Judges, Juries and Prejudicial Publicity: Lessons from Empirical Legal Scholarship

Alternative Law Journal, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 110-114, 2016

Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 16/62

6 Pages Posted: 25 Jul 2016

See all articles by Rebecca McEwen

Rebecca McEwen

University of New South Wales (UNSW) - Faculty of Law; The University of Sydney Law School

John Eldridge

The University of Sydney Law School

Date Written: July 24, 2016

Abstract

The criminal justice system has long held the view that judges are more capable than jurors of disregarding inadmissible prejudicial material. One consequence of this is the differential treatment of judges and jurors in respect of actual or potential exposure, via conventional or social media, to publicity which is prejudicial to a defendant. This article examines psycho-legal research findings which undermine the assumption upon which this differential treatment of judge and jury is based. It then identifies a number of questions which merit further attention in light of these findings.

Keywords: Juries, Juror Psychology, Law Reform, Prejudicial Publicity, Fair Trial, Law and Media, Law and Psychology

JEL Classification: K10, K30

Suggested Citation

McEwen, Rebecca and Eldridge, John, Judges, Juries and Prejudicial Publicity: Lessons from Empirical Legal Scholarship (July 24, 2016). Alternative Law Journal, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 110-114, 2016; Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 16/62. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2813890

Rebecca McEwen

University of New South Wales (UNSW) - Faculty of Law ( email )

Kensington, New South Wales 2052
Australia

The University of Sydney Law School ( email )

New Law Building, F10
The University of Sydney
Sydney, NSW 2006
Australia

John Eldridge (Contact Author)

The University of Sydney Law School ( email )

New Law Building, F10
The University of Sydney
Sydney, NSW 2006
Australia

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
151
rank
189,009
Abstract Views
589
PlumX Metrics