PREJUDICE IN PRE-TRIAL NEWS: A- Q STUDY OF HOW JUDGES RATE THREE DIMENSIONS OF CONTENT By Paul Edmund De Long \I Bachelor of Science in Agriculture Kansas State University Manhattan, Kansas 1971 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE May, 1981 1hes, s J c;it D~tot F e-ef ·1 PREJUDICE IN PRE-TRIAL NEWS: A Q STUDY OF HOW JUDGES RATE THREE DIMENSIONS OF CONTENT Thesis Approved: ean of Graduate College ii PREFACE This study is concerned with the definition of prejudicial publicity by federal, state and local judges in the state of Okla­ homa. The primary objective is to determine which of the three news dimensions utilized as variables contributes the most to predisposing a juror to find a defendant guilty in the mirids of presiding judges. I wish to express my deeply felt appreciation to my major adviser, Dr. Walter J. Ward, for his guidance and constructive criticism offered not only throughout this study, but throughout my time in the Master's program. Appreciation is also expressed to my committee chairman, Dr. William R. Steng, who first planted the seed for this study in my mind. Without the invaluable assistance of these men, this study would not have been possible. An anonymous note of thanks is offered to the thirty judges who freely gave of their time:to participate in this study. Their open­ ness and candor not only made the experiment go smoothly, but offered an invaluable time of learning for me. Finally, special gratitude is expressed to my wife Carolyn, for her understanding and encouragement during my time in the Master's program and for her sacrificial efforts in the typing and preparation of this manuscript. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION . II. THE EVOLUTION OF THE FREE PRESS-FAIR TRIAL DOCTRINE. 5 Introduction ....•..... 5 A Review of Cases ..... 8 Patterson vs. Colorado (205 u. s. 454 - 1907) 8 Bridges vs. California Times Mirror et.al vs. Superior Court (314 u. s. 252 - 1941) .......... 9 Pennekamp vs. Florida (328 U.S. 331 - 1946) . 13 Craig vs. Harney (331 U.S. 367 ~ 1948) 15 Baltimore Radio Show vs. State (193 MD 300 - 1949 ; 338 U. S. 912 - 1950 - Certiorari Denied) . 17 Irvin vs. Dowd (366 U.S. 717 - 1961) 18 Rideau vs. Louisiana (373 U.S. 723 - 1963) 21 Estes vs. Texas (381 U.S. 532 - 1965) .... 23 Times Picayune Publishing vs. Schulingkamp (419 u. s. 1301 - 1974) .......... 30 Sheppard vs. Maxwell · ( 384 U. S. 333 - 1966) 31 Nebraska Press Association vs. Stuart (427 u. s. 539 - 1975) ........ , 35 Murphy vs. Florida (421 U.S. 794 - 1976) 39 Gannett vs. De Pasquale (443 u. s. 368 - 1979) 41 Richmond Newspapers et al vs. Virginia et al (79-243 1980) 46 Conclusions 49 III. A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 59 Introduction ..... 59 The Major Studies 61 Rita James Simon ..... 61 F. Gerald Kline and Paul H. Jess 62 Mary Dee Tans and Steve H. Chaffee 63 Walter Wilcox and Maxwell Mccombs . 64 H. P. Weld and E. R. Danzig • . 65 Ardyth Broadrick Sohn ....... 66 Alice Padawer Singer and Allen Barton. 67 University of Chicago Jury Project 69 iv Chapter Page Related Studies 70 Conclusions 71 IV. METHODOLOGY, DESIGN AND ANALYSIS 76 ,Introduction ..••.. 76 Statement of Problems 76 Statement of Hypothes·es 78 Variables and Opera.tional Definitions 79 Criminal Magnitude . 80 Prior Record 81 Ethnic Background •. 82 Type of Judge ...• 82 The Sample ...•...• 83 Design and Study Description ..•••• 84 'Methodology • . • . , . · 85 Selection of Stories . 86 Pre-Test • . • . 87 Contacting of Judges 87 Conduct of the Interview ..•. 88 Measurement Instrll!llents 88 V. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA 93 Introduction . • . • 93 The Semantic Environment and Prejudicial Publicity. 94 Prejudicial Rankings ~ . • . • • 100 Summary of Prejudicial Rankings 118 Analysis of Variance Among Judges ..••. 119 Criminal Magnitude-Prior Record ..•••• 120 Criminal Magnitude-Ethnic Background ..••• 135 Prior Record-Ethnic Background .••. 147 Summary of Variance Among Judges ..• 155 Intercorrelation and Linkage Analysis 157 Linkage Analysis 158 Summary of Factor Loadings •.•.... 169 Type III Analyses .......•••••.••.• 172 Criminal Magnitude-Prior Record •• .. 176 Criminal Magnitude;..Ethnic Background 178 Prior Record-Ethnic Background 180 Summary of Type III Analyses 182 Profiles of Judicial Types. 183 Type I Judges ... 183 Type II Judges 186 Type III Judges • • rJ • . .' . 188 Type IV Judges 190 Type V Judges. 192 Type VI Judges .••. 194 Type VII Judges •..••••. 195 Type VIII Judges ..•..••.. 198 Type IX Judge . • • • • • • • • • 200 Summary of Judicial Type Profiles .•••..••. 202 V Chapter Page Conclusions . • . 204 Conclusions of Research Problems . • . 205 Conclusions of Hypotheses . 206 VI. IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 212 Introduction ...... 212 Implications ....... 213 Areas for Future Research 223 The Effects of Ethnic Labeling 223 The Effects of Prior Record Labeling 224 The Cumulative Effect of Prejudicial Publicity 225 Jury Decision Making . 225 Recommendations to the Press .....•... 225 Trained Specialists for Crime Reporting .. 225 Upgraded Standards Overall for Journalism Schools . 226 Greater Policing Power by Professional Organizations ............ 227 Joint Bar-Press Councils ....... 227 Greater Commitment by the Press to Public Education ............. 227 Agreement to Drop Labels of all Kinds 228 Willingness to Suppress Certain Facts 228 Recommendations to the Judicial Community 228 A Clear Understanding of Prejudicial Publicity . 229 Greater Policing Power over Law Enforcement Officials .............. 229 A Re-Examination of the Jury System .. 229 Greater Use of Scientific Inquiry in the Criminal Justice System 232 An Afterword . 232 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....•. 236 APPENDIX A - STORIES USED IN Q-SORT 246 APPENDIX B - CORRESPONDENCE 271 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page I. Sample Summary of Analysis of Variance. 90 II. Theoretical and Actual Prejudicial Mean Scores for Fifty-Four Stories • . • . 102 III. Prejudicial Mean Scores of Fifty-Four Stories by Jurisdictional Level. 115 IV. Intercorrelation Values of Mean Scores to Fifty-Four Stories by Judicial Type. 118 V. Type VI Analysis for Criminal Magnitude and Prior Record . , . • . 122 VI. Summary of Analysis of Variance Between Dimensions of Criminal Magnitude and Prior Record . 125 VII. Mean Scores for Constituent Elements of the Criminal Magnitude Dimension as Assessed by Thirty Judges. 127 VIII. Mean Scores for Constituent Elements of Prior Record Dimension as Assessed by Thirty Judges . • • . 130 IX. Mean Scores for Interaction of Constituent Elements of The Criminal Magnitude and Prior Record Dimensions as Assessed by Thirty Judges . • . 131 X. Mean Scores for Combinations of Elements of Criminal Magnitude Dimension and Prior Record Dimension When Assessments are Divided by Jurisdictional Level 133 XI. Type VI Analysis for Criminal Magnitude and Ethnic Background . • . 136 XII. Summary of Analysis of Variance Between Dimensions of Criminal Magnitude and Ethnic Background. • . 140 XIII. Mean Scores for Constituent Elements of the Ethnic Background Dimension as Assessed by Thirty Judges 141 XIV. Mean Scores for Interaction of Constituent Elements of the Criminal Magnitude and Ethnic Background Dimen- sions as Assessed by Thirty Judges. • • . • 142 vii Table Page XV. Mean Scores for Combinations of Elements of the Crimi­ nal Magnitude Dimension and Ethnic Background When Assessments are Divided by Judicial Level 144 XVI. Type VI Analysis For Prior Record and Ethnic Back- ground . • . 148 XVII. Summary of Analysis of Variance Between Dimensions of Prior Record and Ethnic Background. 151 XVIII. Mean Scores for Constituent Elements of Prior Record Dimension When Assessments are Divided by Jurisdic- tional Level . • . 15 2 XIX. Mean Scores for Interaction of Constituent Elements of Prior Record and Ethnic Background Dimensions as Assessed by Thirty Judges . • . 154 xx. Intercorrelations of Thirty Judges' Assessments of Prejudicial Value of News Stories 159 XXI. Intercorrelation Matrix for Type I Judges 165 XXII. Intercorrelation Matrix for Type II Judges 165 XXIII. Intercorrelation Matrix for Type III Judges 166 XXIV. Intercorrelation Matrix for Type IV Judges 166 XXV. Intercorrelation Matrix for Type V Judges 167 XXVI. Intercorrelation Matrix for Type VI Judges . 167 XXVII. Intercorrelation Matrix for Type VII Judges . 168 XXVIII. Intercorrelation Matrix for Type VIII Judges 168 XXIX. Factor Loadings for Typal Representatives 170 XXX. Mean Scores for Elements of Criminal Magnitude, Prior Record and Ethnic Background Dimensions as Assessed by Types of Judges . • . • 173 XXXI. Summary of Analysis of Variance Between Dimensions of Criminal Magnitude and Prior Record When Examined by Types . • . • . • • . • . • . • 176 XXXII. Summary of Analysis of Variance Between Dimensions of Criminal Magnitude and Ethnic Background When Examined by Types . • . • . • 178 XXXIII. Summary of Analysis of Variance Between Dimensions of viii Table Page Prior Record and Ethnic Background When Examined by Types • • . • . • . • . • . • . • . 181 XXXIV. Mean Scores for Stories Containing Elements of Induce­ ment and Custom as Rated by Judges Overall and Type I Judges . • . !' • • • • • • • • • • • • • 185 XXXV. Mean Scores for Stories Containing the Elements of Inducement and Custom as Rated by Judges Overall and Type I and II Judges. • • . • . • . • . • • . • . 187 XXXVI. Mean Scores for Stories Containing Elements of Morbidity and Normality as Assessed by Judges Overall and Type III