Positive and Negative Publicity in a Case Trial

1295 Words5 Pages
Media publishes both positive and negative aspects regarding a criminal case, and with Milats’ case, the media focused highly on negative publicity. As Ruva, Geunther and Yarbrough had found that both positive and negative media realises can influence the jury in different ways, it provided an understanding into the different types of media representation surrounding a case. The different types of media representation will influence ones memory, and pre-trial publicity can cause errors in judgement or confusion surrounding the case. Ruva and McEvoy (2008) explored how positive and negative publicity for the trail can affect the memory and decisions making of the jurors. Again, discussions surrounding how pre-trail publicity does effect the decision making of the juror were shown through the results of the study. Ruva and McEvoy had found that negative pre-trail publicity “had nearly twice the convictions rates as did non-exposed jurors” (2008, p. 7), whereas, positive pre-tail publicity gave jurors a biased decision and these jurors were more likely to have found the defendant not guilty, and also, more likely to sympathise with the defendant. Ruva and McEvoy argued that the negative pre-trial publicity should be used to influence the jury’s decision, as it gives the defendant more questions to respond to and can truly test the defendants’ credibility. In the end, the jurors decisions when exposed to pre-trail publicity, comes down to what information is stored in the
Get Access