NCJ Number
194493
Journal
Law and Human Behavior Volume: 26 Issue: 1 Dated: February 2002 Pages: 107-125
Date Published
February 2002
Length
19 pages
Annotation
This article focuses on the difficulties of social scientists when conducting change of venue surveys.
Abstract
A court may consider a change of venue, moving the trial to a jurisdiction that has been exposed to little publicity about the case, to combat the effects of pretrial publicity. Social scientists can be of valuable assistance in measuring community attitudes regarding defendant level of guilt and case familiarity. Since 1996, the authors have conducted 17 change of venue surveys. Sixteen of those cases involved a charge of murder; the remaining case involved a charge of attempted murder. In their experiences, there were two major obstacles. First, they faced challenges to their ability to act and be viewed as scientists, rather than advocates for the defense. These challenges were presented by defense attorneys who were seeking an ally in the adversarial process, and prosecutors who sought to characterize their instruments and methods as less than impartial. It is critical that survey construction and administration be consistent with generally accepted scientific standards. The second obstacle arises primarily as methods and findings are presented to the court. Many judges and attorneys endorse beliefs about juror behavior that run contrary to empirical research findings. Consequently, the authors found themselves caught between doing that which is supported by the research, or that which is likely to please the court. The lessons learned from these experiences were that they must stick to what they know as social scientists; objective items yield valid data; prospective jurors are not capable of accurately assessing their own impartiality; and confidentiality is critical to gaining compliance with the survey and increasing the candor of survey responses. However, there are many research questions relevant to pretrial publicity and change of venue that remain unexplored. The most significant of these pertain to the judge’s decision to move the trial and what the factors are that best predict this decision. Another is whether change of venue survey data actually has a significant impact on the judges’ decisions. 41 references