Thesis (doctoral)--Universität München.

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

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.

Thesis (MPhil (Journalism))--University of Stellenbosch, 2009. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The relationship between the media and the law is an important one, especially in an adolescent democracy like South Africa. On the one hand the law has the power to control the fundamental right to freedom of expression – the very core of the media’s existence. On the other hand, however, the media are vital mechanisms through which the law can ensure that citizens know that justice is being done. The media are therefore also powerful; having the ability to influence people’s perceptions of and respect for the law. The relationship between the media and the law is characterised internationally by frequent tensions and misunderstandings – a trend that has not escaped South Africa. Whereas some of these strains may be explained with reference to both the media and the law’s respective duties in a democracy; many problems are also caused as result of misunderstandings and inaccurate expectations of both parties’ responsibilities in a democracy. This study was thus launched from the premise that there is room and need for improvement in the relationship between the media and the law. The way in which citizens perceive the law (or legal consciousness) was investigated; as were the sources of such perceptions. Making use of a questionnaire distributed to a sample of students at two Western Cape universities, it was established that students’ opinions of lawyers and judicial officers are generally positive, but that they do not have much confidence in the efficacy of the South African legal system. The feedback also indicates that news and popular media are the most important sources of such opinions of the law – a context-specific finding that echoes similar results obtained internationally. Popular media as an important source of perceptions give rise to several concerns. Not only do citizens struggle to distinguish between fact and fiction in popular media; but most of the popular (legally-themed) media available in South Africa are furthermore imported from the USA. This tendency, defined in this study as the Hollywoodization of South African law, lead to concerns that citizens may not only be basing their opinions of the law on fiction; but also that such media are premised on a very different (American) legal system from our own. The importance of news media as a source was investigated more specifically by making use of a case study (the Inge Lotz/ Fred van der Vyver story). The way in which pre-trial publicity and court reporting may lead to the sacrifice of a defendant’s right to a fair trial was investigated by looking at the influences of news media coverage on the parties involved; the presiding officers, assessors and witnesses; and the perceptions lay audiences may have of the specific case and (consequently) the law in general. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Verhouding tussen die media en die reg is ’n belangrike een, veral in ’n jong demokrasie soos Suid-Afrika. Aan die een kant het die reg die mag om die hart van die media se bestaansreg – die grondwetlike reg op vryheid van spraak – te beheer. Aan die ander kant is die media ook ’n noodsaaklike meganisme wat aan landsburgers oordra wanneer geregtigheid geskied, en wanneer nie. Die media kan dus die doeltreffendheid van die reg in ’n demokrasie ernstig beïnvloed. Die verhouding tussen die media en die reg word wêreldwyd met misverstande en probleme gekenmerk – ’n tendens waarvan Suid-Afrika nie afgesonder is nie. Hoewel van dié stremminge veroorsaak word deur die partye se onderskeie natuurlike pligte in ’n demokrasie, word sommige probleme ook veroorsaak deur misverstande en onregverdige verwagtinge van wat beide partye se verantwoordelikhede behels. Die studie is gevolglik onderneem met die uitgangspunt dat daar moontlikheid vir verbetering in die verhouding tussen die media en die reg is. Die wyse waarop burgers die reg beskou of ervaar (waarna in die studie verwys word as legal consciousness of regbewussyn) word ondersoek; en só ook die bronne van burgers se regsbewussyn. Deur gebruik te maak van ’n vraelys wat aan ’n groep studente by twee Wes-Kaapse Universiteite uitgedeel is, word daar vasgestel dat studente oor die algemeen baie respek het vir die regslui, maar min vertroue in die Suid- Afrikaanse regstelsel het. Die terugvoering bepaal ook dat nuus- en populêre/ gewilde media die belangrikste bronne van regsbewussyn is. Dié bevinding, wat konteksspesifiek tot Suid-Afrika is, bevestig soortgelyke gevolgtrekkings wat internasionaal ook aanvaar is. Die feit dat populêre media ’n belangrike bron van regsbewussyn is, lei tot talle bekommernisse. Behalwe dat daar reeds bevind is dat gebruikers van dié media nie kan onderskei tussen wat feite en wat fiksie is nie, word daar in Suid-Afrika hoofsaaklik Amerikaanse populêre media met regstemas versprei. Die gevaar is dus dat Suid- Afrikaanse burgers dalk besig is om hul indrukke van die reg te baseer op beide fiksie én ’n Amerikaanse voorstelling van die regstelsel (die sg. Hollywoodization van die Suid- Afrikaanse reg). Die studie beskou verder die belangrikheid van die nuusmedia as ’n bron deur ’n gevallestudie van ’n bekende Suid-Afrikaanse moordondersoek en regssaak (die Inge Lotz/ Fred van der Vyver-saak). Die aard van beide voorverhoor-publisiteit en hofverslaggewing en die moontlikheid dat dit skade aan die regverdigheid van ’n verhoor kan verrig, word veral van nader beskou. Spesifieke aandag word ook geskenk aan die moontlike invloede van dié tipe mediadekking op die betrokke partye; die onafhanklikheid van voortsittende beamptes, assessore en getuies; en die indrukke wat by gewone burgers oor ’n spesifieke saak – en dus die reg in geheel – geskep kan word.