From an applied perspective, one of the most interesting projects in which I have been involved concerned the interface between psychology and the legal system. At issue was the effect of pretrial publicity on potential jurors’ decision-making abilities. Ebbe Ebbesen and I worked for the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office in Northern California to deny the change of venue motion for Richard Allen Davis, accused at the time (since convicted) of the kidnap and murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas. This case was the subject of national attention that included, among other things, mention in the President’s State of the Union Address and a cover story in Newsweek magazine. Our research in that domain is consistent with the notion that pretrial publicity need not taint the decision making powers of potential jurors and, consequently, argues against the change of venue motion in response to pretrial publicity, in certain instances. This research resulted in the submission of a technical report to the court.

Research in the Richard Allen Davis case consisted of a survey of Sonoma and San Diego counties. Of particular interest was our inclusion of the manipulation of an independent variable. Methods texts for the behavioral sciences are notorious for suggesting that surveys (by definition) do not include experimental manipulations. In the Davis case, we randomly assigned participants from both counties to one of two groups. Members of Group A were given progressively incriminating amounts of information (e.g., “A boy in the neighborhood has identified Richard Allen Davis, two months after the kidnapping, as a stranger he saw in the neighborhood on the night of the kidnapping.”) and were asked, at each level of mounting evidence, whether or not they thought Davis was guilty. Members of Group B were given the same incriminating evidence; however, they were also given rebuttal evidence (e.g., “However, the defense argues: At a police line-up, the same boy had previously identified someone else as the stranger he saw in the neighborhood on the night of the kidnapping.”) before being asked if they thought Davis was guilty.

Psychology and the Law texts typically draw a distinction between survey research and experimental research. Apparently, they are unaware of the opportunity to include a controlled randomized study within a survey. My next paper in this area will address this issue.

The trial, by the way, was held in Northern California.

        Ebbesen, E. B., & Stretch, V. (1995). Survey and Analysis for Change of Venue in: People v. Richard 
              Allen Davis; Sonoma County. Technical Report.

Return to Research Interests