Afterword: the past, present, and future of applied pretrial publicity research.

Abstract

The designation of a special issue on pretrial publicity (PTP) effects speaks to the general acceptance of this work in the field at this point in its development. The papers in this special issue add to the existing PTP literature in several respects: methodologically, theoretically, and practically. It is appropriate at this point to examine where work in this area has been, where it is now, and where it is going. As is the case with many areas in the field of legal psychology, the research on PTP is and has been driven by a practical problem: the tension between the First and Sixth Amendment rights of the press on the one hand, and the rights of a defendant to a fair trial on the other hand. Empirical research on PTP has attempted to address the following specific questions: (a) does PTP affect juror verdicts?; (b) if there are PTP effects on verdicts, what is the theoretical underpinning of such effects?; and (c) what remedies are appropriate to ameliorate PTP effects? As the body of research that addresses these questions has grown, psychologists have begun to consult with attorneys who seek to present the research to courts. Although this has primarily been in the context of criminal cases (e.g., Vidmar, this issue; Studebaker et al., this issue), civil cases may clearly be affected as well (Bornstein et al., this issue). Psychologists who have consulted on these sorts of cases are often called upon to present affidavits that summarize off-the-shelf research findings, customized research findings relevant to a particular case, or both (Vidmar, this issue). At this point in the development of the research literature, a number of conclusions can be drawn, and have been set forth in affidavits by psychologists in PTP cases. As an example, consider the following set of conclusions set forth in an affidavit of mine in a local case involving a serial murderer (see State of Ohio v. Benasutti, 1996); a similar affidavit was presented by Penrod in the McVeigh case (see Studebaker et al., this issue, and the references therein):