THE EFFECT OF DIFFERING EDITING TECHNIQUES
0N JUROR RESPONSES

Thesis for the Degree of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
EDMUND P. KAMINSKI
1977

 

 

 

v “

. I l g
“c; "Una/:19

ABSTRACT
THE EFFECT OF DIFFERING EDITING TECHNIQUES
ON JUROR RESPONSES
By

Edmund P. Kaminski

Leading jurists have argued that a videotaped trial has many advan-
tages over a live trial. One advantage concerns the deletion of inad-
missible testimony that may bias a jury. Four different editing tech—
niques are presently available for the deletion of inadmissible testi-
mony: (1) "clean edit," (2) ”blackout (normal speed)," (3) "blackout
(fast forward)," and (4) "video only." The purpose of this thesis was to
examine these four techniques in order to assess what effect they may
have on juror responses. Specifically, the study examined the effect of
these techniques on the credibility of the trial participants, the reten-
tion of trial-related information, distraction, and verdict. '

One hundred and forty—seven jurors served as subjects for this study.
They were randomly assigned to one of five conditions, one for each of
the editing techniques and one condition where no edits occurred. The
"no edit" condition was used as a baseline for comparisons. A one—and—
one-half hour civil case trial was re-enacted and served as the stimulus
tape.

The results indicated that the editing techniques had a significant
effect on the plaintiff's attorney's credibility. Although the findings
were not significant, the credibility ratings for all trial participants

were lower in the edited conditions when compared to the "no edit"

. o 'I

least distract
Finally, a Sig:
tion and credil
effect on the I
Based on t
sear-Cher while
technique is hi
fleece. The "vi
The other editi1

inadmissible ev;

Edmund P. Kaminski

condition. Also, the editing techniques were significantly different in
terms of distraction. Of the edited conditions, the "clean edit" was
least distracting and the "video only" edit was most distracting.
Finally, a significant negative relationship was found between distrac-
tion and credibility. The editing techniques did not have a significant
effect on the retention of trial—related information, nor on verdict.
Based on the findings, as well as the experience gained by the re-
searcher while executing the various editing techniques, the "clean edit"
technique is highly recommended for the deletion of inadmissible evi-
dence. The "video only" technique is considered to be inferior to all of
the other editing techniques and is not recommended for the deletion of

inadmissible evidence.

THE EFFECT OF DIEEERING EDITING TECHNIQUES
ON JUROR RESPONSES

BY

,_\

Edmund P? Kaminski

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Communication

1977

Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Communication,
College of Communication Arts, Michigan State University, in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts degree.

Guidance Committee:

 

 

Dedicated to
Lynne and Christopher John

with love

ii

I would
051W committ
Eanfina Simmo

To Geral
Sip,guidanc
Esphution a
kindness.

Special '
help, this th.

There ar.

tie coupse 0c

‘

sL
hija "

teas Star
511‘.

The B117 ..

It I“
“‘83 ‘.

3 lthOU‘t

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my appreciation and gratitude to the members
of my committee, Dr. Gerald R. Miller, Dr. David C. Ralph, and Dr.
Katrina Simmons, for their support, guidance, and patience.

To Gerald R. Miller, I extend my deep appreciation for his friend—
ship, guidance, and understanding. He has been a source of intellectual
inspiration and emotional support, and has treated me with fairness and
kindness.

Special thanks is given to Dr. Norman E. Fontes, for without his
help, this thesis would not have been possible.

There are so many people who have helped me in various ways during
the course of this thesis. In keeping with the non-existent tradition
that was started by "The Touch," I would like to thank the following per-
sons for their friendship and support: The Montana Miracle Machine, The
Animal, The Condor, The Enforcer, The Mole, The Toke, The Greek, The
Magnet, Gar Face, The Kid, Johnny Research, Ms. Laura, Slick, M2, Mr.
Affect, Beech Street Fats, The California Fox, Jungle Man, Andy Pandy,
Mr. Interpersonal, and Captain Communication. Given the number of schizo-
phrenics that roam these hallowed halls, many of the persons mentioned
above are really one person.

The Buzzed Czars are extended a special thanks for their support.

Also, without their help, I may never have realized the importance of

sampling with a garbage can.

iii

"It". ‘JII

 

I would a.
H5. Laura for ‘

I would I
support.

Finally,
wife who has b.

Thank y ' a.

I would also like to thank Kathy Clyde for typing this thesis, and
Ms. Laura for helping me in my hour of need.

I would like to thank my family for their faith and emotional
support.

Finally, I would like to express my gratitude for having a loving
wife who has been especially supportive and understanding.

Thank y'all.

iv

”LIE

I.’ T’

VIE!
o I

Apper

Chapter

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY . . . .

II RATIONALE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The
The
The
The
The

Problem
"Clean Edit" Condition
"Video Only" Condition

"Blackout (Normal Speed)" Condition .
"Blackout (Fast- Forward)" Condition .

Problems with the Techniques
Research Questions

III METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Definitions
Procedure . . . . . .

IV RESULTS

V DISCUSSION . . . . . . . .

Implications
Limitations
Recommendations .

FOOTNOTES

APPENDICES

Appendix A

LIST OF REFERENCES .

page

11
13
1M
15
15
l6
16
21
23

23

29

35

51

57
58
59

61

63

85

q

-L‘Io

AC..-\.
.—-——

k)

Cl)

LL)

I

f...’
N)

Alpha C(
for Eac}

Correlat
for EacI

Alpha Cc

Credibi

Table

10

ll

12

LIST OF TABLES

Alpha Coefficients for the Information Retention Items

for Each Subtest . . . . .

Alpha Coefficients for the Dimensions of Credibility
for Each Trial Participant

Correlations Between the Dimensions of Credibility
for Each Trial Participant

Alpha Coefficients for the Overall Rating of
Credibility for Each Trial Participant . .

Summary of the Six Instances of Inadmissible
Testimony Constructed for the Trial .

Number of Jurors for Each Condition by Sex

Means and Analysis of Variance Summary of the Effects

of Differing Editing Techniques on Retained Information

Means and Analysis of Variance Summary of the Effects
Differing Editing Techniques on the Assessment of the
Plaintiff's Attorney's Credibility

Means and Analysis of Variance Summary of the Effects
of Differing Editing Techniques on the Assessment of
the Defense Attorney's Credibility . . . . . .

Means and Analysis of Variance Summary of the Effects
Differing Editing Techniques on the Assessment of
the Defendant's Credibility . . . . . . . .

Means and Analysis of Variance Summary of the Effects
Differing Editing Techniques on the Assessment of
the Plaintiff's Credibility . . . . . .

Means and Analysis of Variance Summary of the Effects

Differing Editing Techniques on the Assessment of the
Security Guard's Credibility . .

vi

of

of

of

of

page

24

27

28

31

33

36

37

M1

M2

5—.
(.11

H;
(1‘)

Means and
Differing

Distracti:
Frequencie

Summary of

.
or Infcrt

Pearson Pr
Credibilit

Table

13

1H

15

16

17

Means and Analysis of Variance Summary of the Effects of
Differing Editing Techniques on Reported Levels of
Distraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Frequencies of Verdict for Each Condition . . . .

Summary of Means, P Values, Degrees of Freedom, P Value
for Information Retention, Credibility and Distraction .

Pearson Product-Moment Correlations for the Variables of
Credibility, Verdict, Information Retention, and Distraction

Pearson Product—Moment Correlations for the Variables of
Credibility, Information Retention, and Verdict

vii

page

4H

46

47

H8

#9

The lega
The courts si
every day. F
woeto trial
1971). Main
backlog that
other portion
IICG‘JII‘ , and

.
PMCT-L,
“And

91‘ Of ser

Ila“

~32) point

CHAPTER I

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

The legal system in our country is currently plagued with problems.

The courts simply cannot keep up with the number of cases that arrive
every day. For example, the average time required for a civil case to
come to trial in Cook County, Illinois, is more than five years (Ward,
1971). Main (1970) reports that Los Angeles County faced a 42,000 case
backlog that was increasing by 200 cases a month. Similar figures for
other portions of the nation have been reported elsewhere (cf. Bermant,
McGuire, and Chappell, 1975; Fontes, 1975). This situation creates a
number of serious problems. As Miller, Bender, Florence, and Nicholson
(1972) point out:

It is conceivable that innocent victims of automobile

accidents without independent financial resources

might bear senseless and inhumane physical and fiscal

suffering for a significant portion of their lives

while awaiting their just recompense under due process

of law. Likewise, in criminal cases, such delays do

not serve the ends of justice. While awaiting their

trial, felons guilty of a crime are free on bail

potentially to cause society further problems and per-

sons unjustly accused are forced to live in the

ambiguous state of having an accusation hanging over

their heads without means of proving their innocence.

(p. 1)
Obviously, a solution to this problem is needed.

One solution to this problem would be to build more courthouses and

train more judges and attorneys. Indeed, this may tend to decrease the
backlog of cases over a period of time. Still, this solution requires a

tremendous amount of money and time to implement. Thus, it is question—

able whether or not this would be the most expedient solution to the

1

gtrcblern.

Another solu
tape into the leg
as the most exped
ire of the leadin

t..e Honorable .

c.
(I)

fi

Sendusky , Ohio

0
:1

Llenents , the fir:

Va”
0

_. rystal conducn
23m; operates u:
aggropriate civil
(Pi???) docket. '
of Superintendence

‘nn

.c_»' :e conducted i
"tr:.33+:
muonal” mar“

”an“ .
"Ewystal (l:

problem.

Another solution to the problem involves the introduction of video—
tape into the legal system. Many jurists advocate the use of videotape
as the most expedient way to reduce the backlog of civil case trials.
One of the leading advocates of the use of videotape in the courtroom
is the Honorable James L. McCrystal, Judge of the Court of Common Pleas,
in Sandusky, Ohio. Following the successful conclusion of McCall vs.
Clements, the first prerecorded videotape trial (November 18, 1971),
McCrystal conducted a number of videotape trials. Presently, Erie
County operates under the "dual docket" system. Under this system,
appropriate civil cases are assigned to a prerecorded videotape trial
(PRVTT) docket. "Appropriate" cases are those that fit the provisions
of Superintendence Rule 15, which sets the guidelines for which PRVTTS
may be conducted in Ohio. The remaining cases are processed in the
"traditional" manner.

McCrystal (1976) reports that the use of PRVTTs resulted in an in-
crease of the number of civil cases and personal injury cases that were
terminated in 1975. Comparing the number of these cases terminated in
1975 to the average number from 1972 through 1974, McCrystal reports an
increase of 17% and ”0%, respectively. Further, he reports that the
average time lag between the PRVTT order and the case termination for
1975 was five months. Finally, McCrystal (1976) contends that this re-
duction in time was obtained "without burdening the taxpayers of the
county with the expense of additional judges, court personnel and physi-
cal facilities" (p. 54).

Thus, it appears that the use of videotape does indeed serve as a

useful tool in reducing the time needed to process a case. Still, the

tine element is 7
cf the use of vit
:orn'mity and IIII
eiited out so it
if: preserved; e)
Tith less cost; 2
ICE. Pierrill, 19'.
1373; McCrystal,
these advantages

There may be
afawitness. T‘:
fitness to an an:
attorneu

J “OHIO r3

Iitflon is S‘Jsta .-

5 ‘8 an enhiri
Ijrfw .J
:FQLE

Sam Can be a‘
L

M

“Ie next ad“

‘I. .
‘L‘LTI‘. \
.15 tile ripe :
‘ll
1

u
.h
e ‘u,
‘..‘-t"n
|¥\
vb I

may movie
3

.-“:
hv-u,.‘:T‘-Q
“RES. U

L‘ha .
N ‘
‘lhry, 0P
- 4-
, I.
‘=-“e :.

time element is not the only advantage that videotape offers. Advocates
of the use of videotape contend that videotape can better serve the legal
community and the public. For example, objectionable testimony can be
edited out so it will not bias the jury; vital evidence can be obtained
and preserved; expert witness testimony can be acquired more easily and
with less cost; and the juror's time can be utilized more efficiently
(cf. Morrill, 1972; Valentino, 1972—73; Rush, 1973; Kornblum and Rush,
1973; McCrystal, 1975; Murray, 1975; and Fontes, 1975). Let us consider
these advantages in more detail.

There may be times when an attorney wishes to damage the credibility
of a witness. Thus, the attorney may ask a question that may "lead" the
wdktness to an answer, or may be damaging in and of itself. The opposing
attnorney would raise an objection and the judge would rule. If the ob—
jecztion is sustained, the judge would instruct the jury to disregard the
W11:ness' answer and/or the attorney's question. However, it is question-
EflDIJB if the jury can truly disregard this kind of information. Indeed,
it Idould probably depend on the saliency of the information, although
‘Ulis is an empirical question. Still, by the use of videotape, this

information can be deleted and the jury would never hear it. Thus, this
problem can be alleviated entirely (see Fontes, 1975).

The next advantage is concerned with the loss of vital evidence.
During the time from which a case is filed, until it comes to court, a
witness may move, die, or be unavailable due to illness or professional
commitments. Under the present system, if a witness is unable to testi-
fy at a trial, the testimony is either recorded on audio tape and played
to the jury, or the witness' deposition is read to them. Obviously,

there is a reduction of information when the witness is not physically

present. Nom
assess the CPE
tony (cf. Font
This problem c
(Valentino, 19
Videotape
the litigants
the litigants
Ie.g., travel,
:3” :1 be allev
offices (Fonte
McCrystal
Tile is wasted
33119 be told

receive it 1:0,,

present. Nonverbal cues are missing; cues which a juror may need to

assess the credibility of the witness or the veracity of his/her testi—
mony (cf. Fontes, 1975; Hocking, Bauchner, Kaminski, and Miller, 1976).

This problem can be avoided, to some extent, by the use of videotape

(Valentino, 1972-73).

Videotape can help reduce the cost of expert testimony. Frequently,

the litigants will require the testimony of an expert. In such cases,

the: litigants are responsible for the expenses incurred by the expert

(Ea.g;., travel, time during travel, meals, lodging, etc.). These costs

(XDLJJJj be alleviated by videotaping the testimony of experts in their

offices (Fontes , 1975 ) .
McCrystal (1975) contends that jurors are abused and much of their

timnea is wasted. Videotaping trials can alleviate this problem. Jurors

could be told when the trial would start and precisely when they will

receive it for deliberation. "They, then, are an interested juror,

I"atl’ler than to put them in that seat (the juror's box) and they don't

k11c>VV' Tdhether they're going to get out on Tuesday or Friday" (McCrystal,

1975 3 p. 33).

Finally, Murray (1975) contends that videotape is beneficial to all

C31? . . . .
‘tifle part1c1pants in a trial.

We lawyers are faced time and time again with the in-
ability until the very last moment to even tell our
key witnesses when they might expect to be called.
After all, it isn't their case. Their lives are dis-
rupted. They're being asked to come to court to
serve the justice system, and frequently although

you have the subpoena power available, if you subpoena
them in, all you're going to do is disadvantage your
client's case because the witness is going to be
annoyed or irritated at being compelled under legal
process to come into court. By prerecording the tes~
timony of certain witnesses, it's much simpler to
schedule their appearance. Testimony can be placed

into 8‘
is pres
standal
succinC
trial 3
greatil
that ca
diffic;
are re:

about the introdt
The concerns
~T-+ ‘-
nnothree categc
Instant, McGuire
'neconcerns are
ses.

Obviously
1

2‘
.esa reductior

into evidence in its proper order so that your case

is presented in a more cohesive, orderly, and under-
It helps the lawyer prepare
In—

standable fashion. . .
succinct, effective opening statements.

trial logistics, the management of your case, is
greatly eased and improved. The delays that occur,
that cause trials to drag, to become tedious and
difficult to follow from the jury's point of view,

are reduced significantly. (pp. MB-UH)
It appears that the use of videotape does offer a number of benefits

However, a number of jurists would

fora‘the American judicial system.
At best, many jurists are skeptical

disnagree with this contention.

atxDLIt the introduction of videotape.
The concerns that are expressed by leading jurists can be divided

(1) technical, (2) psychological, and (3) social

int 0 three categories:
From a technical standpoint,

(Bexrfimant, McGuire, and Chappell, 1975).
The major issue is concerned with what the jury

the concerns are many.
This necessi-

sees - Obviously, the camera becomes the jurors' eyes.
'tarteass a reduction in the amount of visual cues that are present in a
For example, if the camera

vricleec>tape trial as opposed to a "live" trial.

is; 1FC>cused on the witness who is giving testimony, the jury cannot see
9:11:}1€3r attorney, the judge, or the spectators that are watching the
1:I‘j“EilL.(assuming there are some). One could argue that this reduction in
visual cues is beneficial, for it forces the juror to attend to the

Tn
€11:€3itrial being presented. On the other hand, consider the following sit-

ua -
‘t31~<3n. Suppose that the camera is focused on a witness, while the de-

.era
rlcauEint is off camera (i.e., cannot be seen by the jury). Assume that

1:}1
ea ‘fiqitness has just testified to an event which causes the defendant to

Eilb ‘
JerlEice. In this situation, the jury would not see the defendant grimace,
1:11
ILI=SS denying the jury information that is potentially relevant to their
(1%
c2 ‘- . . . . . . . .
:L~SSion in the case. The frequency in which a Situation Similar to the

one described a:
of the loss of 1'
unknown. It wo;
permits them to
guidelines and/c
exist.

Related to
techniques. Be]

and: television 4

“mid testimony"
case were high .

some dePosition
Currently,

‘1; A ‘

«The RUIe 15 S

Lil constitute

““79“ evidence

one described above occurs in a trial is unknown. Further, the impact

of the loss of information, similar to that described above, is also

unknown. It would be very easy to present a picture to the jury that

permits them to see all of the participants in the trial. However,

guidelines and/or rules concerning the positioning of the camera do not

exist.
Related to the issue presented above is the concern of production

tecihniques. Bermant et a1. (1975) contend that the ”techniques of film

a11c1 television art will soon become applied to videotaped depositions

aiaci testimony" (p. 8). It is conceivable that if the costs of losing a

cassee were high enough, and the defendant or the plaintiff had the money,

sornee depositions could become M.G.M. productions.

Currently, the rules governing the type of equipment allowed for

'tliee ‘taping and presentation of testimony are minimal. Ohio's Superinten—

<ieer1<2ea Rule 15 stipulates that standard one—half inch videotape equipment

V'j41nl. constitute the standard for filming and playback of testimony and

<>t:}1€31r evidence for the trials in that state. However, the ruling allows

iFC)!’ <deviations from the standard as long as compatible equipment is sup-

pJ‘i'EEd or so long as the original tape is converted such that it is com-

pa1::i—ible with the standard. The only other requirement is that there

m D I O O O
1153'12' be a minimum of one monitor haVIng at least a fourteen inch screen.

Obviously, the ruling allows the litigants a good deal of freedom
1.
I) cjueciding how and where to videotape testimony. The ruling supplies no
li -
Irlilftations on lighting, panning (moving the camera from one side to

an
<:>‘tilner), zooming (moving the camera lens from an established shot of

Wi
(3“52 range to a close-up, or vice versa), backdrops (the scenery behind

‘1:
11% subject(s) being filmed), etc. In addition, the effects that these

Jt¥5erent techn;

a...
From a psy<
additional issw
trial will have
are a nation of
fie about the n.
researched. It
the amount of t.
cfa videotape ‘
investigation.
McLuhan (l
3555593 transmi‘
c‘iun affects th.
possible that a
adifferent set

‘ .
her Y5"
I-

. . Recen-

KN
~11
‘

akvted a Str‘dy

its '.

differs
I ~DCes bet
ARC3ther is

;i.v,Q '

"“8 Situation
,
flea:

he 8
+3
“3': the m ~.
The n.
c . ‘
0‘ 1D:

different techniques may have on a jury are not known.
From a psychological standpoint, the use of videotape raises some

additional issues. Bermant et a1. (1975) contend that the videotape
trial will have an effect on jurors' opinions due to the fact that "we
are a nation of television watchers" (p. 9). The authors are not speci-

fic about the nature of these effects due to the fact that they are un-

rensearched. It is conceivable that some relationship may exist between

thee amount of television that one views at home and the interpretation

<31? ea videotape trial. However, this relationship is open for empirical

investigation.
McLuhan (1964) suggests that 'Uue medium used in transmitting a

Inessssage transmits a message in and of itself. He contends that the me-
cliiirn affects the way in which information is processed. Thus, it is

pusssssible that a videotape trial may convey a different message, or elicit

El <3;i:fferent set of responses from jurors, when compared to its live coun-

‘t‘BITIPéart. Recently, Miller, Bender, Florence, and Nicholson (197%) con-

C111C112<ad a study that tested the relationship between a videotape trial and

3‘1:53 .live counterpart. The results of their study yielded no significant

Cllfitverences between the two media.
Another issue deals specifically with a mixed—media trial (i.e., a
J~' . .
'1JV'GE: trial where only some of the Witnesses appear on Videotape). In

t -
11:1‘53- situation, the testimony that a witness gives on videotape may be

I) . . . . .
ealr‘clteived by the jury as being more important than if the same Witness
1)
ad given the same testimony live. Lazarsfeld and Merton (1971) contend
't:}1EEl . .
‘1: the media tend to confer status on individuals.

The mass media bestow prestige and enhance the authority
of individuals and groups by legitimizing their status.

:0 {101.761

hu-

W h
...’:,‘., Lie

Cf DCVel

Recognition by the press or radio or magazines or
newsreels testifies that one has arrived, that one
is important enough to have been singled out from
the large anonymous masses, that one's behavior and
opinions are significant enough to require public

notice. (p. 561, emphasis supplied)

Admittedly, the authors are referring to the public media and not
to a videotaped deposition. Still, it is conceivable that jurors may
ccuifer status on witnesses who present their testimony on videotape in

thee same way that they would confer status on an individual in the pub-

lic media.
The mixed media trial may have an additional impact on jurors.

13162)! may pay more attention to the videotaped testimony of a witness due
t1) 1:he novelty of the situation. People do tend to pay more attention
Fur—

t<> riovel stimuli than to stimuli that are common (Berlyne, 1960).
'tIléBI‘, research has indicated that stimuli with an "intermediate" degree

Of novelty have a greater effect on stimulus selection than stimuli with
"1Tuaximum" degree of novelty. An "intermediate" degree of novelty would

ea
"éa stimulus that is rather like something well known but just distinct

1363
We are indifferent to things that

enough from it to be 'interesting.'

a . C C .
Ipea either too remote from our experience or too familiar" (Berlyne,

196 O , p. 21). The use of videotape in the courtroom is relatively new.

3f . . . . . .
€31: it can be assumed that most jurors are familiar With teleViSion as a

8 ~
1:3LITlulus. Further, if it can be assumed that most jurors are familiar

Vr‘
3L1t5t). trial proceedings (i.e., they have served as jurors before), then

introduction of a witness on videotape in an otherwise live trial

trlea
Of course, if most

ma
5" <constitute a situation of intermediate novelty.
:j‘Ll

]:‘<:>3rs are unfamiliar with trial proceedings, then the entire situation

me
29' lae novel (maximum novelty) and some of the effects may be mitigated

‘C<:>
S Ome extent .

Precisely how novel this situation might be is unknown.

Also, the effect that the mixed-media trial has on the jury remains an

empirical question.
The final area of concern for many jurists surrounds the social im-
plications of introducing videotape into the legal system. That is,

what effect will the introduction of videotape have on the way the pub-

lic perceives the legal system?
Earlier, it was stated that the use of videotape would reduce the
batfl<log of cases that currently congest the courts. One of the ways

tfljJS is accomplished is by having judges work on two or more cases si-

Iniilxtaneously. McCrystal (1975) states that he can impanel one jury,

tuaxrea the lawyers give their opening statements, and then start the video-
Then, he would leave that courtroom, conduct the same prov

talpea trial.
<3e<iiire in another courtroom and then go to his chambers "where the real

ENDI?}C of the judge really has to be done" (McCrystal, 1975, p. 32).
NR3CZIfiystal (personal conversation) explains further that, contrary to

IPCDEDIJLLar belief, the real role of the judge is nothing more than a legal

As long as the judge knows that the lawyers have not vio-

tr'affic cop.
LLE113<3<1 any laws (which could be known if the trial is videotaped), there

ITeaEiiLHly is no reason for the judge to be in the courtroom.

The problem here lies in the statement "contrary to popular belief."

I:
i? 1the general public does not view the judge as a "legal traffic cop,"

It may be assumed that the judge is viewed as

ho
TV. is the judge viewed?
To the extent that this is

an - . ..
:LJntegral part of the judICial process.
what will the effect on the jury be

tr-

uQ , the question could be raised:
Wh

'EEIFI the judge gets up and leaves the courtroom as soon as the trial bev

(Eiii
r18 '2 To date, this question remains unresearched.

In reviewing the issues that the proponents of videotape have

DTTJ

a
§

«1
‘L

~tw.

.Ap‘
sully-

“,

n
a

mi? e

‘1‘
a ..

10

advanced, it can be seen that 1jme majority of them are concerned only
with changes in the structural functioning of the courts. Recently,
Bermant and Jacoubovitch (1975) have Questioned the additional effects
that videotape may have on the public. They state:

This approach to structural improvement is justifiable
if it is assumed that courts function only as the ve—
hicle for the just resolution of disputes. Seen from
the inside perspective of the judge or trial lawyer,
the machinery of the trial process is a means to the
end of adjudication. As a result of long training and
exposure, officers of the court are easily able to
separate what the trial does from how the trial does
it. This View of the means—end or structure—function
relationship of courtroom and related legal activities,
however, may not be uniformly shared by the lay public.
For many persons the courts are not perceived as the
machinery for achieving justice nor as a means to the
fair settlement of controversies. Rather, they are
perceived as the source or embodiment of justice.

From this perspective, what courts do and how they do
it are not so neatly separable. (p. 1005)

It is difficult to foresee all of the effects that the changes in
'tliea sstructure of the legal system will have on the public if the use of
VTiCiGECDtape becomes widespread. If it tends to make the public lose faith
ill 1Zlae judicial process, or if the litigants should perceive they cannot
E§EEt3 as fair trial with videotape, then indeed the costs may be too great,
<2O'TIIEDEared to the advantages of expediency that videotape offers.
The long—term effects that videotape may have on the legal system
6311(3‘ ‘the lay public are unknown. Fortunately, research has been conducted

1:

‘ Iléifit: examines some of the short term effects that videotape has on the
j uby
The

However, many questions still remain that need to be answered.

‘1:opic of the present thesis intends to answer one of these questions.

Th
6i ‘2 is, what effects do different editing techniques have on the jury?

CHAPTER II

RATIONALE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

In Chapter I, an overview of the advantages and disadvantages of
the use of videotape in the courtroom was offered. One of the advan-
tages offered was that inadmissible testimony that may bias the jury
could be edited out of the tape. Still, the question could be raised:
does inadmissible testimony affect jurors' responses? Two recent
studies lend support to the contention that inadmissible evidence does
affect jurors' responses.

Sue, Smith, and Caldwell (1973) conducted a study in which role-
playing jurors received either strong or weak evidence against a defen-
dant in a murder case. In addition, subjects received either addi-
tional evidence that was ruled admissible, additional evidence that
was ruled inadmissible, or no additional evidence. The results indi-
cated that jurors were affected by the inadmissible evidence. Jurors
exposed to evidence that was ruled inadmissible differed significantly
in the number of guilty verdicts from jurors who were not exposed to
the inadmissible evidence. However, this was only found for jurors in
the weak evidence condition. It was found that when there was already
strong evidence against the defendant, the inadmissible evidence had
no effect.

Fontes (1975) examined the effects of differing amounts of inad-
missible testimony on jurors' responses. A four and one-half hour long

videotape trial was used in this study. Role-playing jurors were

11

or (5

hi ,.
Inf:

q
\
U

"ee

A
a:

m.
“Ciel-

Ial

12

randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) zero instances of
inadmissible testimony, (2) three instances of inadmissible testimony,

or (3) six instances of inadmissible testimony. Results of this study
suggest that a curvilinear relationship exists between the frequency

of inadmissible testimony and the amount of information retained by

the jurors. In addition, the results suggest that an inverse curvilin-
ear relationship exists between the frequency of inadmissible testimony
and the perceived credibility of the attorneys by the jurors. None of
the findings in this study were significant, although they all approached
significance.

One possible explanation for the failure to obtain significant re-
sults in the Fontes study lies in the number of instances of inadmissi-
ble evidence. In that study, only six instances of inadmissible evi-
dence were used in a trial that lasted for four and one-half hours.
While it is true that the number of objections that occur in a civil
trial vary from trial to trial and are dependent upon a number of fac-
tors (e.g., the expertise of the lawyers, the nature of the trial, the
length of the trial, etc.), the present author contends that the number
of instances of inadmissible evidence used in the Fontes study were too
few for a four and one—half hour trial. Recently, the present author
asked a number of leading jurists to estimate the minimum and maximum
number of objections that would occur in a four hour civil case trial.
They indicated that, on the average, there would be six objections per
hour. Of course, this does not mean that every trial will have six ob-
jections per hour. Some trials may not have any objections and some
may have more than six objections. However, it does suggest that the

Fontes study should have had four times the number of objections that

 

 

Q)

()

[H

"H

rf

[u

“I

(I)

H

'3

(I?

'L)

cv'

p.)

13

occurred in that trial. Whether or not an increase in the number of
objections used in the trial would have been sufficient to produce sig-

nificant differences is unknown and remains an empirical question.

THE PROBLEM

While it is the case that no decisive evidence exists as to whether
or not jurors can disregard inadmissible evidence, it is a fact that in-
admissible evidence is currently being edited out of videotaped trials.
Procedurally, the events that transpire until the actual time the edit
takes place are relatively straightforward. During the course of taping
a trial or a deposition, the date and the time (in hours and seconds)
are also being placed on the tape by means of a time-date generator.
Should an objection be raised by either attorney, the operator simply
makes note of the time that the objection takes place. At the conclu—
sion of the taping, the tape and the list of objections are filed.
Later, the judge takes the tape and mounts it on a recorder in his/her
chambers. The tape is advanced to the point of the first objection.

The judge views the testimony that has been objected to, and then

rules on the objection. If the objection is sustained (i.e., the evi-
dence is inadmissible) the judge notes the time of the beginning of the
evidence and the time of the end of the inadmissible portion. This
procedure is followed for every objection in the tape.

Another issue might be mentioned at this point. Normally, a law-
yer may raise an objection at any time. Thus, the objection might come
before the witness answers, in the middle of the answer, or after the
answer. However, in Judge McCrystal's court, the lawyer is instructed

to object only after the witness has answered. This has two important

.asx

CL-..

94-
(n
in

-

Ah - 2

Va 3,
4

LI '
(T1
LI)

.3!" .‘
V ‘
rer-

uvi-Ze

(I.
I
H

(D

I
s

,L)

14

advantages. First, it allows for a clean edit. If the objection is
sustained, the edited portion would begin with the attorney's question,
go through the witness' answer, and end with the end of the other
attorney's objection. If the objection is overruled (i.e., the evidence
is admissible), then only the attorney's objection is edited. Thus,
the second advantage pertains to those objections that are overruled.
It may be the case that the mere fact that an attorney has raised an
objection may cause the jury to view that portion of testimony differ-
ently than if no objection had been made. These possible effects can
be alleviated by removing the attorney's objection. Obviously, it
would be very difficult to do this if the attorney's objection should
come in the middle of the witness' answer.

Returning to the editing procedure, the tapes are now ready to be
edited. Here lies the crux of the problem: hgw_are they to be edited?
Four different editing techniques will be examined: (1) the "clean
edit, (2) the "video only" edit, (3) the "blackout (normal Speed)"
edit, and (4) the "blackout (fast forward)" edit. Only the last
three techniques are presently being used to edit videotapes used in
the courtroom.1 The "clean edit" technique can be used, but is not, due
to time and cost considerations. These editing procedures will now be
discussed in detail. In addition, the problems surrounding each tech-

nique will be discussed following their descriptions.

THE "CLEAN EDIT" CONDITION
The "clean edit" technique is a process of editing where the objec—
tionable testimony is actually removed from the tape. The original

copy of the tape would be copied onto another tape, but the inadmissible

{651

I
D‘F‘

L-u.

qu—
hr
a...»

I
t‘ Av-
-v..

VI." ‘1“.
‘ UV“

 

.l'.

in.
S

C)
111

15

testimony would be left out. The machine that is used to copy the ori-
ginal tape has the capacity to edit videotape electronically. Thus,
when the appropriate time comes for the inadmissible evidence to be
edited, the recorder would be switched into the "edit" mode. At the
end of the inadmissible portion, the recorder would be switched back
to the "record" mode. The result would be an uninterrupted tape, save
for a possible momentary "flick" (i.e., a break in the visual pattern)
in the video portion of the tape. Still, this slight break can be

made virtually undetectable if the editing is done professionally.

THE "VIDEO ONLY" CONDITION

The "video only" technique involves the "removal" of the audio por-
tion of the tape. In this procedure, the operator sits in the court-
room and views the trial (or deposition) on a small monitor, while the
jury views the tape on larger monitors. The operator has the list of
the portions of the tape that are to be edited based on the judge's
ruling. At the exact second that the edit is to begin, the operator
depresses a switch on a box. This effectively eliminates the audio por-
tion of the tape. The video portion of the tape can still be seen by
the jury. The operator watches the time on the screen that was placed
there by the time-date generator. At the second the inadmissible por-
tion ends, the operator releases the button, allowing the audio track

to again be heard.

THE "BLACKOUT (NORMAL SPEED)” CONDITION
The procedure for the "blackout (normal speed)" technique is the
same as the procedure for the video only technique, with only one excep-

tion. This time, the operator depresses two buttons at the same time.

 

:- .

:L

F c.

 

16

One button suppresses the audio track, while the other button supresses

the video track. Thus, the jury neither hears nor sees the inadmissible
testimony. What they do see is a black screen, much the same as if the

monitor had been turned off. On the other hand, the operator can still

see the tape on the small monitor. Still, the audio portion does not

come through this monitor.

THE "BLACKOUT (FAST FORWARD)” CONDITION

This technique is the same as the preceding technique, again with
only one exception. In addition to suppressing the video and audio, the
operator advances the tape at a faster speed for those portions of in-
admissible evidence that last for a "long" period of time. The decision
to fast-forward the tape is somewhat arbitrary. However, segments that

approach thirty seconds or longer are usually fast-forwarded.2

PROBLEMS WITH THE TECHNIQUES

All of these editing techniques may be distracting to the jurors.
Distraction has been conceptualized as the occurrence of "absorbing sen—
sory stimulation" that is irrelevant to the primary message being pre-
sented (see Baron, Baron, and Miller, 1973, p. 310). Thus, in order
for a given stimulus to be distracting, it must be noticed by the per—
son (i.e., the person must pay attention to the stimulus) and the in-
formation conveyed by the stimulus must be unrelated to the primary
message. Further, information is conceptualized as any stimulus that
is processed by the individual. Therefore, noise or silence is also
considered to be informational and can serve as distracting stimuli.

The purpose of editing videotape trials is to remove material that

is irrelevant to the case or may bias the jury. Ideally, the edit

u—wu

.1.

 

Ur

OI.

5..

u.

KL:

AU

'5“.

‘L

 

17

would be done such that the trial would flow continuously and the edit
would not be detected by the jurors. Obviously, the editing procedures
discussed earlier do not achieve this ideal. Further, although the
edits remove unwanted information, they themselves convey information.
At a minimum, the edits convey the information that something has been
deleted. Given the purpose of editing, this information is superflu-
ous to the primary content of the trial. Therefore, the edits may
serve as a source of distraction to the jurors. Let us return to the
editing techniques and see what specific elements of each technique

are pertinent to distraction.

As was mentioned earlier, there is the possibility of a break in
the visual pattern when using the ”clean edit" technique. Although the
actual edit lasts for a split-second, the visual image before the edit
may be quite different from the visual image after the edit. This de-
pends on how much movement occurred during the portion that was edited
out. Again, at a minimum, this technique conveys the information that
something has been deleted. Further, the sudden "unnatural" movements
of the participants in the trial may be distracting to the jurors.

When using the "video only" technique, additional distracting
elements become apparent. Recall that in this procedure the audio is
suppressed, but the video portion remains. Thus, in this technique,
the jurors still see people moving their lips, but they do not hear
anything. They see facial expressions and body movements, but lack the
audio portion that may be necessary to clarify such actions. The sud-
den loss of audio information, with the retention of visual information
ii; also an "unnatural" occurrence. Thus, this may also be distracting

'UD the jurors. There is an additional problem concerning the

l8

interpretation of the nonverbal behaviors that are presented. However,
this will be discussed later in this chapter.

The two "blackout" techniques alleviate the problem surrounding the
visual stimuli found in the "video only" technique. However, in both of
these conditions the continuity of the trial is disrupted. Jurors find
themselves losing both visual and audio information and are presented a
black screen. Once again, the juror receives the information that some-
thing is missing, which is superfluous information, given the purpose of
the editing procedure. However, another variable is introduced when the
two "blackout" techniques are compared. That variable is the length of
time of the edit. Obviously, if the same material were edited using both
of these techniques, the "blackout (fast forward)" edit would take less
time than the "blackout (normal speed)" edit. Given that one factor that
affects the impact of distraction is whether or not an individual can ig—
nore the distracting stimulus (Baron, et a1., 1973), then time may be an
important variable to consider. It may be the case that individuals
could ignore a distracting stimulus if it lasted for a shorter period of
time. At least, the distraction effect of a stimulus may be mitigated if
the presentation of that stimulus lasted for a shorter period of time.
Still, the question of whether the "blackout (fast forward)” edit miti-
gates any of the effects that the "blackout (normal speed)" edit may have
on jurors is still open for empirical investigation.

It appears that each of these editing techniques serves as a poten-
tial source of distraction. Still, the question remains concerning the
effects that these different techniques may have on jurors. Although not
directly applicable to the present concern, the research on distraction

and persuasion offers some implications of how this variable may affect

19

jurors.

Research on distraction has produced some seemingly inconsistent
results. For example, distraction has been found both to increase the
persuasibility of a message (cf. Festinger and Maccoby, 1964; Rosen-
blatt, 1966; Shamo and Meador, 1969) and to decrease message persuasi-
bility (Gardner, 1966; Miller and Levy, 1967; Vohs and Garrett, 1968).
Distraction has been found to enhance the credibility of a speaker
(Freedman and Sears, 1965) as well as decrease the credibility of a
speaker (Miller and Levy, 1967). Also, distraction has been found to
increase recall of message content (Silverman and Regula, 1968) and to
decrease recall (Vohs, 1964; Gardner, 1966; Haaland and Vankatesan,
1968).

Although the studies referenced above report inconsistent results,
there is a possible explanation. In a review of the literature, Baron
et a1. (1973) report that the effects of distraction depend on a num-
ber of other factors. Those factors that are relevant here are:

(l) the perception of credibility before the distraction, and (2) wheth-
er or not the distraction could be ignored. The first factor can
account for the discrepant findings in the studies involving credibil-
ity. The second factor can account for the discrepant findings con-
cerning the persuasive impact of the message, and the recall of message
content (Baron et a1., 1973).

Still, there are some important differences between the research
on distraction reported above and the present situation. First, in most
of the studies cited above, the source of distraction was something be-
sides the message itself. In the case of editing videotape, the dis-

traction occurs in the same medium as the message. Second, in all of

20

the studies there was only one source of the message. In a videotape
trial, there are numerous sources of the messages. Given these differ-
ences, coupled with the numerous factors that influence distraction,
the effect of these editing techniques on the jury cannot be predicted.

In addition to the problems of distraction, two of these editing
techniques pose additional problems. In the "clean edit" technique,
there is a problem of cost. As was mentioned earlier, this technique
involves a special machine that edits videotape electronically. Pres-
ently, the cost of electronic editors, as well as technicians to work
them, is exceptionally high. Further, the time involved in performing
this editing technique is much greater than for the other three.

Still, there remains a more serious problem with this technique.
The "clean edit" is the only technique that actually "removes" inad-
missible testimony from the tape. Granted, the original copy still re—
mains intact, but it would not be shown to the jury. This procedure
raises the concern of "doctoring" the tape. As was mentioned earlier,
videotapes can be edited electronically in such a way that the edit
would be virtually undetectable. In fact, computerized editors are on
the market that can edit frame by frame.3 Conceivably, "legitimate"
testimony could be edited out professionally and never be detected by
the jury. One solution to this problem would be to have the editing
done in the presence of both attorneys and the judge. Then the tape
would be locked up until the time the jury was to view the trial.

The other technique that has additional problems is the "video
only" edit. As was mentioned earlier, the jury still sees the nonver-
bal behavior of the participants in the trial. Recently, studies have

investigated behaviors that are emitted nonverbally (cf. Sommer, 1969;

21

Mehrabian, 1970; Scheflen, 1972). Ekman and Friesen (1974) found that
people can detect deceptive communication from the nonverbal behavior
of another person. Extending the Ekman and Friesen research, Hocking
et a1. (1976) found that people use nonverbal leakage cues that emanate
from the face to assess the veracity of factual information, while
using nonverbal leakage cues from the body to assess the veracity of
emotional information.

Clearly, information is still being presented to the jury when the
video portion is left in for them to see. Still, it is not possible to
predict how the jury will use this information. In the present case,
much would depend on the nature of the trial, the events that had tran-
spired up to the point of the edit, and who is on the camera during the
edit, as well as what they are doing. However, the jury may indeed use
the information presented to them and subsequently respond differently
than if this information had never been made available.

Thus far, the major problems surrounding the editing techniques
have been presented. It has been argued that all of these techniques
may be distracting, and that the "video only" edit has the additional
problem of conveying unwanted nonverbal communication. All of these
techniques may have differing effects on the jury. Unfortunately, a
Strong theoretical base from which to make predictions does not exist.

- .

(knisequently, the present thesis will be question-centered, rather than
hypothesis centered. Specifically, the following questions will be
examined:

(1) Do jurors exposed to different editing techniques demonstrate
differences in retention of trial-related information?

(2) Do jurors exposed to different editing techniques demonstrate
differences in their assessment of the attorneys' credibility?

22
(3) Do jurors exposed to different editing techniques demonstrate
differences in their assessment of the witnesses' credibility?

(4) Do jurors exposed to different editing techniques report
differing levels of distraction?

(5) Do jurors exposed to different editing techniques report
different verdicts?

CHAPTER I I I

METHODS AND PROCE DURES

DEFINITIONS

In this section, conceptual and operational definitions will be

given for the following constructs: (l) retained information, (2) per-

ceived credibility, (3) distraction, and (4) verdict.

Retained information was defined as the information presented by

the participants in a trial that a juror could remember at the conclusion

of the trial .

The construct was operationalized in the following manner. Forty-

six multiple choice questions were constructed for all of the testimony

in the trial. The items were pretested using a sample of undergraduate

Students enrolled in the basic course at Michigan State University

(N ‘ 34). The subjects viewed the trial on videotape. None of the

_

editing techniques were used during the pretest. The responses of these

STindents were dichotomously coded as being either right or wrong. The

items were next divided into five subtests based on the participant who

Offered the information in the trial. Thus, there was one test for the

information presented by each of the attorneys and a test for each of the

1:1'11-"ee witnesses in the trial. These data were then subjected to an item
analysis and those items that demonstrated low reliabilities were elimin-

ated. The resulting test consisted of 40 items.

23

21+

After the data were collected, these 40 items were divided into
ttuair respective subtests. Alpha coefficients were computed for the

iteams of each test. The alpha coefficients are reported in Table 1.

TABLE 1

Alpha Coefficients for the Information Retention
Items for Each Subtest

 

 

Alpha Level

 

Test

Plaintiff's Attorney .48
Defense Attorney .20
Defendant .42
Plaintiff .51
Security Guard .30

Given the magnitude of the alpha coefficients reported in Table l,
tile decision was made to use a general test of information retention.
4A1) item analysis was performed using all 40 items. Items which demon-
=3“titrated low reliabilities were culled.” Twenty-seven items were re-
1:ained.5 The resulting alpha coefficient for these 27 items was .76.

Perceived credibility was conceptualized as the juror's evaluation

 

<31? the perfbrmance of the participants in the trial based on the follow-

illgg three dimensions: (1) trustworthiness, (2) expertise, (3) dynamism.
The scales used in the operationalization of the construct are

identical to the ones used by Fontes (1975). The scales are a combina-

.t:i<3r1 of semantic-differential scales developed by Berlo, Lemert, and

25

Mertz (1969-1970) and McCroskey (1966). The bipolar adjectives used
for the trustworthiness dimension were: trustworthy-untrustworthy;
just-unjust; honest—dishonest; good-bad; and safe-dangerous. The bipo-
lar adjectives used for the expertise dimension were expert-ignorant;
capable-incapable; trained-untrained; knowledgeable-unknowledgeable;
and competent-incompetent. The bipolar adjectives used for the dynamism
dimension were energetic—tired; aggressive-meek; decisive-indecisive;
bold-timid; and active-passive. All of the semantic differentials were
rated on a seven-point scale. In addition, seven of the scales were
reversed in order to mitigate against the possibility of response sets.

In order to determine if the credibility scale was in fact com-
prised of these dimensions, the credibility ratings for each partici-
pant in the trial were factor analyzed using the multiple-group method
(see Nunnally, 1967). The results of this analysis indicated that the
credibility scale was comprised of the three dimensions. In addition,
an inspection of the alpha coefficients for each dimension indicated
that the items that form each dimension were internally consistent (see
Table 2).

While the factor analysis lent support to the notion that the
credibility scale was comprised of three dimensions, it also indicated
that these dimensions were highly correlated with each other (see
Table 3). In light of this finding, an alpha coefficient was computed
using all 15 scales for each of the trial participants. This was done
in order to assess the possibility that the credibility scale used in
this study might be unidimensional. The alpha coefficients are re-

ported in Table 4.

26

TABLE 2

Alpha Coefficients for the Dimensions of Credibility
for Each Trial Participant

 

 

 

Participant Trustworthiness Expertise Dynamism
Plaintiff's Attorney .89 .91 .87
Defense Attorney .90 .90 .85
Defendant .92 .84 .87
Plaintiff .90 .91 .84

Security Guard .93 .91 .87

 

27

TABLE 3

Correlations Between the Dimensions of Credibility

for Each Trial Participant

 

 

 

Participant Trustworthiness~ Expertise
Plaintiff's Attorney

Expertise .71

Dynamism .58 .80
Defense Attorney

Expertise .57

Dynamism .69 .61
Defendant

Expertise .67

Dynamism .48 .82
Plaintiff

Expertise .71

Dynamism .43 .70
Security Guard

Expertise .57

Dynamism .69 .55

 

28

TABLE 4

Alpha Coefficients for the Overall Rating
of Credibility for Each Trial Participant

 

 

 

Participant Overall Credibility
Plaintiff's Attorney .93
Defense Attorney .94
Defendant .93
Plaintiff .93
Security Guard .94

 

Given that the magnitudes of the alpha coefficients for the overall
rating of credibility were quite high, the decision was made to treat
credibility as a unidimensional construct. Thus, credibility scores
for each of the trial participants were computed by summing across all
fifteen scales.

Distraction was conceptually defined in Chapter II as the occur-

 

rence of absorbing sensory stimulation that is irrelevant to the prima-
ry message being presented. It was operationalized by utilizing a
seven-point scale. Subjects were asked to respond to the following
item:

How distracting was the editing technique that was

used to remove the testimony that was ruled inad—

missible by the judge?

Extremely Not at all
Distracting: : : : : : : :Distracting

29

This item was used for the four conditions that contained the different
editing techniques. Subjects assigned to the "No Edit" condition were
asked to respond to the following item:

How distracting were the objections that were raised
by the attorneys during the trial?

Extremely Not at all
Distracting: : : : : : : :Distracting

 

Verdict was conceptually defined as the decision reached by a juror
with regard to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. After all the
trial information had been presented, jurors were asked to indicate
their verdict in the matter. This served as the operationalization of

this construct.

PROCEDURE

Selecting the stimulus. In an effort to achieve ecological valid-

 

ity, as well as generalizability of the findings, the decision was made
to select a transcript of an actual trial rather than creating a mock
trial. The following criteria were used in its selection:

1) The trial should be no longer than an hour and thirty
minutes in length.

2) The evidence in the trial should be balanced; i.e., the
evidence should not be heavily weighted in favor of the
plaintiff or the defendant.

'0

3) The trial should contain an average number of objections
for a trial of its length; or should have the potential
of being altered such that the number of objections
would equal the average.

The rationale for these criteria are as follows. The first criter-
ion was applied for pragmatic reasons. A decision was made to present

the trial in a courtroom using actual jurors. Given the problem with

30

court dockets discussed in Chapter I, it seemed desirable to limit the
amount of time that a courtroom would have to be used for this study.

The second criterion was applied to minimize bias in the results by
increasing experimental control over extraneous variables. If the evi-
dence were heavily weighted in favor of the plaintiff or the defendant,
then this could seriously affect juror responses, perhaps overshadowing
the effects of variables of interest or interacting with them.

The third criterion was applied to increase the generalizability
of the findings. In addition, the number of objections that occur in a
trial may affect juror responses (the relationship between the number
of objections that occurs in a trial and juror responses was discussed
in Chapter II).

With the assistance of legal experts, a trial transcript was
selected. The trial involved a civil case in which the defendant was
charged with conversion of funds by a bank. The original transcript
contained two instances of inadmissible testimony. Given that the tes-
timony in the trial was approximately one hour in length, four addi-
tional instances of inadmissible evidence were needed.6 With the aid
of two attorneys and the judge who originally heard the case, the four
additional instances of inadmissible evidence were constructed and in-
serted into the trial transcript: In addition, the original objections
were rewritten in order to make them approximately one minute in length.7
The entire transcript was edited to the extent that all references to
the actual participants were deleted. The edited transcript was sub-
sequently reviewed by the judge and the two attorneys to ensure that
the evidence presented in the trial was balanced. The six instances of

inadmissible testimony are summarized in Table 5.

31

TABLE 5

Summary of the Six Instances of Inadmissible Testimony
Constructed for the Trial

 

 

l. The plaintiff's attorney summarizes a portion of evidence concern-
ing the degree to which the plaintiff knows the defendant without
sufficient testimony.

2. As a result of questioning by the plaintiff's attorney, the plain-
tiff offers hearsay evidence and states that the defendant is

dishonest.

3. The defense attorney contends that the plaintiff will lose her job
if she cannot identify someone who took the money.

4. The plaintiff's attorney objects to the defense attorney's line of
questioning and accuses him of badgering the witness.

5. The plaintiff's attorney objects to a portion of evidence being
entered as a matter of record without corroborating evidence.

6. The plaintiff's attorney asks the defendant to speculate about who
made the transaction.

Taping the Trial. Professional actors were selected to play the

 

roles of the plaintiff, defendant, witness, and the two attorneys.8
The judge who originally heard the case played the role of the judge.
The trial was re-enacted in a courtroom and taped in color using a
fixed camera shot. Copies of the tape were made. One of these copies
was electronically edited using fhe procedure described in Chapter II.9
Design. A one—by-five factorial design was employed in this study.
Four cells of the design were comprised of the editing techniques dis-
cussed in Chapter II. The fifth cell was comprised of a "no edit" con-

dition. In this condition the inadmissible evidence and the objections

were seen and heard by the jury. The judge on the tape ruled on the

32

objections. This condition was included in the design to serve as a

control condition.

Sample. The names of 200 jurors were drawn from the active jury
list in Shiawassee County, Michigan. The jurors were randomly assigned
to one of the five experimental conditions. They were summoned by the
court to report for jury duty on one of five days, 45 jurors for each
day. However, as was expected, a number of jurors requested to be ex-
cused from jury duty. All jurors requesting to be excused were excused
by the judge. The actual number of jurors used in each condition are
reported in Table 6.

All of the jurors in each condition viewed the trial at the same
time. Utilizing the following cover story, the judge explained why so
many jurors were present:

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury: As I am sure you
are aware, there has been considerable recent inter-
est in finding ways to ensure the fairest possible
trial for persons involved in legal proceedings.
Both parties involved in the case you are about to
see today, have agreed to allow the case to be

tried using a much larger jury than is usually em-
ployed and they have agreed to allow the outcome

of the case to be analyzed as part of a research
project underwritten by an agency of the Federal
Government. The purpose of this endeavor is to
allow a more representative set of viewpoints to
figure into the verdict to see what effect this lar-

ger jury size has on the total range of individual
views of the case. '

The cover story also explained the questionnaire that was administered
at the end of the trial.

The judge then went on to explain that the trial was to be pre-
sented by videotape. The judge told the jurors that the trial was taped

before a judge in Lansing, and that it was being shown in Corunna due to

a large jury-case backlog in Lansing. The judge's instructions were the

33

TABLE 6

Number of Jurors for Each Condition by Sex

 

 

 

(N = 147)
No Clean Blackout Blackout (Normal Video
Edit Edit (Fast Forward) Machine Speed) Only
Males l6 l6 l2 14 ll
Females 20 l4 17 10 17
Total 36 30 29 24 28

 

same for all five conditions with the exception that slight changes were
made to accomodate the particular editing technique being used on a
given day.

The jurors then watched the videotaped trial. Two monitors were
used to ensure that everyone could see and hear the trial. Once the
trial was underway, the judge left the courtroom and did not return un-
til the completion of the testimony. During the presentation of the
testimony the jurors were left in charge of the Court Clerk and the op-
erator of the equipment.

At the conclusion of the trial, the judge returned to instruct the
jurors regarding their decision and the law that was applicable to the
case. Immediately following the judge's final instructions, the ques-
tionnaire was administered. This procedure was followed for each condi-
tion.

After the data were collected for each condition, subjects were

paid their normal per diem, plus mileage, and fully debriefed. The

34

debriefing was conducted orally by the experimenter. In addition, a let-
ter was sent to every juror thanking them for their participation on

behalf of the research team and the judge.10

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

The present chapter discusses the results of the analysis for the
five research questions reported in Chapter II. The five questions will
be considered one at a time. For all tests, the .05 level of signifi—
cance was employed. Analysis of the data yielded the following results.
Question 1: Do jurors exposed to different editing techniques demon-

strate differences in retention of trial related informa-
tion?

 

 

The mean retention scores for jurors in the various conditions are
reported in Table 7. A one-way analysis of variance was used to test
the relationship between the different editing techniques and the amount
of information retained by the jurors. The results (Table 7) indicated
that the groups did not differ significantly in retention of trial-
related information.

Question 2: Do jurors exposed to different editing techniques demon-

strate differences in their assessment of the attorney's
credibility?

 

 

 

The relationship between the different editing techniques and jurors'
assessment of the attorneys' credibility was tested using a one-way an—
alysis of variance. The mean credibility scores for the plaintiff's
attorney and results of this analysis are reported in Table 8. The an-
alysis yielded a significant F of 4.51.

An inspection of the means indicated that the plaintiff's attorney

was perceived as being most credible in the "no edit" condition. .A

35

39

TABLE 9

Means and Analysis of Variance Summary of the Effects
of Differing Editing Techniques on the Assessment of the
Defense Attorney's Credibility

 

 

 

 

 

No Clean Blackout Blackout (Normal Video

Edit Edit (Fast Forward) Machine Speed) Only
I 82.55 75.00 78.46 75.86 75.15
H 31 25 26 21 26
Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F
between 1171.270 4 292.818 *.151
within 21177.055 124 170.783
total 22348.325 128

 

* p > .05

 

40

A one-way analysis of variance was used to test the relationship
between the different editing techniques and jurors' assessment of the
witness' credibility. The mean credibility ratings for the defendant
and the results of the nonsignificant analysis of variance are reported
in Table 10.

The mean credibility ratings for the plaintiff and the results of
the analysis are reported in Table 11. The results indicated that the
ratings of the plaintiff's credibility did not differ significantly among
treatment groups.

The mean credibility ratings for the security guard and the results
of the analysis of variance are reported in Table 12. Again, the analy-
sis yielded no significant differences.

Question 4: Do jurors exposed to different editing techniques report
differing levels of distraction?

 

A one-way analysis of variance was used to test the relationship be-
tween the different editing techniques and reported levels of distrac-
tion. Mean distraction scores for each condition are reported in Table
13. The results of the analysis of variance indicated that the mean
ratings of distraction differed significantly in the various conditions
(see Table 13).

An inspection of the means indicated that the "no edit" condition
was perceived as least distracting to the jurors. The "video only" con-

dition was perceived as being most distracting. A posteriori comparisons

 

were computed utilizing Dunnett's t-test and Newman-Keuls' procedure in
order to test for significant differences between cell means. Results
of the Dunnett t—test indicated that the "clean edit" condition was not

significantly different from the "no edit" condition. The remaining

37

TABLE 8

Means and Analysis of Variance Summary of the Effects of

Differing Editing Techniques on the Assessment of
the Plaintiff's Attorney's Credibility

 

 

 

 

 

No Clean Blackout Blackout (Normal Video
Edit Edit (Fast Forward) Machine Speed) Only
X 85.35a 75.04b 78.18b 71.14b 72.92b
n 29 23 28 21 24
Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F
between 3266.332 4 816.583 *4.510
within 21728.020 120 181.067
total 24994.352 124

 

NOTE: Means with different subscripts are significantly different from

each other.

* p < .002

 

posteriori comparisons of cell means were computed utilizing two proce-

 

dures: (l) Dunnett's t—testll, and (2) Newman-Keuls' test for signifi-
cance.

Dunnett's t-test is appropriate for designs which contain a control
group (Winer, 1971). In this experiment, the "no edit" condition closely
approximates what would occur in a live trial. It is the only condition
that keeps the trial—related information intact. The other four condi-
tions are all deviations from the "no edit” condition. Therefore, the
decision was made to use the "no edit" condition as a baseline from
which all other comparisons would be made.

Still, while Dunnett's t-test is appropriate for comparing experi—
mental conditions with a control condition, it is not appropriate for
comparing the experimental conditions with each other. Thus, the Newman-
Keuls procedure was utilized to yield information about the relationship
between the experimental conditions.

The results of Dunnett's t-test indicated that each of the experi-
mental conditions differs significantly from the "no edit" condition.
That is, a significant decrease in credibility was found. Results of
the Newman-Keuls test indicated that the experimental conditions do not
differ significantly from each other.

The mean credibility ratings for the defense attorney are reported
in Table 9. The analysis of variance yielded no significant differences
among the ratings of defense attorney credibility reported by the various
groups.

Question 3: Do jurors exposed to different editing techniques demon-

strate differences in their assessment of the witnesses'
credibility?

 

 

 

as

three editing techniques were significantly different from the "no edit"
Condition. Each of these conditions was perceived as being significantly
more distracting than the "no edit” condition. ,
Results of the Newman-Keuls test indicated that the ”blackout (fast
forward)" condition did not significantly differ from the "clean edit"
condition in the amount of distraction reported. However, the "blackout
(normal machine speed)" and the ”video only" conditions were perceived as
being significantly more distracting than the ”clean edit" condition.
The "blackout (normal machine speed)" condition did not differ signifi-
cantly from the "blackout (fast forward)" condition. Still, the "video
only" condition was perceived as being significantly more distracting
than the "blackout (fast forward)" condition. Finally, no significant
differences were found between the "blackout (normal machine speed)"
condition and the "video only" condition.

Question 5: Do jurors exposed to different editing techniques report
different verdicts?

 

The verdicts reported by the jurors for each condition are shown in
Table 14. A chi-square test was utilized to assess the relationship be-
tween the different editing techniques and the verdicts reported by the
jurors. The results indicated that the relationship between these vari-
ables was not significant (x2 = 4.653, df = 4, p < .05).

Table 15 summarizes the findings for the following variables:

(1) information retention, (2) credibility, and (3) distraction.

In view of the findings discussed in this chapter, the researcher
became interested in three additional questions. First, given that the
editing techniques had a significant effect on the amount of distraction

reported by the jurors, how might distraction be related to the

46

TABLE 14

Frequencies of Verdict for Each Condition

 

 

 

No Clean Blackout Blackout (Normal Video

Edit Edit (Fast Forward) Machine Speed) Only

Guilty 10 9 7 7 l4
Innocent 23 l6 19 16 13

 

credibility ratings of the trial participants? Second, what is the rela-
tionship between distraction and verdict? Third, what is the relation-
ship between distraction and information retention?

In order to assess the relationship between distraction and credi-
bility; distraction and verdict, and distraction and information reten-
tion; Pearson Product—Moment correlations were computed. The results of
this analysis are shown in Table 16.

The results indicate that distraction is significantly related to
the credibility ratings of both attorneys, the plaintiff, and the secur-
ity guard, such that as distraction increases, credibility decreases.
Distraction was not significantly related to the defendant's credibility.
However, the negative correlation reflects the same trend found between
distraction and the credibility ratings of the other trial participants.

Finally, the following relationships were examined: (1) credibility
and verdict, and (2) information retention and verdict. Pearson Product-
Moment correlations were computed in order to assess these relationships.

The results of this analysis are reported in Table 17. A negative

correlation with verdict indicates findings in the direction of the

47

.mpcmwcoamon mo gonads may opmowwcw wommnvconmm cw whoaesc may "meoz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

doc. and smo.oa Asmc om.m Ammc Hm.: Ammo ma.m Asmc mm.m Aamv mm.m cofipomppmaa
mam. mmH mH.H Ammc am.os Aamc mm.Hs Ammo om.as flame om.so Ammo Hm.ms agape spfipaomm
amo. smH moa.m Ammo a5.os xomc om.os Ammo oo.as Ammo ma.ms Ammo :m.ms coaucfimaa
use. HNH moa.m Aamc om.sa Ammo sm.mm Aamv ma.ma Ammc oa.ma same ss.os pamacmcmo
Hma. :NH Has. Ammo ma.ms AHNV om.ms Ammo a:.ms Ammo oo.ms flame mm.mm smanopp< mmammmo
moo. oma oam.a Aamc mm.ms AHNV 1H.Hs Ammo ma.as Ammc so.ms Aamc mm.mm smcLOpp< m.mmapcamaa
"spaaanaamno
was. mad mam. Ammv mm.ma Azmv sa.ma Ammv oa.ma Aamv :m.>a Ammv mb.m¢ cowucopwm cowwmenomcH
Acooam season: Augmznom wwmmv
a we a sage omaa> amenozc uaoxomam uaoxomam ufiam ammao beam oz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cospomapwHa ace susHNAaamno
.COMpcopom coHuMELomcH 90m osam> m .Eowoopm mo mooswoa

ma mam<h

.mosam> m .mcmmz mo

mumeasm

48

TABLE 16

Pearson Product—Moment Correlations for the Variables
of Credibility, Verdict, Information Retention, and Distraction

 

 

 

Variable Distraction n
Credibility:
Plaintiff's Attorney —.2245** 121
Defense Attorney -.2ulu** 125
Defendant -.ll6u l22
Plaintiff —.2596** 127
Security Guard -.l798* 126
Verdict -.OO92 128
Information Retention -.0978 139

 

 

99

TABLE 17

Pearson Product-Moment Correlations for the Variables of

Credibility, Information Retention, and Verdict

 

 

Variable

 

Verdict n

Credibility:
Plaintiff's Attorney —.0815 117
Defense Attorney .0991 121
Defendant .2870** 118
Plaintiff —.389H*** 12”
Security Guard -.2l26* 122
Information Retention .0978 134

 

 

50

plaintiff. A positive correlation indicates finding in favor of the de-
fendant.

The results indicate that verdict is significantly related to the
credibility of the three witnesses. That is, as the credibility of the
plaintiff increases, the likelihood of a verdict in favor of the plain-
tiff increases. Similarly, as the credibility of the security guard (the
plaintiff's witness) increases, the likelihood of finding for the plain—
tiff increases. As the credibility of the defendant increases, the
likelihood of finding for the defendant increases. No other relation-
ships were significant. Thus, the results indicate that verdict is not
significantly related to information retention, nor to the credibility

of the attorneys.

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

The present study examined the effects that differing editing tech-
niques have on information retention, credibility, distraction, and ver-
dict. The results indicate that among these variables, two significant
relationships exist.

The first relationship indicates that the different editing tech-
niques significantly affect the credibility of the plaintiff's attorney.
Comparisons of the cell means show that the four editing techniques are
significantly different from the "no edit" condition, but not signifi-
cantly different from each other. In addition, the relationship is such
that the plaintiff's attorney's credibility decreases in the edited con-
ditions. This suggests that the mere fact of editing decreases credibil-
ity, at least for the plaintiff's attorney.

One possible explanation of this finding concerns the expectations
of the jurors. The only difference between the edited conditions and the
"no edit" condition is that the objections and subsequent arguments be-
tween the two attorneys are deleted in the edited conditions. Perhaps
jurors expect to hear objections made by attorneys. Jurors may evaluate
the attorneys on a number of different dimensions that surround these ob—
jections. For example, a juror may perceive an attorney who raises ob-
jections throughout a trial as being very competent. They may view this
behavior as being indicative of knowing the law, which may enhance the

perceived expertise of the attorney. Of course, there would probably

51

52

exist some point where an attorney may object too many times, which would
result in a decreased evaluation of credibility. A recent study lends
some support to the contention that an attorney's credibility can be
affected by the number of objections raised (see Fontes, 1975).

Another relevant factor might be how the attorney handles him/her-
self during the course of the argument; i.e., how well does the attorney
argue? Still another factor might be the issues that an attorney objects
to in a trial. Possibly an attorney who objects to trivial issues would
be perceived less credible than an attorney who objects to important
issues. Thus, even though jurors are instructed to disregard objections
and arguments between attorneys, they may in fact use this information to
aid them in their assessment of the attorney's credibility. Unfortunate—
ly, there are no data available in this study to indicate if the jurors
used the information surrounding the objections in their assessment of
the attorneys' credibility. However, if it can be assumed that jurors
do use this information in their assessment of the attorneys' credibili-
ty, then this could account for the differences in the credibility ratings
for the plaintiff's attorney.

While this argument may explain the plaintiff's attorney's differ-
ence in credibility ratings, it does not explain the lack of significant
differences for the defense attorney's credibility ratings. Examining
the means for the defense attorney's credibility, it is apparent that
they follow the same pattern as the credibility ratings of the plaintiff's
attorney; i.e., the defense attorney's credibility ratings were lower in
the edited conditions when compared to the "no edit" condition. An in-
spection of the error variances for the credibility ratings of the two

attorneys indicated that they were comparable (181.067 for the plaintiff's

53

attorney and 170.783 for the defense attorney). Still, the between group
differences for the defense attorney were not robust enough to yield sig—
nificant differences.

The second significant relationship found was between the editing
techniques and the amount of distraction reported by the jurors. There
appears to be a definite order in the amount of distraction caused by
each of the editing techniques. Arranged in order from "least distract-
ing" to "most distracting,” the editing techniques are as follows:

(1) "no edit," (2) "clean edit,” (3) "blackout (fast forward),"

(H) "blackout (normal machine speed)," and (5) "video only." Still, not
all of these techniques were significantly different from each other
with regard to distraction. The "clean edit" condition was not signifi-
cantly different from the "no edit" condition, while the remaining edit—
ing conditions were significantly different from both the "clean edit"
and "no edit” conditions. The "blackout (fast forward)" condition was
not significantly different from the "clean edit" condition, but was sig—
nificantly different from the remaining conditions. The "blackout (nor-
mal machine speed)" condition was not significantly different from the
"blackout (fast forward)” nor the "video only" conditions, but was signi-
ficantly different from the remaining conditions. Finally, the ”video
only" condition was not significantly different from the "blackout (nor-
mal machine speed)" condition, but was significantly different from the
remaining conditions.

One factor that could serve to explain this pattern of relationships
is the amount of time necessary to execute the edits. The "clean edit"
lasts for only a split-second. The "blackout (fast forward)" edit lasts

an average of 17.33 seconds. The "blackout (normal machine speed)" edit

5‘4

and the "video only" edit both last an average of 7u.5 seconds.l2 Clear-
ly, an edit that lasts for a split—second comes closer to approximating
the "no edit" condition than any other condition. An edit which lasts
approximately 17 seconds is not significantly different from an edit
which lasts for a split—second. Also, an edit which lasts for approxim-
ately 17 seconds is not significantly different from an edit that lasts
for approximately 79.5 seconds. However, this last comparison is not en-
tirely accurate. As noted above, both the "blackout (normal machine
speed)" edit and the "video only” edit last an average of 79.5 seconds.
Yet, the "blackout (fast forward)" edit differs significantly from the
"video only" edit and not the "blackout (normal machine speed)" edit.
This may be due to the fact that the two blackout edits are identical
except for the amount of time necessary to execute the edit. On the
other hand, the "video only" edit is different from the "blackout (fast
forward)" edit in the amount of information deleted as well as the

amount of time necessary to execute the edit.

Perhaps differences in the amount of information deleted coupled
with differences in time are necessary to produce a significant differ—
ence when the edits range from 17 seconds to 7” seconds. This would
account for the difference found between the "blackout (fast forward)"
edit and the "video only" edit. In addition, it would explain the lack
of significant differences between the "blackout (normal machine speed)"
edit and the "video only" edit. These last two edits differ in the
amount of information deleted, but do not differ in amount of time nece-
ssary to execute the edits; thus they are not significantly different.
In sum, it would appear that there exists some critical level of time

difference, such that if two editing techniques exceed that limit, then

55

that difference will be sufficient to produce significant differences in
the amount of distraction. If the limit is not exceeded, then signifi-
cant differences will not occur, unless there is a discrepancy in the
amount of information deleted. Precisely what difference in time consti—
tutes a critical level is not known.

Having discussed the observed significant relationships, attention
will now be given to the relationships where no significant differences
were found.

The different editing techniques did not significantly affect the
amount of trial—related information retained by the jurors. One possible
explanation for the lack of significant differences concerns the relia-
bility of the retention items. The items were pretested using college
undergraduates. However, when administered to a sample of jurors the re-
liability of the items dropped (see Chapter III). Consequently, more
items were dropped from the test to increase the reliability. The resul-
tant reliability was .76, which is reasonably high. Still, the test may
be capable of making gross discriminations between jurors, but not power-
ful enough to make precise discriminations.

The relationship between the editing techniques and the credibility
of the defense attorney was not significant. Further, the editing tech-
niques were not significantly related to the credibility ratings of the
three witnesses. An inspection of the means indicates one general trend:
the credibility ratings for all trial participants are lower in the edit-
ed conditions.

One possible explanation for this trend is that the edits may dis-
tort the information in the trial. Still, the exact nature of this dis-

tortion is not known. Another possible explanation is that jurors become

56

curious and/or upset over the deleted information and try to guess what
occurred during the edits. The jurors' speculation of what may have tran-
spired could have an effect on the trial participants' credibility.

One variable found to be significantly related to the credibility
of the trial participants is distraction. Significant negative relation-
ships were observed between distraction and the plaintiff's credibility,
the security guard's credibility, and both attorneys' credibility. The
relationship between distraction and the defendant's credibility was
negative, but not significant. Given past research on credibility and
persuasion as well as distraction and persuasion, this finding is some-
what perplexing. Generally, distraction has been found to increase the
persuasibility of a message.13 Similarly, high credible sources are
more persuasive than low credible soruces. Thus, it would seem reason-
able to assume that distraction and credibility would be positively re-
lated.

One possible explanation for observing a counter—intuitive relation-
ship between distraction and credibility rests in the characteristics of
the setting of this study and the sample employed. In most of the diSv
traction research, the sample used consisted of college undergraduates.
Further, the subjects in these studies were usually presented a message
from one source and changes in attitude toward the topic and/or the
source were measured. However, the present study is quite different.

The subjects used in this study were adults who were being asked to eval-
uate messages from more than one source and then reach a decision that
would have important consequences for people other than themselves; i.e.,
the litigants of the trial. In short, the demands of a trial are very

different than those of a classroom setting where subjects are asked to

57

listen to one persuasive message. Possibly the findings found in past
research on distraction are not applicable to the present study, due to
the differences that were just discussed. However, more research is
needed in order to determine whether or not the findings from the dis-
traction research are generalizable to situations similar to the one em-
ployed in this study.

No significant differences were found for verdict among the various
conditions. However, the credibility ratings for the three witnesses
were significantly correlated with verdict. The direction of the correl—
ations is not surprising. The credibility of the plaintiff and the cred-
ibility of the security guard were positively related with a verdict in
favor of the plaintiff. The credibility of the defendant was positively

related with a verdict in favor of the defendant.

Implications

 

The findings reported in this thesis have definite implications for
the legal community. First, the editing of inadmissible testimony
appears to result in a decrease in perceived credibility of the trial
participants. The problem is finding out why this effect occurs. If it
occurs because editing of testimony violates the expectations of the
jurors with regard to what is supposed to happen in a trial, then a solu-
tion would be to restructure the expectations of jurors. Still, research
needs to be conducted to determine what expectations jurors have with re-
gard to trial proceedings.

The second major implication concerns the amount of distraction
associated with each editing technique. Given the negative relationship

between distraction and credibility, it seems obvious that the best

58

technique to use would be the editing technique that has the least amount
of distraction associated with it. Based on the results of this study,
the "clean edit" technique would be advised. However, if the objections
were short enough, another edit may suffice. This possibility awaits

further research aimed at establishing time levels more precisely.

Limitations

 

Several limitations are associated with the present study. Two mea—
sures used in this study are bothersome. The scale used to measure in-
formation retention may not have been able to make precise discrimina-
tions. As indicated earlier, the alpha coefficient for this scale was
.76, which is reasonably high. However, a more reliable measure would
have been desirable. The measure of distraction is somewhat bothersome
because it consists of only one item. Originally, two other items were
included; however, the alpha coefficient for the three items was .35.
Thus, the decision was made to use a single item measure of distraction
(see Chapter III). The measure used has face validity, but no reliabil-
ity coefficient can be computed for it. Since any unreliability would
probably reduce the likelihood of significant differences, it is possible
that the actual differences between the editing techniques are even
greater than those reported in this study.

Additional problems center on’the stimulus tape. In the interest of
experimental control, certain trade-offs had to be made. Thus, the stim—
ulus tape deviated from the typical PRVTT in three important ways. First,
the trial was taped in a courtroom, while PRVTTs are usually taped in
studios. Second, a judge appeared on the tape and made rulings on objec—

tions as he/she would during a live trial. In PRVTTs, the judge would

59

not appear on the tape. Finally, a fixed shot was used in the stimulus
trial, making the participants difficult to see very clearly. PRVTTs

usually use close-up shots.

Recommendations

 

Based on the present findings, as well as the experience gained by
the researcher while executing the various editing techniques, the follow-
ing recommendations are offered. Of the four editing techniques exam-
ined, the best technique to use would be the "clean edit." This is pri-
marily due to the fact that the "clean edit" was not significantly more
distracting than the "no edit" condition, while the other techniques
were significantly more distracting. Still, the time and costs of execu-
ting the "clean edit" are substantially higher than the other three tech-
niques. However, if the costs of performing the "clean edit" are prohibi-
tive, then another technique could be used under certain conditions. If
the material to be edited is less than 17 seconds, then the "blackout
(normal machine speed)" technique would be satisfactory. The "blackout
(fast forward)" technique is not recommended due to the difficulty in—
volved in executing the edit. The operator must pay close attention to
the trial, as well as the speed of the machine while advancing the tape.
The probability of making an error is greatly increased. For example,
the operator may advance the tape too far, or not far enough, which would
increase the time necessary to execute the edit. This may increase the
amount of distraction attributed to the edit, which in turn may affect
the perceived credibility of the participants in the trial. The "video
only" technique is not recommended under any circumstances. This edit

was perceived as being the most distracting edit. Further, it does not

60

eliminate all of the information that transpires during the inadmissible
testimony. For these reasons, the "video only" technique is considered
to be inferior to the other three techniques.

In conclusion, the researcher considers the ”clean edit" technique
to be superior to the other editing techniques. Any replication and/or
extension of this study should focus on several factors. In addition to
adding support to the findings reported in this thesis, there exists the
need to determine the critical time values that separate the effects of
one editing technique from another. In addition, this study suggests
the need to examine what specific factors a juror uses to assess the
credibility of the trial participants.

Hopefully, the results reported in this study will aid the legal
community in assessing the impact of the use of videotape in the legal

environment.

FOOTNOTES

1 The descriptions of the techniques were obtained through per-

sonal conversation with Judge McCrystal, and Mr. Larry Stone of Video-
Record. Video-Record is a videotaping company in Columbus, Ohio. They
have videotaped many complete trials and depositions, some of which
appeared in Judge McCrystal's court.

Personal conversation with Mr. Larry Stone.

The term "frame" is really a misnomer. Videotape does not
actually have frames in the same sense that film has frames. What the
word frame here refers to is the smallest unit that a videotape can be
broken into, which is similar to a frame in film, although physically
very different.

Items that had an item—total correlation that was less than
.10 were eliminated.

Items that have an asterisk by the number were the items re-
tained. See Appendix A.

6 See Chapter II, page 12.

The same legal experts that estimated the number of objections,
also estimated the average length of the objection. One minute consti—
tutes the average length.

The actors were selected from areas that were very distant from
the area that the sample was to come from. This was to ensure that the

jurors would not recognize an actor and thus realize the trial was a re-
enactment.

The other three edits were conducted during the presentation of
the trial.

10 As part of the research not reported in this study, confeder-

ates were used to examine group deliberation behavior. They were also
instructed to note any suspicion concerning the validity of the trial.

Two people were suspicious and were subsequently dropped from the analy-
sis.

1 In light of the fact that the groups had different sample
sizes, a harmonic mean n was computed (see Winer, 1971).

61

62

12 The objections were written such that they should have lasted

for 60 seconds. However, due to the actors' variation in speech rate,

some objections were longer than 60 seconds. The range was from 58
seconds to 93 seconds.

13 There have been studies conducted which have failed to support

the distraction hypothesis (see Chapter II).

 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Questionnaire on Jury Size

 

As you know, in addition to serving as a juror in this trial today, you

are participating in research on jury size. We would now like you to

help us complete this rOSearch. This booklet contains a series of ques-
tions that we would like you to answer. In addition to finding out your
verdict we would like to find out (1) your evaluations of the two attorneys,
(2) your feelings about the trial and your participation as a juror, and

(3) your understanding of the issues involved.

YOU? dSSiStElIlCC is (‘XII‘CMCl‘ important to US Tiild we SIDCCPQ]. d 'J'DI'eCIate
l 1 1

your cooperation. Thank you very much for your help.

Department of Communication
Michigan State University
East Lansing. Michigan

63

 

64

Before you begin the questionnaire, we would like to know what your verdict
is in this case. Your verdict at this time is not binding upon the litiganta'
and you are free to alter your verdict during the deliberation proceedings.

1. I find the defendant:

guilty

innocent
2. How confident are you of this verdict?

very confident
somewhat confident

not too confident

not very confident at all

 

65

We would like to get some idea of your evaluation of the physical attractive-
ness of the trial participants. Use the five scales on this page for these
evaluations. Here is how to use the scales:

Example:
In comparison to people in general, Ms. Jones was:

physically attractive:_fl_; : : : : : :physically unattractive
l 2 3 H 5 6 7

If you felt Ms. Jones was extremely attractive, you would place a check in
space #1; if quite attractive (but not extremely so), in #2; if slightly
attractive, in #3; if average, in #9; if slightly unattractive, in #5; if
quite unattractive, in #6; if extremely unattractive, in #7.

The "n" or neutral space on the scale may also be used for "I don't know,"
or "I don't think this scale applies,” answers.

Please note that the attractive ratings are not all on the same side. Put
your check within the Spaces (: X :), not on the lines separating spaces.
Please place one mark on each of the seven scales.

3. In comparison to people in general, the plaintiff's witness, Ms. Jones, was:

very physically very physically
attractive: : : : : : : :unattractive

_—_c-—_.-_‘—————-—u

a. In comparison to people in general, the Security Guard, Mr. Armstrong, was:

very physically very physically
attractiver__ : : : : : : :unattractive

S. In comparison to people in general, the defendant, Mr. Miller, was:

very physically ‘ very physically
unattractive: : : : : : : :attractive

6. In comparison to people in general, the plaintiff's attorney, Mr. Harvey,
was: a

very physically very physically
unattractive: : : : : : : :attractive

Ave.

7. In comparison to people in general, the defendant's attorney, Mr. Wells, was:

very physically very physically
attractive: : :“_“3_““: : : :unattractive

[A V0 0

'- "M

 

66

THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS CONCERN EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED IN THIS TRIAL.
PLEASE READ EACH QUESTION CAREFULLY AND CHECK THE SPACE OPPOSITE THE CORRECT
ANSWER. WRITE THE ANSWERS TO THE ”FILL-IN-THE-DLANK" QUESTIONS IN THE SPACE
PROVIDED.

8.

*10.

ll.

12.

In civil suits, when one party makes good the loss of another, and then
assumes the rights of that other party, that's called:

(a) conversion

(b) subrogation

lll

(c) substitution

(d) reciprocity

 

How often did Charles Griffin make transactions with Ms. Jones?

(a) twice a week .
(b) once a week J;

(c) rarely

 

(d) never

 

What is Ms. Jones' present position at the bank?

(a) teller
(b) bookkeeper

(c) loan adjuster

H!

(d) executive secretary

 

According to Mr. Armstrong, why weren't the cameras functioning properly?

(a) they were brand new
(b) they were borrowed from another bank

(c) that make and model always has problems

I l

(d) none of the above

 

How long has Mr. Miller been employed by the Griffin 8 Son Funeral Home?

(a) ten years (
_ (b) seven years
(c) five years

(d) three years

9

“13.

='= 1n.

9‘ 15.

16.

17.

67

What is the one factual dispute in this case, according to Mr. Harvey?

(a) determining why John Miller's name was not on the tape
, (b) determining whether or not John Miller took the money

(c) determining whether or not John Miller was allowed to
make split-deposits

(d) none of the above

 

In civil suits, when one party takes something that belongs to someone }
else and uses it for their own purposes, that's known as:

(a) conversion

(b) subrogation

III

(C) substitution

(d) larceny 2‘ j
Which one of the following persons listed below were not authorized to 5—4

make deposits for the Griffin 8 Sons Funeral Home?

 

 

(a) Charles Griffin
(b) John Miller

(0) Edward Keefer
(d) Gerry Kohn

 

What reason did Ms. Jones give for allowing a "cash out" in this particular
transaction?

(a) it was normal procedure

(b) the Griffin family told her it was okay

(c) the bank manager gave his approval

(d) none of the above

 

According to Ms. Jones, what was unusual about the check that was brought
in to be deposited?

(a) the check was made out to "cash"

(b) the check was notico-signed

(c) the check was not endorsed

(d) the check was cancelled

*18.

*19.

*20.

21.

22.

23.

68

The opening statements that were made by Mr. Harvey and Mr. Wells are
considered to be:

(a) the facts of the case

(b) evidence

(c) their opinions
(d) all of the above

 

According to Mr. Armstrong, how long are the films kept on file at the
bank?

(a) one month

(b) one year

(c) until they are needed

(d) the films aren't kept unless there is an unusual
transaction on them

How many times did Mr. Miller make withdrawals for the funeral home?

(a) once a week

(b) once a month

(c) rarely

(d) never

 

According to Mr. Miller, who usually used the endorsement stamp at the
Griffin and Son Funeral Home?

(a) Charles Griffin
(b) Lawrence Griffin

(c) the entire staff

I l

(d) both Charles Griffin and Lawrence Griffin

 

According to Mr. Harvey, the most important consideration for you to have
when determining who told the truth in this case is:

(a) the credibility of.the witnesses

(b) the inconsistencies in the testimony

(c) the motives of the witnesses

illl

(d) none of the above
According to Mr. Wells, what makes Mr. Miller's tescjmony so credible?

(a) he knows Ms. Jones so well
(b) he is a trusted employee

(c) he had no alibi

ill

(d) none of the above

 

='= 2n.

='= 25.

26.

3': 28.

69

In Mr. Harvey's opening statement, a number of contentions were made
which neither party disputed. Which of the following is not one of

the undisputed

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

 

contentions?
John Miller was the employee and agent for the
Griffin 8 Sons Funeral Home

John Miller made deposits and withdrawals from time
to time for the Home

on July 10th, 1975, a deposit was made for the Home
in amount of $1926.37

all of the above contentions are undisputed

How many people, other than the Griffin family, did Ms. Jones deal with
who represented the funeral home?

- (a)
(b)
(c)

(d)

 

Who had access

______(a)
______(b)
_____.(c)
__.___(d)

one
two
three

four
to the endorsement stamp used by the funeral home?

only the Griffin family
the Griffin family, John Miller, and Edward Keefer
only the full-time employees

the entire Staff

According to Mr. Miller, why did Ms. Jones say he made the transaction?

(a)
(b)
(c)
_____(d)

H!

they had a fight and she was getting even
Ms. Jones did not like him
he did not know

none of the above

Which of the following is not a plausible explanation of what happened
to the money, according to Mr. Wells?

______(a)
___~__(b)
______(c)
__ (a)

Ms. Jones made aamistake
Ms. Jones is dishonest
Lawrence Griffin took the money

all are plausible explanations offered by Mr. Wells

 

 

32.

33.

9:31}.

70

According to Ms. Jones, two individuals from the funeral home usually
handled the bank transactions. They were:

(a) Charles Griffin and Lawrence Griffin

(b) Charles Griffin and John Miller

(e) Edward Keefer and Charles Griffin

(d) Edward Keefer and John Miller

 

Mr. Miller had authorization from the funeral home to:

(a) make deposits
(b) make deposits and withdrawals
(c) make split-deposits

(d) none of the above

 

How long had Ms. Jones handled deposits made by John Miller?

(a) three years

(b) one year

III

(e) six months

(d) six and oneuhalf years

 

Whose name did Ms. Jones write on her tape?

,_ (a) Edward Keefer
_____.(b) Charles Griffin
._____ (c) John Miller

(d) Gerry Kohn

 

What was the name of the insurance company that issued the check to
Mr. Griffin?

(a) Metropolitan Life

(b) Mutual of New York

(c) Mutual of Omaha

(d) New York Life .

HI

 

What does Mr. Wells consider to he incredihle about Ms. Jones' testimony:
(a) she wrote the name of a person on her tape who did not
wake the transaction

(b) she claims to never had made an error when handling
money at the bank

(c) she recalls one triusaction so clearly after handling
some 60,000 transactions a year

(d) all of the above

 

 

*35.

*36.

='= 37.

z': 38 O

“39.

71

According to Mr. Miller, who is his immediate supervisor at the funeral
home?

______(a) Lawrence Griffin

_____ (b) Charles Griffin
(c) Irene Griffin
(d) Edward Keefer

According to Mr. Armstrong, why weren't there any pictures of the
transaction in question?

(a) the cameras weren't turned on

_-

(b) the cameras weren't exposing the film correctly

————n_

(c) the cameras weren't aimed correctly

—.——-——

(d) the cameras weren't installed yet

Ms. Jones testified that she only dealt with certain members from the
funeral home. According to her testimony, which of the following persons
could have presented the check in question?

(a) Charles Griffin, Edward Keefer, and John Miller

(b) Lawrence Griffin, Irene Griffin, Charles Griffin,
Edward Keefer, and John Miller

(0) Charles Griffin, Edward Keefer, John Miller and Gerry
Kohn

(d) Edward Keefer and John Miller

 

What important piece of information appears on the deposit slip that
identifies the person who made the deposit-and the subsequent withdrawal
at the bank?
__ (a) the name of the depositor
_. (b) the name of the person who owns the account

(c) the teller's mark that identifies the depositor

(d) none of the above
According to Mr. Hell's opening statement, what could you as jurors
expect to derive from Mr. Millef's testimony?

(a) that he did not make the tran31ction

(b) that he had an alibi for his whereabouts on July 10, 1975

(c) that he would say that he was an employee of the Griffin
Son Funeral Home, but that he is not now

(d) both (a) and (0) above

 

J

2': no.

u
'0‘

“l.

='= nu .

H5.

72

How often did John Miller come in and make deposits that Ms. Jones
handled?

(a) once a month

(b) twice a month

HI

(c) once a week

(d) every other day

 

According to Mr. Miller's testimony, he dealt with Ms. Jones at the bank

(a) quite often
(b) almost exclusively

(c) seldom

(d) never

 

What was Mr. Miller doing on July 10, 1975?

(a) he was driving for the home that day

(b) he was at the county offices most of the day
(c) he was working on a part-time basis at the time
(d) all of the above

Ill

How soon after the date of the transaction was Mr. Miller confronted
with information concerning the check?

(a) one month

(b) two months

(c) three months

(d) four months

 

If a teller were to misbalance his/her account by $1200.00, what action
would be taken by the bank?

(a) the teller would have to pay back the money

(b) the teller would be fired

(0) the teller's job would be jeepardizcd

(d) nothing would happen
What happened to Mr. Miller shortly after the bank realized the error
it had made?

(a) he was arrested and released on bond

(b) he was instructed by the court to stay in town

(c) he was layed off, pending the outcome of the trial

(d) nothing happened to Mr. Miller

 

 

 

73

“6. When discussing the bank transaction with her supervisor, who did Ms. Jones
initially say made this transaction?

(a) Charles Griffin
(b) Lawrence Griffin
(c) John Miller

(d) none of the above

 

-u7. How long was Ms. Jones a teller at the bank where the transaction in
question took place?

(a) five years

(b) five and one-half years

 

(c) six and one—half years

(d) seven Years

 

Now we would like to get some idea of your evaluations of trial participants.
Please complete the following scales for each participant. Here is how to
use these scales:

Participant A

Example: bad: : : : : : : :good

m_mmwfin_

If you felt that Participant A was in general extremely bad, you would place
a check mark in space #1; if quite bad (but not extremely bad), in #2; if
slightly bad, in #3; if neither good nor had, in #U; if slightly good, in
#5; if quite good, in #6; and if extremely good, in #7.

The "M" or neutral space on the scale may also be used for "I don't know," or
"I don't think this scale applies,” answers.

Please note that the "good" or "favorable" words are not all on the same side.
Put your check within the spaces (: X z), not on the lines separating scales.

Please place one mark on each of the scales.

1+8.
1+9.
50.
51.
52.
53.
su.
ss.
56.
57.

58.

S9.’

60.

61.

62.

7a

Prosecution Attorney, Mr. Harvey

trustworthy: : : : : : : :untrustworthy
just: : : : : : : :unjust

dishonestf : : : : : : :honest

*uflwwuwfl

bad :__: -___: _: _: _____: _____: _: good
safe :_____: _: _____: _: _: _: _: dangerous
expert:“__}_M_}___}___j__m}___}___}ignorant
incapable :____: _.....‘ _: _____: _____: _: _: capable
trained:___jT___n___r___r___:___;___}untrained
unknowledgeable:___}___;___}___3___3___3___}knowledgeable
incompetent:___}___}___5___}___5___3___3competent
energetic:___r___r___n__j___}___;___}tired
meek :__: _: _: _: _: _: ____: aggressive
indecisive:_fi_}___3*__j___}___}___;___3decisive
bold:___} ______ z__;___ timid

passive: : : : : : : :active

*———-—_——-—_’

I _"‘L

 

63.
6Q.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
7Q.
75.
76.

77.

trustworthy:
just:
dishonest:
good:
dangerous:
expert:
incapable:
untrained:
knowledgeable:
competent:
energetic :
meek:

indecisive:

passive:

75

Defense Attorney, Mr. Wells

:untrustworthy

:unjust

:honest

:bad

*fl_—___*

_*_———_~

n—~_——-—.m-—~

:safe

:ignorant
:capable
:trained
:unknowledgeable
:incompetent
:tired
:aggressive
:decisive

:timid

:active

 

78.

79.

80.

8]..

82.

83.

81+.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

76

Defendant, Mr. Miller

trustworthy:___;___}___}___}___5___3___5untrustworthy
just :___:___:___:____:____:___: _: unjust
dishonest:_____:____:___: ______:____:_fl: _: honest
good :____: _: _: _: ___: _: _____: bad
dangerous :_____: ____: ____.: _: _: _: _: safe
expert :_____: _: _: _: _: _: _: ignorant
incapable :____: ____:____: _: _: _: _: capable
untrained : _: _: ____: _: ____: _: _: trained
knowledgeable : _: _: _: ____:____: _: _: unknowledgeable
competent :_____: ____:___: _: -____:____:____: incompetent
energetic :____: _: ______: _: _: __:__: t ired
meek :___: ____: _: __‘_: ____:____:_____: aggressive
indecisive z“: ______:__: ____:____.: ____: _____: decisive

bold: : : : : : : :timid

“*mcflw_“

passive: : : : : : : ' :active

—~-—_———_———_

' i“m;..

 

93.

9“.

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

100.

101.

102.

103.

109.

105.

106.

107.

trustworthy:
just:

dishonest:

dangerous:
expert:
incapable:
untrained:
knowledgeable:
competent:

energetic:

77

Plaintiff, Ms. Jones

C O O D
O O O 0
~ _ — o—vh

:untrustworthy
:unjust
:honest

:bad

:safe

:ignorant

:capable

:trained

*—_-_——__

:unknowledgeable
:incompetent
:tired
:aggressive
:decisive

:timid

:active

 

108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
11%.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.

122.

78

Witness, Mr. Armstrong

trustworthy:___r___r___r___s__5___3___}untrustworthy
just ‘___‘__‘.__‘__.‘___‘___.‘...._: unjust
dishonest: _______ :honest
good : _: _: _: _: ___: ___:____: bad
dangerous : _: _: _: _____: _: _____: _: safe
expert : ____: _: ____:____: _: ___: _.....: ignorant
incapable : ______: _: _: _: ___:____: _: capable
untrained : _: _: _: _: _: _____: _: trained
knowledgeable:___}___}___}___5___5___;___}unknowledgeable
competent : _____:____:_____:____: _: _: _: incompetent
energet ic : _: _: _: _: _: _: _: t ired
meek:___}___3___;_._3___5___5___3aggressive
indecisive :_____: __:_____: _: _: ___:___: deCisive
bold: : : : : : : :timid

passive: : : : : : : :active

 

 

79

Please read each of the following statements and indicate the extent to
which you agree or disagree with each statement. Please note that the
response categories sometimes begin with "strongly agree" and at other
times begin with "strongly disagree".

123. Most people just don't know what's good for them.

strongly agree

_ agree

 

undecided

disagree

in .. I arr.“

strongly disagree

 

12“. Man on his own is a helpless and miserable creature.

strongly disagree

 

disagree (Laif
undecided

agree

strongly agree

 

125. My blood boils whenever a person stubbornly refuses to admit he's wrong.

strongly disagree
disagree

undecided

agree

strongly agree

 

126. The highest form of government is a democracy and the highest form
of democracy is a government run by those who are most intelligent.

strongly disagree

disagree

undecided .

agree

llll

strongly agree

 

127. Most people just don't give a "damn" for others.

strongly agree
agree
undecided

disagree

strongly disagree

80

128. Of all the different philosophies which exist in this world there is
probably only one which is correct.

strongly agree

agree
undecided

disagree

 

strongly disagree

 

129. It is often desirable to reserve judgment about what's going on until
one has had a chance to hear the opinions of those one respects.

strongly agree

agree

undecided

disagree

strongly disagree

 

130. There are two kinds of people in this world: these who are for the
truth and those who are against the truth.
strongly disagree
disagree

undecided

agree

strongly agree

 

131. While I don't like to admit this even to myself, my secret ambition is
to become a great man, like Einstein, or Beethoven, or Shakespeare.

_ strongly disagree

disagree

undecided

agree

 

strongly agree

 

132. It is only when a person devotes himself to an ideal or cause that
life becomes meaningful.

strongly disagree

disagree

undecided

agree

strongly agree

 

81

133. In this complicated world of ours the only way we can know what's going
on is to rely on leaders or experts who can be trusted.

strongly disagree

disagree

undecided

I!!!

agree

strongly agree

 

13a. Even though freedom of speech for all groups is a worthwhile goal, it
is unfortunately necessary to restrict the freedom of certain political
groups.

strongly agree

agree

 

undecided

disagree

I I

strongly disagree

 

135. In a discussion I often find it necessary to repeat myself several
times to make sure I am being understood.

strongly disagree

disagree

undecided

agree

strongly agree

 

136. Most of the ideas which get printed nowadays aren't worth the paper
they are printed on.

strongly agree

agree

lH

undecided

disagree

—-— p-o

strongly ditagree

 

137. The present is all too often full of unhappiness. It is only the
future that counts.

strongly agree

agree

undecided

disagree

strongly disagree

 

 

82

Now we would like to ask you a few final questions concerning the trial.

1&3. How enjoyable was it for you to watch this trial?

 

luu. How interesting did you find this trial?

IHH

 

extremely unenjoyable
very unenjoyable
unenjoyable

enjoyable

very enjoyable

extremely enjoyable

 

extremely interesting
very interesting Jfi
interesting ‘
uninteresting

very uninteresting

extremely uninteresting

luS. How difficult was it to follow the testimony presented in this trial?

Hill

 

1M6. If you had

extremely difficult to follow
very difficult to follow
difficult to follow

easy to follow

very easy to follow

extremely easy to follow

the opportunity to serve as a juror on a similar case in the

future, how willing would you be to serve?

HHH

extremely willing
very willing~
somewhat willing
somewhat unwilling
very unwilling

extremely unwilling

 

83

138. The main thing in life is for a person to want to do something important.

 

 

139. The United

strongly agree
agree
undecided
disagree

strongly disagree
States and Russia have just about nothing in common.

strongly disagree

disagree

1

I

 

undecided
agree

strongly agree

luO. It is better to be a dead hero than to be a live coward.

 

strongly disagree
disagree
undecided

agree

strongly agree

lul. To compromise with our political opponents is_dangerous because it
usually leads to the betrayal of our own side.

 

I I

strongly agree
agree
undecided
disagree

strongly disagree

142. I'd like it if I could find someone who would tell me how to solve
my personal problems.

Hi

|

scrongly agree
agree
undecided
disagree

strongly disagree

 

 

84

1u7. How interested do you think the other jurors were in watching this trial?

extremely interested
very interested
somewhat interested

somewhat uninterested

very uninterested

extremely uninterested

 

1H8. As a in this trial I was confused:

never
rarely
occasionally
quite often

.most of the time

LJ.
C
s
o
l I i i | I d

all of the time

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION!

bTfi~

 

LI ST OF REFERENCES

 

 

References

 

Baron, R., Baron, P., 8 Miller, N.’ The relation between distraction and
persuasion. Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 89) pp. 310-323.

 

Berlyne, D. E. Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1960.

 

Bermant, G., 8 Jacoubovitch, M. D. Fish out of water: A brief overview
of social and psychological concerns about videotaped trials. The
Hastings Law Journal, 1975, 26) pp. 999-10ll.

 

Bermant, G., McGuire, M., S Chappell, D. Videotaped trial presentations:
Advantages and disadvantages. Battelle Memorial Institute, 1975.
(Stencil)

Ekman, P., 8 Friesen, W. Detecting deception from the body and face.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 197M, 29) pp. 288-298.

 

Festinger, L., 8 Maccoby, N. On resistance to persuasive communications.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964, 68) pp. 359—366.

 

Fontes, N. The behavioral impact of inadmissible evidence on jurors: A
preliminary study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1975.

Freedman, J. L., 8 Sears, D. 0. Warning, distraction, and resistance to
influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 1)
pp. 262-266.

 

Gardner, D. M. The effect of divided attention on attitude change in-
duced by a marketing communication. In R. M. Haus (Ed.), Science,
technology, and marketing. Chicago: American Marketing Associa-
tion, 1966.

 

Haaland, G. A., 8 Vankatesan, M. Resistance to persuasive communica-
tions: An examination of the distraction hypothesis. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 9) pp. 167—170.

 

 

Hocking, J. E., Bauchner,,J. E., Kaminski, E. P., 8 Miller, G. R. De-
tecting deceptive communication from verbal, visual, and paralin—
guistic cues. Paper presented at the International Communication
Association Convention, Portland, Oregon, April, 1976.

Kornblum, G. O., 8 Rush, P. E. Television in courtroom and classroom.
American Bar Association Journal, 1973, §9fi pp. 273—276.

 

'Lazarsfeld, P.f2, 8 Merton, R. K. Mass communication, popular taste, and
organized social action. In Wilbur Schramm 8 Donald F. Roberts
(Eds.), The process and effects of mass communications (Revised).
Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1971, pp. SSH-578.

 

85

 

--———

 

86
Main, J. Only radical reform can save the courts. Fortune, 1970, 82,
pp. 111—11u.

McCrystal, J. L. Proceedings from the Conference on Humanistic Aspects
of Videotaping Trials, Kent State University, June, 1975, pp. 30—39.

McCrystal, J. L. The dual docket system. Ohio Bar, 1976, 39, pp. 51—5H.

McLuhan, M. Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1964.

 

Mehrabian, A. Tactics of social influence. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-
Hall, 1970.

 

Miller, G. R., Bender, D., Florence, T., 8 Nicholson, H. Communication
variables in the judicial process. Paper presented at the 58th
annual Speech Communication Association convention, Chicago,
Illinois, December, 1972.

Miller, G. R., Bender, D., Florence, T., 8 Nicholson, H. Real versus
reel: What's the verdict? Journal of Communication, 197M, 893 pp.
99—111.

 

Miller, N., 8 Levy, B. H. Defaming and agreeing with the communicator
as a function of emotional arousal, communication extremity, and
evaluation set. Sociometry, 1967, 89) pp. 158-175.

 

Morrill, A. E. Trial diplomacy. Chicago: Court Practice Institute,
1972.

 

Murray, T., Jr. Proceedings from the Conference on Humanistic Aspects
of Videotaping Trials, Kent State University, June, 1975, pp. 39-46.

Nunnally, J. C. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

 

Rosenblatt, P. C. Persuasion as a function of varying amounts of dis—
traction. Psychonomic Science, 1966, 5) pp. 344—358.

 

Rush, P. E. Legal educators advocate video tape. Educational Broadcas-
ting, November/December, 1973, pp. 11-1u and #0.

 

Scheflen, A. E. Body language and the social order. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice—Hall, 1972.

 

Shamo, G. W., 8 Meador, L. M. The effects of visual distraction upon
recall and attitude change. Journal of Communication, 1969, 19)
pp. 157-162.

 

Silverman, I., 8 Regula, C. Evaluation apprehension, demand character-
istics, and the effects of distraction on persuasibility. Journal
of Social Psychology, 1968, 25, pp. 273—281.

 

 

 

87

Sommer, R. Personal space. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice—Hall, 1969.

 

Valentino, V. Nebraska faces videotape: The new video technology in
perspective. Creighton Law Review, 1972-73, 6, pp. 21u-23u.

 

Vohs, J. L. En empirical approach to the concept of attention. Speech
Monographs, 196M, 813 pp. 355—360.

 

Vohs, J. L., 8 Garrett, R. L. Resistance to persuasion: An integrative
framework. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1968, 82, pp. uus-u52.

 

Ward, R. M. Judicial administration-—technological advances--use of __
video tape in the courtroom and the station house. De Paul Law ET “

 

Review, 1971, 293 pp. 924—954.

Winer, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design, 2nd ed.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.

 

 

"IIlllllllllllllfil"S