of direct, conscious attention.  Little that is known about subliminal influences suggests that passively acquired information can overwhelm concsiously acquired information -- whatever effects exist are of such small magnitude it is difficult to match with a strongly biasing PTP influence.  Additionally, the Elaboration Likelihood Model similary suggests that centrally-processed information will overwhelm peripherally-processed information, not the other way around.  If a substantial PTP bias effect does exist, what theory can explain it?

2)       Economic-legal theory: resources make an enormous difference, funneled through evidence.

3)       Media: Agenda setting, general PTP, cultivation theory