Summary of A Test of Voir Dire as a Remedy for the Prejudici
This research was conducted by Dexter, et. al., and was designed to look at how different methods of Voir Dire could somehow remedy the effects of pretrial publicity on potential jurors. As we are very much aware, the media has a proven record of being right on top of selected offences that have taken place, and have really put their two cents in on their opinion of the case verses all of the objective facts of the case. This publicity has been proven by Carroll, et. al., 1986, as well as numerous others. There is no doubt, both scientifically and by using common sense that pretrial publicity effects the potential jurors ability to be impartial in the case. This research conducted by Dexter, et. al. is intended not to counter this opinion, but rather to accept it and look into some possible remedies for the effect.There are various remedies available at this time, including judicial admonition, continuance (or delaying the trail), change of venue, and voir dire. We will be looking at the voir dire option, and seeking to test the efficacy of an extended voir dire - where the defense attorney sought to educate rather than eliminate prejudice - against a minimal voir dire (the typical procedure found in the federal courts).
There are also varying ways to conduct the voir dire. If they had an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of each murder defendant2. Then, after determining that the jurors may have been exposed to some pretrial publicity, the attorney then went on to explain to the jury panel the basics about prejudice, and attempted to "debias" the jury. The extended voir dire lasted several time longer, and consisted of a brief questionnaire followed by an hour-long lecture by the attorney to develop a rapport with the jurors. One week later, they all met in a courtroom at the University of Miami Law School. Afterwards, all of the subjects met in a courtroom and watched a two-hour video taped murder trial. Basically, they wanted to focus the jurors attention on the facts of the case, hold each other accountable, and hold the prosecution to the burden of proof by setting aside any influence of pretrial publicity. decided to test the efficacy of extended voir dire, and was used to (a) provide examples of how pretrial publicity could inappropriately affect a juror's posture, (b) call juror's attention to the relevant points of law and explain what is meant by them (c) elicit individual and public commitments to compare to the law; and (d) make jurors accountable (to each other) for their actions. The two hypothesis tested in the study was (I) prejudicial pretrial publicity increases perceptions of defendant culpability; and (II) the impact of pretrial publicity on perceptions of defendant culpability is smaller after extended voir dire than after minimal voir dire. Dexter's goal was to attempt to demonstrate a remedial effect using powerful manipulation, and if successful, to unconfound the techniques. The footage was shot from the jurors' perspective, and the people actually conducting the trails were the real participants in the trial. The minimal voir dire was standard, according to what the federal courts use as their procedures (see Krauss & Bonora, 1983). here have been some interesting conclusions found while researching voir dire. And the opinions could not be more disparate. The results supported the first hypothesis, because subjects exposed to pretrial publicity perceived the defendant as significantly more culpable than subjects exposed to no pretrial publicity.
Common topics in this essay:
Voir Dire,
Krauss Bonora,
Bias Scale,
voir dire,
School According,
pretrial publicity,
,
extended voir dire,
extended voir,
minimal voir dire,
et al,
minimal voir,
dexter et,
dexter et al,
exposed pretrial,
exposed pretrial publicity,
test efficacy,
perceptions defendant,
publicity voir dire,
defendant culpability,
|
Acceptance Essays
