News media reporting on civil litigation and its influence on civil justice decision making

The news media have the potential to act as a powerful influence on the civil litigation system, influencing decision making in particular cases and on the system more generally as media reports influence the decision making of various participants in the system. This paper reviews the research that has examined the relationship between news media reporting and civil litigation and proposes a framework that integrates this work and provides guidance for future research efforts. Specifically, we discuss the nature of media reporting on civil litigation, perceptions of the civil litigation system held by the public and legal actors, and the potential influence of news reporting about civil litigation on the decision making of jurors, judges, civil litigants, and policymakers. Overall, the research suggests that news reporting of civil litigation presents a systematically distorted picture of civil litigation and that this reporting can influence perceptions and outcomes of civil litigation in various ways. However, there are many gaps in the existing research that need to be filled. The proposed organizational scheme helps to identify ways that future research can provide links between the findings of existing research and to identify ways in which this research can be extended to new areas.     

Using Social Science to Inform the Law of Intestacy: The Case of Unmarried Committed Partners

Laws of intestate succession determine how the estate of a person who dies without a will is distributed. Researchers have struggled with the question of how to infer the donative intent of persons who die intestate. Based on an empirical study of unmarried committed partners, we compare the usefulness of two methods of social research for informing intestacy law: will studies and interviews with living persons about their preferences for estate distribution. The results indicate that for some groups of unmarried committed partners, will studies may not adequately reflect the extent to which intestate decedents wish their partner to share in their estate. In addition, the results demonstrate a close correspondence between respondents' actual wills, when they had them, and their distributive preferences on hypothetical scenarios. These findings are discussed as they relate to an examination of which sources of social scientific evidence are most useful in informing the law of intestacy.     

An Integration of Hindsight Bias and Counterfactual Thinking: Decision-Making and Drug Courier Profiles

Counterfactual thinking and hindsight bias have each generated separate, substantial bodies of research and provided insight into some areas of legal decision-making. An investigation of the relationship between Counterfactual thinking and hindsight bias in a situation in which both are implicated is presented in a legal decision-making context utilizing drug courier profiles and illegal search and seizure. The findings, which demonstrate each of these cognitive processes and show a pattern of results that supports an integrative relationship between them, are discussed in the contexts of social cognition and of legal decision-making. A suggested causal model of decision-making in this context is also presented. Specific implications of these findings for civil actions to remedy illegal searches are discussed.     

Punitive Damage Decision Making: The Decisions of Citizens and Trial Court Judges

Some states have allocated the authority to determine the amount of punitive damages to judges rather than to juries. This study explored the determination of damages by jury-eligible citizens and trial court judges. The punitive damage awards of both groups were of similar magnitude and variability. The compensatory damages of jurors were marginally lower but, in some conditions, were more variable than the compensatory damage awards of judges. Both groups appropriately utilized information about both the actual and potential severity of the harm to the plaintiff in determining punitive damages and used only the actual severity of the injury in determining compensatory damages. The punitive damage awards of both groups were influenced by the wealth of the defendant, but the compensatory damage awards of judges were marginally more influenced by defendant wealth than those of citizens. The results are discussed in the context of proposals for punitive damages reform.     

Anchoring in the Courtroom: The Effects of Caps on Punitive Damages

Responding to the perception that civil damage awards are out of control, courts and legislatures have pursued tort reform efforts largely aimed at reigning in damage awards by juries. One proposed method for reigning in civil juries is to limit, or cap, the amount that can be awarded for punitive damages. Despite significant controversy over damage awards and the civil litigation system, there has been little research focusing on the process by which juries determine damages. In particular, there is a paucity of research on the possible effects of placing caps on punitive damages. The present research examines punitive damage caps and reveals an anchoring effect of the caps on both compensatory and punitive damages. A second experiment replicates this effect and examines the moderating effect of bifurcating the compensatory and punitive damage decisions.     

Assessing Pretrial Publicity Effects: Integrating Content Analytic Results

When a case has received pretrial publicity which has the capacity to bias potential jurors in the trial venue, a change of venue is one means of attempting to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial. Content analysis of the pretrial publicity surrounding a case can provide the court with important information to consider when determining whether prejudice in the relevant community is too great for the defendant to receive a fair trial. This paper presents an approach to content analysis of pretrial publicity that draws upon both legal commentary and past empirical social science research. It is a systematic approach that could be employed by both the prosecution and defense when presenting arguments to the court about whether a change of venue should be granted. Information gleaned from content analysis of the publicity surrounding a specific case fills the gap between information provided by experimental research which has examined pretrial publicity effects and public opinion polls concerning the public's perception of the defendant in a particular case. Results from a content analysis can serve to validate public opinion survey data gathered from the same locales. To exemplify this content analytic approach, a content analysis conducted by the authors in preparation for the change of venue hearing in the case of Timothy McVeigh is presented.