NCJ Number
194492
Journal
Law and Human Behavior Volume: 26 Issue: 1 Dated: February 2002 Pages: 73-105
Date Published
February 2002
Length
33 pages
Annotation
This article focuses on case studies involving pre- and midtrial prejudice in criminal and civil litigation.
Abstract
Juror pretrial and midtrial prejudice can be divided into four types: interest prejudice, specific prejudice, general prejudice, and conformity prejudice. Interest prejudice involves prejudices arising from the juror having a direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the trial. Specific prejudice exists when the juror holds attitudes or beliefs about specific issues in the case at trial which prevent the juror from rendering a verdict with an impartial mind. Generic prejudice involves the transferring of pre-existing prejudicial attitudes, beliefs, or stereotypes about categories of persons to the trial setting. Conformity prejudice exists when the juror perceives that there is such strong community reaction in favor of a particular outcome of a trial that he or she is likely to be influenced in reaching a verdict consistent with the perceived community feelings. The case studies reveal a number of insights about trial prejudice. The first is that concerns about trial prejudice in actual litigation involve civil as well as criminal cases. Second, litigation concerns frequently involve midtrial as well as pretrial prejudice. The conceptual framework describing four types of trial prejudice is consistent with case law. The case studies show that the real world problems are much more social psychological in nature. In addition to specific prejudice, the mass media often assist in the development of both generic and conformity prejudice that may be a factor in a trial. The case studies also raise issues related to self-disclosure of prejudice in the courtroom and in surveys intended to uncover potential prejudice that will be useful to courts in deciding upon appropriate remedies. 69 references