Despite considerable academic and public policy interest in the issue of pretrial publicity, currently there is only limited knowledge of its nature and effects on jury decisionmaking. Over recent years a variety of methods have been used to examine media effects, but, while producing some knowledge, these efforts have had their weaknesses. Studies of real jurors and real cases have typically used post hoc survey methods which cannot fully unravel the linkages between pretrial publicity and jury decisionmaking. Simulated jury studies have shown that people can and will form impressions of defendants based on pretrial publicity, but these studies do not demonstrate the impact of any particular sets of biases on jury decisionmaking, and, by and large, these efforts suffer from problems of external validity. Drs. Linz and Penrod seek to expand our knowledge of the influence of pretrial publicity while transcending some of the common pitfalls. Three experiments are planned. The first experiment assesses the impact of pre-trial publicity in four actual trials involving varying degrees of publicity. Using a new jury simulation procedure called the "facsimile method," videotapes of these ongoing trials will be presented to "shadow" juries selected from community and student populations. The second experiment is a laboratory study that makes use of the real trial videotapes but systematically manipulates the pretrial publicity material that is shown to subjects. The third study also uses the actual trial material but in this instance does so in order to examine experimentally professional (judge, lawyer) and lay evaluations of pretrial publicity. The three experiments combined constitute a most imaginative package. By integrating laboratory and field approaches in data collection and design, the research maximizes both experimental control and experimental realism. From that vantage alone, it constitutes an important advance. In addition, and equally as important, the facsimile strategy has the potential of being used in other domains relating to legal decisionmaking. Therefore, this research promises a methodological contribution to the field above and beyond what it should contribute to our understanding of pretrial publicity.
