Differential or deferential to media? The effect of prejudicial publicity on judge or jury

Abstract

Australian jurisdictions have increasingly moved to facilitate trial by judge alone in cases which are the subject of significant prejudicial publicity. These moves have been predicated upon the assumption that the ordering of a trial by judge alone is an effective means of reducing the risk of prejudice in cases of this kind. This article has two objects. First, it investigates the principles underpinning the availability of trial by judge alone in cases of serious prejudicial publicity, and the different legislative frameworks that have evolved in different Australian jurisdictions. Second, it critiques these principles by analysis of a line of psycho-legal research which examines the comparative abilities of judges and jurors to disregard prejudicial publicity. The article interrogates the reformist assumption that a trial by judge alone will be fairer to an accused who is the subject of significant prejudicial publicity.

Keywords

judge alone jury media prejudice trial

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bartels

Lee

(2013) Jurors using social media in our courts: Challenges and responses. Journal of Judicial Administration 23: 35–57.

Bell

(2005) How to preserve the integrity of jury trials in a mass media age. Speech delivered at the Supreme and Federal Court Judges’ Conference, January 2005.

Blucher

(2016) Gable Tostee juror’s Instagram posts a sign Jury Act must roll with the times, legal experts say. ABC 21 October. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-21/tostee-juror-instagram-posts-sign-jury-act-needs-review/7952550 (accessed 8 March 2018).

Braun

(2017) Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery: The fate of the Australian jury system in the age of social media dependency. UNSW Law Journal 40(4): 1634–1662.

Buckley

(2014) In defence of ‘take-down’ orders: Analysing the alleged futility of court-ordered removal of archived online prejudicial publicity. Journal of Judicial Administration 23(4): 203–219.

Burd

(2012) Is there a case for suppression orders in the online world? Media and Arts Law Review 17: 107.

Burd

Horan

(2012) Protecting the right to a fair trial in the 21st century: Has trial by jury been caught in the world wide web? Criminal Law Journal 36: 103–122.

Butcher

(2015) Jurors ‘playing detective’ by searching internet costing taxpayer millions. The Age 20 September. Available at: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/jurors-playing-detective-by-searching-internet-costing-taxpayer-millions-20150920-gjqofe.html (accessed 8 MArch 2018).

Chortek

(2013) The psychology of unknowing: Inadmissible evidence in jury and bench trials. The Review of Litigation 32: 117–143.

10.

Daftary-Kapur

Dumas

Penrod

(2010) Jury decision-making biases and methods to counter them. Legal and Criminological Psychology 15(1): 133–154.

11.

Daily Mail (2008) Juror dismissed after asking Facebook friends how she should vote on trial. 25 November. Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1089228/Juror-dismissed-asking-Facebook-friends-vote-trial.html (accessed8March2018).

12.

Daily Mail (2015) Tweet from doctor on jury derails murder trial for a second time: Man ignored warnings to ‘favourite’ local newspaper report about the case. 29 October. Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3294330/Tweet-doctor-jury-derails-murder-trial-second-time-Man-ignored-warnings-favourite-local-newspaper-report-case.html (accessed 8 March 2018).

13.

Darbyshire

(1991) The lamp that shows that freedom lives: Is it worth the candle? [1991] Crim LR 740.

14.

Devine

(2012) Jury Decision Making: The State of the Science. New York: New York University Press.

15.

Duncanson

Henderson

(2014) Narrative, theatre, and the disruptive potential of jury directions in rape trials. Feminist Legal Studies 22(2): 155–174.

16.

Guthrie

(2006–2007) Misjudging. Nevada Law Journal 7: 420–456.

17.

Guthrie

Rachlinski

Wistrich

(2000–2001) Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Review 86: 777–830.

18.

Hews

Suzor

(2017) ‘Scum of the earth’: An analysis of prejudicial Twitter conversations during the Baden-Clay murder trial. UNSW Law Journal 40(4): 1604–1633.

19.

Horan

(2012) Juries in the 21st Century. Sydney: Federation Press.

20.

Hunter

(2014) Jurors’ Notions of Justice: An Empirical Study of Motivations to Investigate and Obedience to Judicial Directions. Sydney: Faculty of Law of the New South Wales University.

21.

Kalven

Jr (1964) The dignity of the civil jury. Virginia Law Review 50: 1055–1075.

22.

Kaplan

Miller

(1978) Reducing the effects of juror bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36(12): 1443–1455.

23.

Kassin

Sommers

(1997) Inadmissible testimony, instructions to disregard and the jury: substantive versus procedural considerations. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 23(10): 1046–1054.

24.

Kerwin

Shaffer

(1991) The effects of jury dogmatism in reactions to jury nullification instructions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 17(2): 140–146.

25.

Kovera

Levett

(2015) Jury decision making. In: American Psychological Association APA Handbook of Forensic Psychology, Volume 2: Criminal Investigation, Adjudication, and Sentencing Outcomes . Washington, DC: APA, 273–311.

26.

Knot

(2012) Jill Meagher case: Bolt, Twitter users warned on comment. Crikey 28 September. Available at: http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/09/28/jill-meagher-case-bolt-twitter-users-warned-on-comment/ (accessed 8 March 2018).

27.

Landsman

Rakos

(1991) A preliminary inquiry into the effect of potentially biasing information on judges and jurors in civil litigation. Behavioural Sciences and the Law 12(2): 113–126.

28.

Laudan

Allen

(2011) The devastating impact of prior crime evidence and other myths of the criminal justice process. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 101(2): 493–528.

29.

Lieberman

Arndt

(2000) Understanding the limits of limiting directions: Social psychological explanations for the failures of instructions to disregard pretrial publicity and other inadmissible evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 6(3): 677–711.

30.

London

Nunez

(2000) The effect of jury deliberations on jurors’ propensity to disregard inadmissible evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology 85(6): 932–939.

31.

MacCoun

(2005) Comparing legal factfinders: Real and mock, amateur and professional. Florida State University Law Review 23: 511–518.

32.

McEwen

Eldridge

(2016) Judges, juries and prejudicial publicity: Lessons from empirical legal scholarship. Alternative Law Journal 41(2): 110–114.

33.

McLellan

(2011) Looking inside the jury room. Speech delivered at the Law Society of New South Wales Young Lawyers 2011 Annual Criminal Law Seminar, 5 March 2011.

34.

O’Leary

(2011) Inspiring or undermining confidence? Amendments to the right to judge alone trials in the ACT. Canberra Law Review 10(3): 30–48.

35.

Posner

(2008) How Judges Think. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

36.

Rich

(2010) The past and future of Australian sub judice contempt: A historically contingent rhetoric, a modern age threat, and the lessons to be learnt from the United States. Media and Arts Law Review 15: 361.

37.

Robbennolt

(2005) Evaluating juries by comparison to judges: A benchmark for judging? Florida University Law Review 32(2): 469–509.

38.

Rotstein

(2010) Chewing the fat of a soft underbelly. Media and Arts Law Review 15: 83.

39.

Ruva

Guenther

(2015) From the shadows into the light: How pretrial publicity and deliberation affect mock jurors' decisions, impressions, and memory. Law and Human Behaviour 39(3): 294–310.

40.

Schauer

(2008) Is there a psychology of judging? In: Klein

Mitchell

(eds) The Psychology of Judicial Decision Making. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 103–120.

41.

Spellman

(2007) On the supposed expertise of judges in evaluating evidence. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 157(1): 1–9.

42.

Spigelman

(2000a) Seen to be done: The principles of open justice – Part I. Australian Law Journal 74: 290–297.

43.

Spigelman

(2000b) Seen to be done: The principles of open justice – Part II. Australian Law Journal 74: 378–383.

44.

Spigelman

(2005) The Internet and the right to a fair trial. (2005) 29(6) Criminal Law Journal 331.

45.

Steblay

Besirevic

Fulero

Jiminez-Lorente

(1999) The effects of pretrial publicity on juror verdicts: A meta-analytic review. Law and Human Behaviour 23(2): 219–235.

46.

Steblay

Hosch

Culhane

McWethy

(2006) The impact on juror verdicts of judicial instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behaviour 30(4): 469–492.

47.

Tait

(2011) Deliberating about terrorism: Prejudice and jury verdicts in a mock terrorism trial. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 44(3): 387–403.

48.

Thompson

Fong

Rosenhan

(1981) Inadmissible evidence and juror verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40: 453–463.

49.

Viscusi

(1991) How do judges think about risk? American Law and Economics Review 1(1): 26–62.

50.

Warren

(2013) Open justice in the technological age. Monash University Law Review 40(1): 45–58.

51.

Whealy

(2007) Difficulty in obtaining a fair trial in terrorism cases. Australian Law Journal 81(9): 743.

52.

Wistrich

Guthrie

Rachlinksi

(2004–2005) Can judges ignore inadmissible information? The difficulty of deliberately disregarding. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 153(4): 1251–1346.