Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
this episode, we're picking up where we left off with
the declaration of Brian Edelman in support in support of
Brian Kolberger. Given these factors, it's important to ferret out
during Vordere the full extent of exposure to pre trial publicity,
case specific attitudes, impressions of the defendant, and potential motivations
to serve. However, the prejudicial effects of pre existing attitudes
can occur at both a conscious and subconscious level, meaning
jurors who profess impartiality may not be fully aware of
their bias or how it may affect them as the
trial unfolds. This can make it difficult to identify potential
prejudice during the jury selection process. The Supreme Court is
recognized the limitations of the Vardeer process as a remedy
where potentially prejudicial pre trial publicity is an issue. In
Irvin versus Dowd, the Court concluded no doubt each jur
was sincere when he said that that he would be
fair and impartial to petitioner. But the psychological impact requiring
such a declaration before one's fellows is often its father,
where so many times admitted prejudice, such as a statement
of impartiality, can be given little weight. As one of
the jurors put it, you can't forget what you heard
and see with his life at stake. It's not requiring
too much that petitioner be tried in an atmosphere undisturbed
by so huge a wave of public passion, and by
a jury other than one in which two thirds of
the members admit before hearing any testimony, to possessing a
belief in his guilt. Research on Vordre shows that these
concerns are justified. Jurors are often reluctant to disclose relevant experiences, relationships,
or opinions that may lead to bias, even when pre
trial publicity is not an issue. One study found that
while seventy one percent A jurors had a fixed opinion
regarding guilt, only fifteen percent admitted so during the Bordere
Marshall obtained questionnaires from two hundred and seventy seven former
jurors in two counties and found that eighteen percent of
those jurors admitted to withholding information during Bordeer. Seltzer reported
that approximately thirty nine percent A jurors who were interviewed
after trial should have come forward in response to questions
regarding crime, victimization, or knowledge of police officers during jury selection,
but failed to do so. Many aspects of the large
group vorder format deterred jury candor. Federal Court Judge Gregory
Maize published his findings after experimenting with an expanded vardeer
procedure in thirty federal criminal trials over nine month period,
which included individual interviews with every veneer member who failed
to respond to his general opening questions. Judge Maze reported
that approximately twenty eight percent of members of each panel
failed to respond to the dozens of questions posed an
open court, an average of about sixteen people per trial. However,
when questioned in private, one in five of these silent
jurors disclosed personal information that was relevant to the case.
In ninety percent of the trials, between one and four
of these silent jurors expressed bias that led to their
removal for cause. A search of appellate opinions shows that
juror disclosure has led to several mistrials by undermining a
defendant's fairright to trial. For example, the US versus Colombo,
eight sixty nine f. Dot two D one forty nine,
second Circuit, nineteen eighty nine, a jura failed to disclose
when asked during vordir that her brother in law was
a lawyer for the government. She did not mention this
fact because she wanted to sit in on the jury
for the case. In dier versus called her. On one
fifty one f Dot three D nine seventy ninth Circuit
nineteen ninety eight, a jur answered no when the panel
was asked if anyone had ever been the victim of
a crime. After the guilt phase, the defense learned that
her brother had been shot and killed six years earlier.
When questioned, she told the judge that she answered no
because she thought the shooting was an accident, not a crime.
Her brother had been pistol whipped four times and shot
in the back of the head. Problems such as these
have also been reported in high profile cases. For example,
in the twenty twelve murder trial of Matthew Stebbens, who
had been charged in a shooting death of a homeless shelter,
a mistrial was declared after a juror announced during deliberations
that she had previous issues with violent crime. One of
her children had been shot in the head. She failed
or raise her hand during jury's selection when asked if
anyone had been the victim of a violent crime. According
to her, she did not think it was going to
be an issue. A six and a half million dollar
judgment was overturned in the high profile police corruption lawsuit
against the public defender surrounding the Rampart Division in Los
Angeles County. It was uncovered after the verdict that one
of the jurors, Jennifer Salinis, had concealed knowledge of the scandal.
During jury's selection, she did not raise her hand when
asked if anyone had some knowledge of the events surrounding
the Rampart Division. Later, it was discovered that Selinus had
played a prominent role in a movie titled Gang Wars
that was based on the Rampart Division. Other jurors on
the panel corroborated that she was very familiar with the
scandal and discussed aspects that were not in the evidence.
Prospective jurors who had been exposed to prejudicial pre trial
publicity enter the courtroom with case specific knowledge gleaned from
the media, social media, and discussions with friends and family
members and coworkers. Uncovering the full extent of jurors case
specific knowledge and opinions, and high profile cases can be
extremely difficult jury selection as a judicial remedy to address
such bias relies on two factors, one that jurors can
access their source of bias and two are willing to
report it. In one study where researchers tested the effectiveness
of extended Vardere, participants in the experimental condition were exposed
to pre trial publicity a week before the experiment. Prior
to viewing a trial, they were subjected to minimal or
extended wardere. The attorney in the extended Wardeer condition explained
how pre trial publicity may inappropriately impact decision making, as
jurors to hold each other accountable for not discussing pre
trial publicity, obtain public commitments, debates, their verdicts solely on
the evidence presented in court, and to ensure that fellow
jurors did the same. The researchers ultimately found that educating
jurors on potential impact of pre trial publicity did not
eliminate the effects of pre trial publicity. High profile cases
also create a unique challenge during jury selection known as
the minimization effect. This concept refers to prospective jurors attempts
to minimize the full extent of their exposure to pre
trial publicity. During Bardeer perspective, jurors try to downplay their
knowledge of the case using qualifiers such as just nothing
other than only a little bit and that's all. In
archival study that analyze the jury selection transcripts from five
high profile cases, sixty nine percent of prospective jurors used
minimization language when questioned by the judge or attorneys. Another
challenge in cases with significant media coverage surrounds the difficulty
jurors have during vorder to recall every detail they have read, seen,
or heard about the case. These types of open ended
recall questions require significant cognitive effort and often result in
incomplete recollection. This phenomenon is an inherent limitation in how
memory works. For example, if someone is asked to recall
everything they know about the movie Star Wars, their description
would likely miss important details they are familiar with. Memory
is much more accurate when answering recognition questions have you read, seen,
or heard if Darth Vader was Luke Skywalker's father. This
concern is not mere speculation in a twenty seventeen Change
of Venue hearing in Texas. Community residents exposed to detail
pre trial publicity over several years were called as witnesses.
During the hearing, they were asked to recall everything that
they knew about the case. Following the recall question, they
were asked a number of recognition questions about specific prejudicial
and potentially inadmissible media items they failed to mention. The
hearing demonstrated the limitation and memory question can you tell
the court the facts that you know about the state
of Texas versus John Feet as it relates to Irene Garza? Answer?
Description of basic facts? Question is that it? Answer? Let's see,
I believe so. Question Miss Prez. Have you read, seen
or heard about John Feet giving a confession to a priest?
Answer yes, question, and you didn't mention that a few
minutes ago? Answer I'm sorry, there were two I remember
they mentioned that they were two confessions that he made
to two priests. Question Okay, have you read, seen or
heard about whether or not Miss Irene Garza was alleged
to have been raped? Answer? Yes, I read that. Question now,
having refreshed your memory a few minutes ago. Are there
other facts that you have read or heard that you
haven't told the court about. Answer I don't believe so.
Question Okay, have you read or heard that John Feet
was transferred to a monastery? After this answer, I did
read that. Yes. This limitation and memory recall has been
demonstrated in several high profile cases around the country. For example,
in a change of venue survey in Sonora, California, ninety
five percent of survey respondents recognized at least one additional
detail reported in the media from the close ended recognition
questions that they fail to mention in the open ended
recall question and your identical trend ninety six percent was
found in another high profile case in Nashville, Tennessee. For example,
when asked have you read, seen, or heard about the case,
one respondent answered bits and pieces on the news. They
were just talking about the case. However, he later recognized
several media items, including one the shooting was captured on
video by surveillance cameras in the area and played on
the television, news, and internet, and two the public approved
a ballot measure in the last election to create a
community oversight board to monitor the Metro Nashville Police Department.
Both were prejudicial items widely reported in the media. A
similar pattern was found in this case. When asked if
they had read, seen, or heard about the case, Leayta
County survey respondents reported an average of just one point
six details. However, ninety six percent of survey respondents later
recognized at least one additional media item they fell to
mention in their open ended answer, and recognized an average
of four point nine additional media items. Many survey respondents
used minimization language or incomplete responses when asked what they
knew about the case. Most of these prospective jurors later
recognized items widely reported in the media and tested in
the survey sea table below. For example, just eight percent
of Laytaki County survey respondents mentioned that police found the
knife sheath near one of the victims when asked the
standard open end did recall question. However, eighty one percent
later recognized this media item when asked, have you read, seen,
or heard if police found the knife sheath on the
bed next to one of the victims. This finding is
particularly concerning given that seventy two percent of survey respondents
familiar with the media item believe that Brian Kolberger is
guilty of murder, and fifty five percent reported that they
would have a difficult time convincing them otherwise. All right,
that's going to do it for this episode. In the
next episode, we're going to pick up with A similar
pattern was found with other prejudicial media items. All of
the information that goes with this episode can be found
in the description box.