Over the last fifty or sixty years, there has been an ongoing debate concerning the impact of cameras in the courtroom. In some landmark legal cases, courts have sometimes banned the use of microphones and cameras fearing that the jurors would be biased by the "carnival-like" media coverage. In 1965, the Supreme Court overturned a major conviction on the grounds that the defendant was denied a fair trial due to the intense media coverage which psychologically distracted the participants and impaired their attentiveness, memory, and credibility. In 1981, the Supreme Court again considered the question of televising criminal trials and adopted a states' rights position on the use of electronic media coverage (EMC) for state criminal trials. Although news cameras are still banned from Federal courts, 44 states now permit EMC of proceedings on a permanent or experimental basis. Proponents of EMC have argued that the bans or restrictions are unwarranted and that there is little empirical data on which to base a constitutional judgment about the issue. There has been some sporadic research undertaken by social scientists to address the issue using simulated courtrooms and surveys, but this research has been inconclusive. Drs. Borgida and Penrod will undertake the first true experimental research in a courtroom in order to better understand the effects of news media on the proceedings. They will study 90 to 120 criminal and civil trials over a two year period in one state. Using randomly assigned cases to EMC coverage, sketch artist coverage, or no media representation, data will be collected on a broad range of measures designed to assess courtroom functioning such as the credibility, accuracy, memory, nervousness of witnesses, media obtrusiveness, and satisfaction with proceedings and the decision process. This research will provide scientifically sound data on a key constitutional issue concerning the potential conflict between free press and due process in trials with media coverage. In addition, it should advance basic understanding of legal decisionmaking. More broadly, the quality and character of decisionmaking under stress has been the focus of considerable research in judgment research, social psychology, and cognitive science. The results of this unique opportunity to conduct experiments in the courtroom will allow assessments of actual subjective and objective effects. Empirically testable assumptions about human behavior are crucial to a fully informed appraisal of the advantages and disadvantages associated with technological innovation.
