Can information change public opinion? Another test of the Marshall hypotheses

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall offered his opinion regarding the utility of public opinion polls as a tool for assessing the “evolving standards of decency” regarding capital punishment. His arguments became known as the Marshall hypotheses and spawned a considerable body of empirical testing. The three Marshall hypotheses are: (1) support for capital punishment is inversely associated with knowledge about it, (2) exposure to information about capital punishment produces sentiments in opposition to capital punishment, but (3) exposure to information about capital punishment will have no impact on those who support it for retributive reasons. The results of previous tests of these hypotheses were somewhat mixed but supportive. None of these studies, however, examined the effects of change in knowledge levels with changes, if any, in death penalty attitudes and beliefs as needed for a more complete test of the Marshall hypotheses. The present study addressed this shortcoming. The results provided mixed support for these three hypotheses. That is, death penalty supporters were somewhat less informed than death penalty opponents; exposure to death penalty information and knowledge gains tended to be associated with attitudinal change in a directions suggested by these hypotheses; but, retributivists' attitudes toward and beliefs about capital punishment were not any more resistant to change than were the attitudes and beliefs of non-retributivists.     

The Frye hearing in Florida: an attempt to exclude scientific evidence

State Supreme Courts require a minimum threshold of reliability and acceptance in the scientific community for all medical and similar evidence to be admitted at trial. In Florida and some other states, the courts adhere to what is known as the Frye standard, whereas in most states and in Federal Courts, it is the so-called Daubert standard. The jurisdiction of the present case is Hillsborough County (Tampa), Florida. Forensic pathologists seldom, if ever, are requested to participate in such hearings, unlike their toxicological and basic science colleagues who are more involved in research methodology and technical procedures. The burden is on the proponent of the evidence to prove the general acceptance of both the underlying scientific principle of the test and procedures used to apply that principle to the facts of the case at hand. The trial judge has the sole discretion to determine this question and general acceptance must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. The authors describe in detail a hearing in a case in which they were all involved. One author (WQS) had researched and documented the original scientific methodology in the literature. The situation involved a car and tractor trailer crash with the two occupants of the car dying of multiple trauma, whereas the truck driver was not injured. Autopsy of the auto driver revealed multiple injuries with exsanguination, and only vitreous humor and liver tissue, but not blood, were tested for ethyl alcohol. The estate of the driver of the automobile brought suit against the owner of the trucking company for wrongful death. The plaintiff requested a Frye hearing to question the reliability of testing other body specimens to translate to probable blood alcohol level. The testimony, submitted documents, and eventual decision by the judge are discussed.