Case Studies of Pre- and Midtrial Prejudice in Criminal and Civil Litigation

This paper presents a number of case studies involving pre- and midtrial prejudice in criminal and civil litigation. The cases reveal deficiencies in the way that prejudicial publicity has been conceptualized and operationalized in many simulation experiments. The studies reveal that potential juror...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inLaw and human behavior Vol. 26; no. 1; pp. 73 - 105
Main Author Vidmar, Neil
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers 01.02.2002
American Psychological Law Society
Subjects
Case law
Case studies
Civil Law
Civil Rights - legislation & jurisprudence
Communities
Conformity
Criminal Law
Criminal Law - legislation & jurisprudence
Decision making
Defendants
Evidence
Experimentation
Gossip
Guilty verdicts
Human
Humans
Judges & magistrates
judicial system
Juries
juror prejudices
Jurors
Laboratories
Legal Processes
Litigation
Mass Media
Mass Media - legislation & jurisprudence
Plaintiffs
Prejudice
Prejudices
Public Opinion
Simulation
Studies
Trials
Voir dire
United States > US
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:This paper presents a number of case studies involving pre- and midtrial prejudice in criminal and civil litigation. The cases reveal deficiencies in the way that prejudicial publicity has been conceptualized and operationalized in many simulation experiments. The studies reveal that potential juror prejudices that concern lawyers and judges involve more than just main effects of mass media. Pre- and midtrial prejudice also involves more general prejudices, gossip and rumor, the assertion of community normative values about justice, and conformity pressures. Four categories of prejudice recognized in American law are described and labeled: interest, specific, generic, and conformity prejudice. The case studies also reveal interesting dynamics involving "minimization" and inconsistency in jurors' self-reports of attitudes which contradict a commonly held judicial view that superficial questioning is sufficient to uncover prejudice. Despite identifying deficiencies in the simulation literature, the paper concludes that experimental research is necessary to provide answers to causal questions that case studies and field research cannot ordinarily provide.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ObjectType-Article-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
ISSN:0147-7307
1573-661X
DOI:10.1023/A:1013881208990