Thesis (doctoral)--Universität München.

Thesis (doctoral)--Georg-August-Universität zu Göttingen.

Thesis (M.S.)--Boston University / PLEASE NOTE: Boston University Libraries did not receive an Authorization To Manage form for this thesis or dissertation. It is therefore not openly accessible, though it may be available by request. If you are the author or principal advisor of this work and would like to request open access for it, please contact us at open-help@bu.edu. Thank you. / 2999-01-01

The present study explored two main questions: Can jurors disregard pretrial publicity? And if jurors cannot disregard pretrial publicity, to what extent does it affect juror decision making? Participants (49 male and 71 female) listened to an audiotaped trial and were assigned to one of four conditions: They were either exposed to the critical evidence as PTP (PTP condition), as an admissible videotape (Video condition), as descriptive testimony given by a witness (Discussion condition), or they were not exposed to the critical evidence (Control condition). After hearing the audiotaped trial, participants were then asked to render a verdict in the case (guilty v. not guilty) on three different charges, rate their confidence in their verdicts, rate the probability of the defendant's guilt on each charge, make sentence recommendations, rate their confidence in their sentence recommendations, and report their attitudes about the defendant's character. Verdicts, sentence recommendations, and confidence judgments were not affected by pretrial publicity. However, results suggested that pretrial publicity may have an impact when judging the defendant's personality characteristics. / Department of Psychological Science

This thesis will explore the media's increasing impact on the criminal court system, specifically through prejudicial publicity given to criminal trials. In our society, the primary responsibility for gathering and disseminating information rests on the media. The media, consisting primarily of television and written publications, feel that they have a duty to provide citizens with important information about the community and the world. While the media have traditionally gathered news for informational purposes, they also provide news coverage of people and events for entertainment value. This is accomplished by focusing on the out-of-the ordinary and on stories of intrigue that capture the public's fancy. The media's desire to inform and entertain has carried over into the legal process, specifically the criminal court system. The media are typically drawn to cases that either provide a shocking, outrageous storyline, or that have a high-profile, famous defendant. The media love to exploit criminal trials for the suspense, drama, and sensationalism that they produce, as the viewing audience is longing for inside gossip and pure outrageousness. However, the media have the capability of publicizing a case beyond just mere hype, essentially turning the trial into a "media circus." Concerns arise when media outlets release prejudicial information before the case has been tried in front of the trier-of- fact, the jury. If the potential jurors consume this prejudicial, often-times inadmissible, information, then this increases the chances that jurors will pre-form opinions as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant prior to hearing the in-court evidence. If this occurs, the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by an impartial jury is in serious jeopardy. The media's First Amendment rights of free speech and press, coupled with a presumed right of access to criminal proceedings, lie in direct conflict with the defendant's Sixth Amendment due process rights. Exactly how courts go about balancing these rights delineated by the United States Constitution is still not definitive. The media feel that they can publicize criminal trials in any way they deem appropriate, while defendants argue that the jury pool is tainted by the media's coverage of the case. This prevents a truly unbiased jury from being chosen. Because of these constitutional issues, the United States Supreme Court has seen fit to enter the media publicity debate. While not providing, any definitive rules on when media publicity violates a defendant's Sixth Amendment's rights, the members of the Court have provided some recommendations and direction on these issues. When a case arouses the interest of media outlets nationally and internationally, the primary focus turns to the jury pool. Since jurors are seen as the trial participants most influenced by the media coverage, methods to keep the jury from being exposed to prejudicial pretrial publicity are utilized. At times, a skillfully and thoroughly conducted voir dire can find jurors unexposed to media coverage about the case. The judge's role has expanded in recent years as the media have become more pervasive in the criminal court system. The judge is responsible for supervising the media and for making sure that they do not infringe on the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. To accomplish this duty, the trial judge has a number of mechanisms that he or she can employ against the media in order to ensure that a fair and unbiased jury is chosen for the case. However, these mechanisms are loathed by media outlets as they assert that these tools violate their First Amendment rights. Attorneys have been impacted by the media; however this relationship is unique in that it is a reciprocal one. The media publicize the trial of the attorney's client. In turn, the attorney uses this publicity as a weapon to advocate his or her client's case and proclaim guilt or innocence. Concerns about these extrajudicial statements arise when attorneys themselves release prejudicial information through the media to the representative community from which the jury will be chosen. As a result, the American Bar Association and various states have enacted rules designed to limit attorney speech so as to prevent any possibility of prejudice to the defendant in his or her trial. Indeed, the media have become more pervasive in the criminal court system, projecting events to the world as they happen. The coverage also tends to focus on the entertainment value of the case, releasing details that play on the viewer's emotions. However, an aggressive media impacts the due process rights of the accused, thus harming the search for justice. These are all issues and concerns that would not have arisen in this context, but-for the media's continuing impact on the criminal justice system.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of North Carolina Wilmington, 2008. / Includes appendixes: [52]-75. Title from PDF title page (viewed September 22, 2008) Includes bibliographical references (p. 48-51)

Thesis (M.J.S.)--University of Nevada, Reno, 2001. / "December 2001." Includes bibliographical references (leaf 118). Online version available on the World Wide Web.

This study investigated the tension between the right to freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial in the context of the public broadcasting of criminal trials. The aim of the study was to determine whether the right of the media to broadcast criminal trials can be reconciled with the right of an accused person to a fair trial. To accomplish the above aim, the research undertook a review of the case law relating to televised criminal trials in order to determine how the courts have addressed the fair trial-free expression conflict. The study concluded that the ‘balancing exercise’ employed by the courts does not seem to have addressed this tension. Given that televised criminal trials are prone to sensationalism and the danger of fabrication of evidence, the study concludes that the broadcasting of criminal trials undermines the right to a fair trial. The study makes recommendations that are designed to ensure a proper balance between the freedom of expression as exercised by the media through the broadcasting of criminal trials on the one hand and the right of accused persons to a fair trial on the other.

The present study asked two important questions: Does prejudicial pretrial publicity produce bias which may impair juror objectivity and, if it does, can voir dire remedy its untoward effects? Subjects were 68 college undergraduates whose political attitudes had been assessed and who had or had not read case-specific pretrial publicity one week before viewing a murder trial. Trial proceedings took place at the University of Miami law school. Voir dire, trial viewing, and deliberations were conducted in UM's moot courtroom. As predicted, analyses revealed main effects for both voir dire and pretrial publicity such that pretrial publicity increased conviction rate and the extended voir dire decreased conviction rate, but the extended voir dire failed to reduce the specific prejudicial effect of pretrial publicity. These findings suggest that prejudgment of a general nature (e.g., confusion about legal concepts) may be neutralized by an extended voir dire but that prejudice specifically created by exposure to inflammatory news stories is not offset by an extended voir dire format. There is reason to believe, however, that with more time spent explaining case facts and with greater attention to individual jurors, voir dire could eliminate even the specific prejudice created by pretrial publicity.

The purpose of this study was to understand the media's impact when reporting on high-profile athlete's legal proceedings. Through the use of text analysis, the study examined whether sports journalists gave preferential treatment to "home-town heroes" in the Kobe Bryant case. The study also attempted to find differences and similarities between sports reporters and sports columnists with regard to positive and negative treatment of the case.