Technology in the courtroom - Lecture 5 - week 8

Warm up activity

Video 1

• Three videos to be watched, sourced from American news stations

• Topics include crime and suspects, specifically sensitive issues like murder and child predators

• First case: Jessica Torres, shot and killed in San Bernardino

  • Occurred during a robbery attempt outside a hamburger stand

  • Viewing the incident as a murder-for-hire linked to the victim's husband

  • Investigation reveals additional suspects involved

  • Police believe the husband paid hundreds of thousands to have his wife killed

  • All five suspects facing murder charges

• Students asked to rate the husband's perceived guilt based on watched videos.

Video 2

• New topic: child predator case

• Officers tipped off about a man planning to meet a teenage boy outside Glendale Galleria

• Meeting was part of a sting operation by "People versus Preds"

• Group's aim: lure alleged sexual predators into meetings with supposed underage victims

• Man arrested during undercover operation

• Adult was communicating online while posing as a child

• Rick Chambers reports live from Glendale

• Group uses dating apps to pose as underage children to catch predators

• Ryan Abdul Rahim allegedly communicated with the group, thinking he was meeting a 14-year-old boy

• He was interested in engaging in sexual activities with the alleged minor

• Glendale Police notified of the meeting

• Abdul Rahim attempted to flee but was caught after a brief chase

• He faces three felony charges and was arraigned in court

• The group is not acting as agents of the police but reports criminal activity when caught.

Video 3

• Incident: San Bernardino County fire named the "Line fire"

• Area Affected: Consumed over 35,000 acres

• Evacuations: Remain in effect in parts of Highland, Big Bear, and Running Springs

• Arrest: Justin Wayne Albert, 34, arrested for intentionally starting the fire

• Investigation:

  • Joint investigation by Highland station detectives and Cal Fire

  • Videos helped identify the suspect

  • Search warrant executed at suspect's residence led to detention and evidence collection

• Charges: Initially held on $80,000 bail, now no bail after enhancement

• Containment Status: 14% contained with ongoing firefighting efforts

• Challenges for Firefighters:

  • Difficult terrain (steep, rocky)

  • Safety of firefighters prioritized

• Damage: One structure confirmed destroyed, further assessments ongoing

• Community Safety: Preparations ongoing to protect Big Bear community and evacuations initiated.

• Public Call for Information: Authorities seeking more details related to the suspect and potential links to other fires.

Media Exposure:

Criminal Justice System in the Media

• News media operates under the principle "if it bleeds, it leads" to attract viewers.

• Sensational stories keep audience attention, while mundane topics do not.

• Example: Popularity of crime dramas and sensationalized content on platforms like TikTok.

• Local news typically prioritizes gruesome and heinous crime stories to maintain viewership.

• The portrayal of crime in the media can influence public opinion on the criminal justice system and individuals within it.

• Audience opinions vary based on factors such as the type of media consumed and specific cases reported.

Media Effects in the Courtroom

Primary sources of media effects

• News broadcasts

  • Includes television news, newspapers, social media news accounts, and websites.

  • Provides information about local and global legal systems.

  • Focus on Sensationalism:

    • News often highlights significant crimes, creating a dramatic narrative (e.g., police activity, news helicopters).

  • Racially biased:

    • Crime reporting commonly presents racially biased views.

    • Victims often portrayed as white; offenders more likely to be people of color.

    • Reinforces pre-existing racial stereotypes and biases.

  • Implications:

    • These biases can lead jurors to have explicit or implicit biases during trials, affecting the legal process.

• Reality television

  • The media provides self-explanatory information about the legal system for potential jurors.

  • Cases are often covered as they progress through the court system and even after they conclude.

  • News reports highlight recent crimes and possible suspects, following cases throughout their legal journey.

  • Coverage includes high-profile offenders appearing in court and details about daily court proceedings.

  • Once a jury reaches a verdict, media reports are ready to inform the public.

  • The goal is to educate the public about the criminal justice system, how it operates, and ongoing events.

  • Highly publicized cases can shape public perceptions and attitudes about the effectiveness of the system.

  • The average person may have limited knowledge of the legal system but can still form opinions based on news snippets.

  • Public opinions often arise from the media presentation of cases, leading to biases regarding legal processes.

  • Other media sources also exist beyond news that discuss the criminal justice system and offenders.

• Fictional media

  • Fictional media, especially scripted crime dramas like CSI, depict the criminal justice system and criminals.

  • These shows present realistic criminal matters despite being fictional, as their cases are not real.

  • Researchers have analyzed the accuracy of information portrayed in these TV shows regarding the criminal justice system.

  • Popular types of forensic evidence featured include fingerprint analysis, blood analysis, and DNA testing.

  • A common theme in these shows is that the offender is usually caught by the end of the episode, which may not reflect reality.

  • Research indicates that the portrayal of forensic science is often exaggerated and dramatized for television.

  • For example, DNA evidence is depicted as easily collectible and usable in convictions, which is misleading.

  • A study in New York City found that DNA was used in only 7% of homicide investigations and did not frequently lead to convictions, contrasting with the portrayal in shows like CSI.
    
    

Research on Media Effects

• Media impacts understanding of the legal system

• Creates biases that jurors may carry into court

• Discusses the relationship between media consumption and juror decision-making

• Research suggests media intake leads to legally relevant attitudes and perceptions

• Example: formation of racially biased views regarding minority groups and crime

• Biases brought into the courtroom can affect case outcomes and evidence evaluation

• Importance of recognizing the negative real-world impacts of media consumption on legal proceedings.

• Racial stereotypes

  • Heavy news viewers, often older adults, may assume racially unsuccessful suspects are Black.

  • News media viewers tend to associate Black individuals or minorities with violence more than White individuals.

  • They perceive minority groups as more criminally culpable, influencing guilt perceptions.

  • Jurors with racial stereotypes may view Black defendants as more guilty than White defendants, despite identical cases.

• Positive perception of suspects

  • Increased exposure to crime-related media leads to heightened perceptions or concerns about crime.

• Concerns about legal matters

  • Sensationalized stories can shift individuals' perceptions of safety and concern about crime.

• Research shows general trends on how media consumption affects jury decision-making.

• Viewing negative portrayals of the criminal justice system can lead to distrust and skepticism about its legitimacy.

• Pre-trial publicity can significantly influence jurors' decisions.

• Real cases and suspects receive media coverage before trials.

• Media often portrays prosecution positively while negatively depicting defendants, regardless of actual guilt.

• Increased media exposure leads to a presumption of guilt among jurors.

• Jurors may misremember pretrial information as trial evidence, affecting decision-making.

• Difficulty arises in distinguishing between information from media and evidence presented in court.

• Misidentifying sources of information can lead jurors to consider inadmissible material in their deliberations.

• Numerous articles exist on the effects of pre-trial publicity, often found in legal textbooks.
  

Research article

• Decision to cover one or two random articles in paper.

• Article by Custer and Bandit Bluff focused on sexual victimization.

  • Sexual victimization is common but often sensationalized in media.

  • Examples include shows like SVU that dramatize sexual offenses.

• Researchers investigated the impact of media portrayals on perceptions of sexual violence.

  • Hypothesis: Regular viewers of SVU perceive greater risk of victimization compared to non-viewers.

• Study details:

  • Sample size: 546 women surveyed with self-administered questionnaires.

  • Measured daily television viewing hours (average: 2.6 hours).

  • Focused on genres related to sexual victimization.

  • Additional measures:

    • Fear of being victimized.

    • Perceived risk of victimization.

    • Perceived control over preventing victimization.

    • Seriousness of the issue.

    • Personal experience with crime.

• Key findings:

  • Increased viewing of crime shows correlates with heightened perceived risk of sexual victimization.

  • Non-viewers perceive lower risk compared to regular viewers.

  • Stronger correlation noted for women of higher socioeconomic status with no real-life crime experience.

  • Conclusion: Exposure to crime dramas increases perceived risk of sexual victimization, particularly among specific demographic groups.

CSI and Crime Dramas

• CSI Overview: Long-running crime drama TV show with several iterations (CSI version 1 to 5).

• Research Focus: Studies have investigated the depiction of DNA evidence in CSI.

• Key Study Findings:

  • Analyzed 51 episodes from four different seasons of CSI.

  • DNA evidence was searched for in 84% of episodes.

  • When DNA was searched for, it was found 93% of the time.

  • DNA analysis led to a match for an actual person 87% of the time.

• Unrealistic Expectations:

  • The frequency of DNA findings and successful matches in the show is far beyond reality (actual DNA finding rates around 7%).

  • This portrayal creates an unrealistic expectation for viewers about the role of DNA evidence in courtrooms

CSI Effect

• Impact of CSI and Similar Shows: Viewership of shows relying on DNA evidence is speculated to influence real criminal case decision making.

• CSI Effect Defined: Coined by Bradley, it refers to how these shows create unrealistic expectations regarding criminal investigations and forensic evidence.

• Influence on Perception: These expectations shape public perceptions of the legal system and jurors' decision-making processes in real cases.

• Expectations in Courtroom: Regular viewers may enter the courtroom with the assumption that forensic evidence, especially DNA, is always available and crucial for convictions.

• Judicial Concerns: Judges have noted that the CSI Effect complicates convictions since many cases lack DNA evidence, leading jurors to question the credibility of cases without it.

• Prosecutors' Observations: Prosecutors report that jurors come with high expectations for forensic evidence and may feel disappointed if such evidence is not presented, affecting their comfort in declaring a defendant guilty.

What about a reverse CSI effect?

• No DNA, Not Guilty Belief: Judges and prosecutors often hold the belief that a lack of DNA evidence leads to a not guilty verdict.

• Defense Effect / Reverse CSI Effect: This concept posits that media portrayal, particularly crime dramas, can increase the chances of convictions by bolstering the credibility of prosecution witnesses, especially those presenting forensic evidence.

• Overreliance on Forensic Evidence: There is a tendency to rely heavily on forensic science witnesses, which may increase conviction rates, potentially leading to wrongful convictions.

• Prosecution Bias: Crime dramas generally favor the prosecution; if forensic evidence is presented, jurors may assume guilt.

• Producer Effect: Viewership of crime dramas may educate laypeople about the criminal justice system, potentially fostering a better understanding of legal processes among jurors.

• Diverse Opinions: Opinions on the CSI effect vary:

  • Some argue it creates challenges in securing convictions.

  • Others believe it results in excessive convictions based on forensic evidence.

  • Additionally, the producer effect suggests enhanced public understanding of the system gained through viewership.

CSI effect research

• Research on the CSI effect shows that viewership may raise expectations for DNA and forensic evidence in trials.

• Jury members may expect to see forensic evidence but are often surprised when it is absent.

• Lack of DNA evidence does not necessarily prevent jurors from convicting; they may explore other evidence sources.

• Findings on the CSI effect are mixed, with some studies showing varying effects on conviction rates while others find no impact.

• No clear relationship has been established between media portrayal and jury verdicts.

• Evidence does not strongly support the existence of the producer's effect, CSI effect, or reverse CSI effect.

• Overall, while there may be an impact, the specific outcomes and influences on jurors remain ambiguous and uncertain.

Surveillance and Video Evidence:

• Unclear impact of media and technology on juror decision-making.

• Media such as TV shows build biases among jurors.

• Technology is widespread and influences evidence in court.

• Film and video evidence has been used in courts for years, not a new concept.

• There's been an exponential increase in video evidence in trials.

• Evidence variety includes unstaged, unedited footage from multiple sources (e.g., surveillance cameras, police dash cams).

• Introduces the concept of "seuss variance": unofficial recordings made by citizens, as opposed to formal surveillance.

• Citizens often carry devices capable of recording video/audio, increasing the amount of available evidence.

The Psychology of Visual and Video Evidence

• The psychological impact of video evidence on jurors is significant and multi-faceted.

• Video evidence is often presented in court using projectors or TV systems from various sources (e.g., convenience store cameras, police body cams).

• Jurors view video evidence as credible and persuasive.

• This perception may be linked to processing fluency, where visual stimuli are processed more quickly and effectively than verbal testimonies.

• For example, jurors are likely to understand and believe a video of a theft more readily than a witness's verbal account of the same incident.

• Visual evidence is often seen as more reliable and representative of reality, leading jurors to trust what they see.

• The belief in the accuracy of videos can lead jurors to treat them as definitive proof of events, as if they witnessed the crime themselves.

• The "picture superiority effect" indicates that visual evidence is remembered better than verbal evidence by jurors.

• Video evidence presented early in a trial is more likely to be recalled during deliberations.

• Overall, while video evidence appears to provide benefits in terms of understanding and retention, its influence can complicate juror decision-making.

Biases in the Perception and Construal of Video Evidence

Detrimental Influence

• Video evidence provides a real-world account of events, increasing perceived reliability.

• It is considered valuable for establishing liability and probative value in legal contexts.

• There are limitations and negative aspects to heavily relying on video evidence.

• Focus will be on three types of detrimental influences that video evidence can have on decision-making.

Naive realism

• Naive Realism: The first detrimental influence of video evidence.

• People often believe videos provide objective, reliable evidence of events as they occurred.

• Jurors may assume videos depict reality exactly, akin to being a virtual witness.

• Videos may not represent the full picture; factors affecting perception include:

  • Distance from cameras may obscure details.

  • Events happening outside the camera’s view.

  • Important actions occurring before or after the video frames.

• Jurors may mistakenly assume they grasp the complete truth from video evidence due to naive realism.

Overconfidence

• Overconfidence in Video Evidence

  • Jurors may exhibit overconfidence based on viewing video evidence.

  • Belief that video equals reality (naive realism).

    • Example: A juror sees a video of a man stealing and assumes it represents the truth.

  • This belief can lead to heightened confidence in judgments (e.g., believing the suspect is guilty).

  • Confidence levels can shift dramatically (from 50% to 100%) after seeing video evidence.

  • Jurors may overlook other information that contradicts their beliefs due to overconfidence.

  • Factors such as the quality of video (e.g., blurry footage) can be ignored.

  • Jurors may dismiss doubts or alternative interpretations, believing their judgment is infallible based on the video.

Overvaluing

• Overvaluing Video Evidence

  • Detrimental influence where jurors place excessive importance on video evidence over other forms of evidence presented in a trial.

  • A juror may assign all judgment value to the video they have seen.

  • Other evidence may be ignored in favor of the video, affecting the final verdict.

    • Example: A blurry security cam video shows a masked individual stealing.

  • Even with contradictory evidence (such as an alibi), jurors might focus solely on the video.

  • This attitude can skew the assessment of evidence and lead to flawed judgments in trials.

Bias from endogenous sources

• Jurors can perceive video evidence in a biased manner.

• Not only do videos create biases, but the viewing process is also influenced by various factors.

• Three sources of bias when dealing with video evidence:

  • Attentional Focus: What jurors concentrate on in the video can skew perceptions.

  • Prior Beliefs and Attitudes: Existing beliefs before viewing may affect how jurors interpret the evidence.

  • Current Motivations: Jurors' motivations related to the case can further influence their understanding of the video

Attentional Focus

• Attentional focus is a source of bias in video evidence evaluation.

• People attend to visual environments differently; this applies to videos as well.

• Selective attention occurs when individuals focus on certain aspects while ignoring others.

• Selective attention can impact legal judgments, as demonstrated in studies.

  • Example: Participants identifying closely with police officers viewed them more favorably in videos.

• Judgments can be influenced by what individuals fixate on in the video (e.g., officer vs. offender).

• Different jurors may focus on different parts of the same video, leading to varied interpretations.

• If jurors cannot attend to all aspects of the video, they may lack critical information for judgment.

• Human nature tends towards selective attention based on personal experiences, which can bias understanding of the event depicted in the video.

Prior beliefs and attitudes

• Prior beliefs and attitudes can lead to biased interpretations of video evidence.

• Individuals bring their own predispositional beliefs into the legal environment.

  • Example from research: Participants subliminally exposed to black male faces more quickly identified an ambiguous object as a handgun compared to those exposed to white faces.

• This reflects pre-existing stereotypes associating minority groups with violence.

• Study: Participants shown blurry surveillance video with subliminally flashed faces (black or white) before identifying an object.

• Those primed with black faces were more likely to perceive the object as a gun; those with white faces perceived it as non-violent.

• Relation to juror biases: If a defendant in a police shooting video is black, jurors with racial stereotypes may perceive a blurry object as a gun, influenced by their biases.

• Another example: Jurors more in favor of the death penalty tend to judge a suspect in a video as having bad intentions, regardless of the video's content.

• Video content remains unchanged, yet jurors' interpretations differ based on their existing beliefs.

• Overall, video evidence does not guarantee uniform interpretation due to jurors' prior concepts and attitudes.

• Pre-existing biases can significantly affect jurors' understanding and judgment based on the same video evidence.

Current motivations

• Current motivations can lead to biased interpretations of video evidence.

• Concept: Motivated cognition refers to decision-makers' preferences regarding outcomes.

• Individuals are cognitively motivated to reach a desired decision, engaging with information to support that conclusion.

• This can result in "wishful seeing" when dealing with visual evidence.

• Definition of wishful seeing: viewing ambiguous features in a video as consistent with one's desired outcome.

  • Example: If a juror believes the defendant is guilty, they may perceive a blurry video as showing a gun.

• Conversely, if a juror believes the defendant is innocent, they may interpret the same video as not depicting a threat.

• The video and case remain unchanged, but jurors' preconceived ideas influence their perceptions.

• Ambiguous stimuli are interpreted in alignment with jurors' motivations, affecting their judgments.

• Motivated cognition can lead to biased interpretations based on what individuals want to believe.

Surveillance and Video Evidence

The role of audio

• Video and audio often accompany each other in court settings.

• Audio can influence jurors similarly to video.

• Audio can be clear or ambiguous, affecting interpretation.

  • Examples of audio clarity:

    • Clear audio: "I will kill you".

    • Ambiguous audio: unclear threats that could be misinterpreted.

• Background noise can complicate audio clarity (e.g., crowded places).

• Jurors may attend to audio for context but might misinterpret it.

• Phonemic restoration issue: jurors may hear incomplete audio and fill in gaps unconsciously.

  • Example: Audio saying "good night" may lead jurors to believe they heard "good night" even if they only catch part of it.

Video evidence of coercion

Video interrogation

• Recommendation for all police interrogations to be video recorded from start to finish.

• Purpose: To document the entire interrogation process and any potential confessions.

• Ideal outcome: Jurors can view the recording to understand what transpired during the interrogation.

• Benefits of recording:

  • Allows jurors to assess if confessions were coerced.

  • Helps in evaluating the validity of confessions, especially if the defendant claims coercion (e.g., lack of food/water, long hours).

• Emphasis: Full video documentation ensures transparency in the judicial process.

• Complexity: Questions arise whether a video truly provides clear evidence of coercion or sketchiness in the interrogation.

• Interpretation of video evidence may come with its own set of challenges, affecting juror perceptions and final judgments.