Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Mega Edition: The Scientific Report In Support Of Bryan Kohberger's Motion To Change The Venue (8/21/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: The Scientific Report In Support Of Bryan Kohberger's Motion To Change The Venue (8/21/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: this episode, we're going to keep on keeping on with
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: the new information that's hit the docket in the Brian
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: Kolberger trial. And this time we're taking a look at
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: the scientific report of the effects of media coverage on
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: prospective jurors in Leta County. And the author of this
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: report is Amani L. A. Lailey and this document was
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: submitted on July seventeenth, twenty twenty four. Report preparation and
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: information assessment. This report is in regard to a potential
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: change of venue for the Brian Colberger trial. Specifically, I
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: was asked to report on the potential psychological effects of
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: public media attention towards the case on prospective jurors and
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: determine whether a change of venue would reduce a prejudicial
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: bias against mister Colberger. My report and final assessment were
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: based on a review of the following pure reviewed literature
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: regarding relevant psychological phenomenon the trial, innovations, telephone survey results
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: prepared by doctor Brian Edelman assessing media exposure to the
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: case across four counties. Doctor Edelman submitted declaration. The declaration
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: of Brian Edelman regarding media impact on potential jurors. True
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: Scope's list of media reports regarding the case and specific
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: online news stories that include content from authority figures. My
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: recommendation based on this report supports a change of venue
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: to a location outside of Leata County and especially outside
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: of Moscow, Idaho, in order to increase the probability of
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: a fair trial. The more far removed jurors are from
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: the case, the less bias there should be in their
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: judgments about the defendant and the case, both initially and
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: throughout the trial. It's clear that there has been extensive
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: media coverage of the murders and the case against mister
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: Colberger within Leyta County, as well as extensive social media
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: activity involving informal discussions of the case. As I described
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: throughout this report, empirical research has shown that when people
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: are exposed to pre trial and defendant publicity, there are
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: more likely to render guilty verdicts. Unfortunately, this bias exists
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: even among those who report being unbiased, and it persists
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: despite the receipt of trial arguments, evidence, admonitions to disregard
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: the public information and jury deliberation. It's also clear that
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: the case has taken a substantial emotional toll on those
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: in Leayta County and continues to affect many members of
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: this small, tightly knit community. As discussed in this report,
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: emotions can reduce impartiality. The elevated exposure to information and
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: misinformation about the case, the lingering emotions, the closer connections
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: to those involved, and the strong community cohesiveness would all
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: be expected to contribute to the potential bias among jurors
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: recruited from Leyta County based on what we know from
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: our empirical research about human nature. My background and qualifications.
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: I have a doctoral degree in Social and personality psychology,
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: which I earn from Michigan State University in in two
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: thousand and two. My main area of expertise is social psychology,
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: which is the scientific study of how social factors influence
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: people's judgments, perceptions, attitudes, decisions, and behaviors. Currently, I am
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: tenured full professor and have taught courses in social psychology,
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: social influence, self perception, bias, prejudice and stereotyping, research methods, statistics,
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: and general psychology. Most of these courses cover scientific research
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: on perceptual bias. I have also conducted workshops on bias.
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: I also have a strong research background in bias judgments.
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: I have a number of pure reviewed research publications that
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: have given many formal peer reviewed research presentations at local, regional,
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: and national conventions in my field. My research interests within
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: social psychology are varied, but my main focus has been
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: on social cognition, which is how we process, use, and
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: interpret social information. My particular research emphasis has been on
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: bioss perceptions, especially biases in self perceptions, bias perceptions of
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: groups ie stereotypes, and biased impressions of specific individuals e g.
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: Relationship partners, strangers, friends, or acquaintances. I have also studied
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: how biased people are when assessing their own level of bias.
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: My knowledge of distorted perceptions of self and others allows
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: me to understand the many factors that influence us below
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: the radar when judgments of others, as in criminal cases.
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: My report My report is based on my expertise in
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: the field and is independent of my affiliation with the
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: university at which I am employed as a social psychologist.
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: I can identify a number of ways in which media
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: exposure regarding the Brian Colberger case or the parties involved
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: would likely bias the opinions held by the public and
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: thus perspective jurors in ways that cannot be mitigated easily
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: or at all. I describe them in this report. In
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: doing so, I provide only explanations that are found in
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: peer reviewed scientific research within psychology and related fields, and
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: provide endnotes to specify the references that were used. These
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: fields have a rigorous peer review process, resulting in primarily
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: high quality scientific research based on sound methodology and statistical procedures. Moreover,
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: the quantitative research used in these field employees strict cutoffs
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: for statistical significance, so the probability of not detecting a
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: true effect is generally much higher than the probability of
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: detecting a false finding that should not have emerged. In
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: other words, we can be confident that the findings emerging
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: in published papers are not fluke findings that emerge due
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: to mere chance from sampling error. There are three main
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: sections to my report of the relevant research. I first
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: review research on the effect of pre trial publicity on
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: judgments of guilt. Afterwards, I discussed numerous underlying reasons for
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: why such effects occur, with one section on how pre
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: trial bias is formed and one how bias persists during
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: a trial. I then discuss research on efforts to mitigate
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: potential jury bias where relevant. I also discussed some specific
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: aspects of community involvement and emotionality which could impact potential
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: jurors if they were to be recruited from Leayta County.
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: The report Part one pre trial publicity effects on judgments
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: of guilt. According to the Trial Innovation Survey results, jury
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: eligible residents in Layta County had high exposure to the
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: case against mister Coberger. Specifically, nearly all jury eligible surveyed
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: residents in the county were familiar with the case, and
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: sixty eight percent specifically followed the case. Twenty nine percent
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: followed it very closely. There were also high percentages of
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: residents who were familiar with the specific facts and falsehoods
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: presented in media regarding the case, eg. Details of mister
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: Coburger's arrest and specific details regarding evidence and theories about
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: the case. Because all of these percentages were generally higher
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: in Layta County than in other surveys counties, it appears
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: not surprisingly that jury eligible residents in Letai County had
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: more exposure to the publicity about the case overall. Thus,
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: when considering a change of venue, it's important to consider
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: how such pre trial publicity can influence judgments of prospective jurors.
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: Several decades of research have established that pre trial publicity
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: can influence how potential jurors perceive a defendants criminality and guilt.
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: A twenty eleven chapter in the Handbook of Trial Consulting
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: provides a review of this research. A meta analysis conducted
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: in nineteen ninety nine, which statistically combine the effects of
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: forty four such studies utilizing a total of five thousand,
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: seven hundred and fifty five participants, confirm that guilt judgments
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: of a defendant were statistically significantly more likely to occur
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: by people who had been exposed to anti defendant pre
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: trial publicity. Meta analysis are particularly informative because they are
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: designed to determine the overall effect of a composite of
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: all or most studies on a specific topic in order
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: to make general conclusions from the established literature. A similar
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty two meta analysis published in Law and Human
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: Behavior combined forty five studies a combination of unpublished and
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: published studies, eight of which were also included in the
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: nineteen ninety nine meta analysis and yielded the same result.
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: The overall finding was a significant effect of pre trial
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: publicity on guilt judgments, both across the entire set of
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: studies and for each of the two batches of studies
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: published and unpublished separately. Most of the studies included in
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: the twenty twenty two meta analysis had case involving a
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: violent crime, and the pre trial publicity effect existed for
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: both college student participants and community participants who were recruited
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: to better resemble actual jurors. The studies included in the
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty two meta analysis all involved experimentally manipulating exposure
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: to pre trial publicity. In other words, participants were assigned
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: to using random assignment to be exposed to specific pre
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: trial publicity or not, and then asked to review trial
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: materials via summaris, transcripts, videotape, mock trials, or recordings of
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: real trials. Random assignment to the different conditions of an
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: experiment is used to attempt to create groups of participants
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: that are similar in all dimensions that might affect their behavior,
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: although they cannot be used on real jurors. Experimental manipulations,
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: especially with random assignment are particularly advantageous because they allow
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: researchers to make stronger conclusions about cause and effect. In
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: these design similar groups of participants are treated the exact
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: same way and provided the exact same materials and instructions
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: other than what is being manipulated, which in this case
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: is exposure to pre trial publicity information. Thus, different guilt
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: judgments between groups could be attributed to the pre trial
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: publicity information. The twenty twenty two meta analysis found that
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: anti defendant pres trial publicity led to a significant increase
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: in guilt judgment by individuals and guilty verdicts by groups
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: mock jurys. Regarding individual judgments, most of the thousands of
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: mock jurors exposed to negative pre trial publicity voted guilty
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: fifty five point four percent, whereas fewer than half of
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: the thousands were not exposed to such publicity voted guilty
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: forty five point one percent. The anti defendant pre trial
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: publicity effect was over twice as strong when examining group verdicts.
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: Among the two hundred and ninety two mock juries included
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: in the analysis, about half forty nine point seven percent
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: of those exposed to anti defendant pre trial publicity voted guilty,
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: whereas only a quarter twenty five point two percent of
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: those exposed voted guilty. Thus, there may be scenarios in
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: which innocent people are convicted of a crime due to
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: negative pre trial publicity. The twenty twenty two meta analysis
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: also found that pro defendant pre trial publicity significantly biases
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: participants towards not guilt verdicts. Thus, bias can occur in
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: either direction when prospective jurors are exposed to media reports
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: regarding a criminal case. Oftentimes, however, there is much more
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: anti defendant than pro defendant media coverage, resulting in an
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: overall prosecutorial slant. For example, in a study examining prechrild
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: publicity for twenty capital cases, seventy five percent of the
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: media articles included some type of anti defendant information. Arguably,
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: even if the media presented equal amounts of pro prosecution
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: and pro defend information, an anti defendant bias might still emerge,
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: given that people have been shown to exhibit a negative
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: negativity bias, paying more attention to negative information about people
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: than positive information. Based on their findings, the authors of
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: the twenty twenty two meta analysis concluded that judges attorneys
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: and policymakers should consider this pre child publicity effect and
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: the circumstances surrounding pre child publicity when evaluating how to
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: best protect criminal defendant's rights to a fair trial and
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: when creating procedural safeguards. Although research studies have been focused
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: on the effect of media attention given to a case,
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: this line of research can also speak to the influence
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: of exposure to informal exposure and discussions as well, given
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: that the underlying process for emerging and lasting bias should
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: still occur the same way. This is important given the
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: Trial Innovation Survey results, which indicated that the vast majority
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: of surveyed residents in Layta County participated in or observed
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: discussions of the case in person or online. The rates
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: for this type of exposure were substantially higher in Latah
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: County than in other surveyed counties. This is not surprising
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: given the pervasive fear in the community during the multiple
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: week search for the suspect. This social discussion was riddled
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: with misinformation as community members and family members searched desperately
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: for answers. All right, we're going to wrap up right here,
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: and in the next episode, We're going to pick up
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: with part two underlining mechanisms which contribute to bias. All
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: of the information that goes with this episode can be
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: found in the description box. What's up everyone, and welcome
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: back to the program. In this episode, we're going to
• 13:12
  Speaker 1: pick up where we left off with a scientific report
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: into the media coverage on prospective jurors in Letai County.
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: This report was prepared by Amani l Alilee. Part two
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: Underlying mechanisms which contribute to bias. There are numerous potential
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: reasons for why jurors might have a greater likelihood of
• 13:33
  Speaker 1: reaching a guilty verdict after exposure to pre trial publicity
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: and from hearing having discussions about the case. There are
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: a number of ways in which the media can shape
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: impressions of a defendant or a criminal case. There are
• 13:45
  Speaker 1: also cognitive and motivational reasons that cause these impressions to
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: be lasting, persisting during trial even in the face of
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: contradictory evidence. I discussed both categories and reasons below a
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: reasons for pre trial bias. As mentioned, exposure to more
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: media can produce more prejudgment against which can increase anti
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: defendant bias. In a perspective juror. This can occur for
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: many reasons, one central and peripheral route processing. The elaboration
• 14:15
  Speaker 1: likelihood model, a widely accepted and supported theory of persuasion,
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: suggests that sometimes people are persuaded via deep information processing
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: central systematic route processing, and sometimes they are persuaded by
• 14:28
  Speaker 1: factors extraneous to the pervasive message, such as peripheral route processing.
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: Either route can persuade consumers of media stories to form
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: a particular impression of mister Kolberger. A great deal of
• 14:40
  Speaker 1: research and social cognition suggests that people rely on peripheral
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: processing much more frequently. They take easy decision shortcuts due
• 14:48
  Speaker 1: to many reasons, including a lack of motivation to think
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: hard about something or an inability to do so e g. Distractions,
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: limited time, etc. Or experiencing particular emotions that lead to
• 15:00
  Speaker 1: more superficial information processing. Media stories may provide easy decision
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: shortcuts that could cause people to make judgments of guilt
• 15:08
  Speaker 1: regarding mister Cooberger. For example, one available decision shortcut could
• 15:13
  Speaker 1: be that others believe he's guilty, then he is probably guilty.
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: Attention getting titles of news stories can also serve as
• 15:20
  Speaker 1: peripheral cues that guide opinions without any deeper thought. Examples
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: from the present case taken from the truscopelisting of media
• 15:28
  Speaker 1: stories include the following titles. Coburger indicted by grand jury,
• 15:32
  Speaker 1: Warren Show's items sees at murder suspect's family home among
• 15:36
  Speaker 1: items taken from suspect, knives and gun, blood found on
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: items on Coburger's Pullman apartment. Prosecutors to pursue death penalty
• 15:43
  Speaker 1: against Brian Colberger University of Idaho murder suspect does not
• 15:47
  Speaker 1: provide alibi despite state's demand. People exposed solely to these
• 15:52
  Speaker 1: little titles could automatically form an impression of mister Colberger
• 15:56
  Speaker 1: as the killer without further thought or information. If they
• 16:00
  Speaker 1: are processing peripherally, which is what humans frequently do, they
• 16:04
  Speaker 1: may not stop and think, for example, about how many
• 16:07
  Speaker 1: people own knives and guns, and that deceased weapons may
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: have no connection to the murders. Authority influence media publicity
• 16:15
  Speaker 1: of criminal cases can be especially impactful because a large
• 16:18
  Speaker 1: proportion of the coverage includes information sources who hold status
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: or authority, police or attorneys. Authority status has been studied
• 16:27
  Speaker 1: a great deal as a peripheral queue that people rely
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: on automatically when making judgments. People are more likely to
• 16:33
  Speaker 1: assume that information coming from those with authority status is accurate.
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: Because people are generally raised to respect and believe those
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: with authority status, These types of sources can have a
• 16:44
  Speaker 1: particularly strong influence on people and thus on perspective jurors
• 16:48
  Speaker 1: pre trial opinions. It makes sense that people would trust
• 16:52
  Speaker 1: those with authority status more, perhaps especially in a small,
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: tightly knit community such as Moscow, where they may know
• 16:59
  Speaker 1: them personally. According to the Trial Innovation Survey results, twenty
• 17:03
  Speaker 1: two percent of respondents in Leta County were employed or
• 17:06
  Speaker 1: no someone employed by law enforcement agencies involved in the investigation. However,
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: those with authority status are subject to the same errors
• 17:14
  Speaker 1: in bias as others, so unquestioned acceptance of information from
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: those sources could result in erroneous judgments. For example, some
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: research finds that law enforcement officers may view evidence as
• 17:26
  Speaker 1: more reliable if it's consistent with their preconceived notions about
• 17:30
  Speaker 1: a suspect. If this influences which detail law enforcement officers
• 17:34
  Speaker 1: agencies provide to the media or causes them to present
• 17:37
  Speaker 1: details with more confidence than is warranted at the time,
• 17:40
  Speaker 1: this gets wayh perspective jurors in the wrong direction. Research
• 17:44
  Speaker 1: has also shown that information presented by the media may
• 17:48
  Speaker 1: have a stronger prosecutorial slant when it includes commentary by
• 17:51
  Speaker 1: law enforcement and prosecution. One study evaluating new stories about
• 17:56
  Speaker 1: crime and criminal defendants found the source of anti defendant
• 17:59
  Speaker 1: content in news stories was most often law enforcement officers
• 18:03
  Speaker 1: and prosecution. Moreover, the media may present commentary by those
• 18:07
  Speaker 1: with authority status as though it were factual information, even
• 18:11
  Speaker 1: when it's more tentative or speculative. For example, a study
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: examining twenty six capital cases found that news articles primarily
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: cited those with authority and did so in a way
• 18:22
  Speaker 1: that depicted law enforcement commentary as objective facts rather than
• 18:26
  Speaker 1: details which might be disputed in court. Another problem that
• 18:30
  Speaker 1: is indicators of authority status, such as titles, uniforms, high
• 18:34
  Speaker 1: status occupations, can influence people on matters irrelevant to the
• 18:37
  Speaker 1: authority specific expertise. Moreover, those with authority status have been
• 18:42
  Speaker 1: shown to influence people to do things that makes no
• 18:45
  Speaker 1: sense or go against their own morals because they have
• 18:48
  Speaker 1: faith in the authority figure who is directing them. If
• 18:51
  Speaker 1: the Leayta County community has been inundated with media regarding
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: the Coburger case. Then they would also have been more
• 18:59
  Speaker 1: exposed to information from those with authority status, and thus
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: would have a greater probability of having developed preconceived notions
• 19:06
  Speaker 1: about the case and about mister Colberger based on that information.
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: Regardless of the content of these impressions, the impressions could
• 19:14
  Speaker 1: impact how the individual might take in information about the
• 19:17
  Speaker 1: case if they are to serve as jurors. There are
• 19:20
  Speaker 1: a number of specific high authority status sources which could
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: have impacted impressions formed by consumers of media. One of
• 19:27
  Speaker 1: these is Moscow, Idaho Chief of police at the time
• 19:30
  Speaker 1: of the murders, James Frye, who is now running for sheriff.
• 19:34
  Speaker 1: He made a number of statements to the press expressing
• 19:36
  Speaker 1: confidence in mister Colberger's guilt despite a trial not have
• 19:40
  Speaker 1: taken place. Following the arrest of mister Colberger, Chief Frye
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: told ABC News, we believe we have our guy and
• 19:46
  Speaker 1: one that committed these murders, and commented on giving people closure.
• 19:50
  Speaker 1: He also told the press that he believed mister Colberger
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: to be the sole perpetrator and said that the community
• 19:56
  Speaker 1: was now safe. After his arrest, Chief Fry can also
• 19:59
  Speaker 1: be saying we want to get a conviction during another
• 20:02
  Speaker 1: interview following the arrest. Moscow Mayor Art Betkey is another
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: trusted authority figure in the community, according to doctor edelman
• 20:10
  Speaker 1: submitted declaration. One new story quoted Mayor Betkey as describing
• 20:14
  Speaker 1: the homicide as a crime of passion, despite the lack
• 20:17
  Speaker 1: of information about motive. Because of his status, community members
• 20:21
  Speaker 1: might view this information as accurate even though there was
• 20:24
  Speaker 1: no evidence for it, and he does not occupy a
• 20:26
  Speaker 1: position in which this type of assessment would be within
• 20:29
  Speaker 1: the scope of his expertise. The content in media stories
• 20:34
  Speaker 1: that contained statements from prosecuting attorneys could also carry extra
• 20:37
  Speaker 1: way due to perceptions of authority and status. For example,
• 20:41
  Speaker 1: one new story reported that the prosecution intended to seek
• 20:44
  Speaker 1: the death penalty due to their consideration of all the
• 20:47
  Speaker 1: evidence known to the state about the case. In the
• 20:51
  Speaker 1: same news story, the prosecution was also quoted as stating
• 20:54
  Speaker 1: the defendant, by his conduct, whether such conduct was before, during,
• 20:58
  Speaker 1: or after the commission of the murder at hand, has
• 21:01
  Speaker 1: exhibited a propensity to commit murder, which will probably constitute
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: a continuing threat to society. The prosecution has also been
• 21:10
  Speaker 1: cited discussing information from the arrest affid David, which was
• 21:13
  Speaker 1: not filed under seal and contained information which could influence
• 21:17
  Speaker 1: opinions of prospective jurors. An unquestioned reader of these media
• 21:21
  Speaker 1: stories could trust these implications of the defendant's guilt and
• 21:24
  Speaker 1: the evidence against them. Scott Green, the president of the
• 21:27
  Speaker 1: University of Idaho, is another person of authority status who
• 21:31
  Speaker 1: may have perhaps inadvertently influenced opinions of prospective jurors. After
• 21:36
  Speaker 1: mister Colberger's arrest, he sent out a campus wide communication
• 21:39
  Speaker 1: expressing relief and implying that the case had been solved.
• 21:42
  Speaker 1: This communication was also reproduced within a chapter about the
• 21:46
  Speaker 1: Moscow murders When Evil Visits Your Campus in a book
• 21:49
  Speaker 1: recently published by mister Green. Three Classical conditioning effects. A
• 21:54
  Speaker 1: third reason for preconceived notions developing about the defendant is
• 21:58
  Speaker 1: classical conditioning, which whch occurs when people develop reactions to
• 22:02
  Speaker 1: previously neutral stimuli simply because of those stimuli have been
• 22:06
  Speaker 1: paired associated with In the present case, Brian Kolberger's name
• 22:10
  Speaker 1: or image could evolve from a neutral stimulus to a
• 22:13
  Speaker 1: negative condition stimulus if presented with anything that may evoke
• 22:17
  Speaker 1: a negative judgment in terms like murderer or killer, or
• 22:21
  Speaker 1: with aversive details regarding the murders that took place, could
• 22:25
  Speaker 1: cause people to develop a negative reaction to his name
• 22:28
  Speaker 1: or image, even if they do not believe him to
• 22:30
  Speaker 1: be the killer. Classical conditioning theory was developed over one
• 22:34
  Speaker 1: hundred years ago, and there are many decades of research
• 22:37
  Speaker 1: supporting the theory. The relevant studies have shown the neutral
• 22:40
  Speaker 1: stimuli e g. Words, pictures, etc. That have no initial
• 22:44
  Speaker 1: effect on us can evoke certain emotional or evaluative reactions
• 22:48
  Speaker 1: if they have been presented with stimuli that naturally evoke
• 22:51
  Speaker 1: some response. The conditioning occurs very quickly and automatically. In
• 22:56
  Speaker 1: such studies, participants view here neutral words or ima images
• 23:00
  Speaker 1: paired with something that may trigger a reaction eg. Negative
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: words or images. Later in the study, often just minutes later,
• 23:08
  Speaker 1: participants judgment of those words or images are no longer neutral.
• 23:12
  Speaker 1: For example, in one such study, every time participants were
• 23:15
  Speaker 1: presented with a particular man's name, they hurt a negative
• 23:19
  Speaker 1: or a positive word eg. Failure or gift. After a
• 23:22
  Speaker 1: few dozen five second trials, participants rated the name that
• 23:26
  Speaker 1: had been paired with the negative words less favorably than
• 23:29
  Speaker 1: the name that had been paired with positive words. This
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: can apply in cases where a coburger is presented with
• 23:35
  Speaker 1: words such as killer or murderer, even when those terms
• 23:38
  Speaker 1: are not used as specific descriptors of him. Some news
• 23:42
  Speaker 1: and social media stories about mister Kolberger have compared him
• 23:45
  Speaker 1: with a well known murderer, a pairing which could certainly
• 23:48
  Speaker 1: reduce perceived favorability to mister Colberger. Classical conditioning effects even
• 23:53
  Speaker 1: occur when exposure to word pairings is unconscious. In one study,
• 23:57
  Speaker 1: pictures of a stranger were presented consciously, but alongside subliminal
• 24:01
  Speaker 1: presentations of positive or negative images that had nothing to
• 24:05
  Speaker 1: do with the stranger. Participants who were presented with the
• 24:08
  Speaker 1: negative subliminal images develop more negative evaluations of the stranger,
• 24:13
  Speaker 1: including different judgments about the strangers personality traits, than those
• 24:17
  Speaker 1: who were presented with the positive subliminal images, despite the
• 24:21
  Speaker 1: photographs being flashed too quickly to be perceived at a
• 24:24
  Speaker 1: conscious level. Thus, it seems clear that people who have
• 24:27
  Speaker 1: been exposed to negative media coverage of Brian Kolberger, perhaps
• 24:31
  Speaker 1: even briefly while scrolling through a social media feed, could
• 24:34
  Speaker 1: have an automatic negative reaction to his name or appearance,
• 24:38
  Speaker 1: and perhaps not even know why. Even if the coverage
• 24:41
  Speaker 1: does not betray mister Colberger negatively or present him as guilty,
• 24:44
  Speaker 1: but his name and face are presented alongside aversive information, details, images, thoughts,
• 24:50
  Speaker 1: or words involving murder, The pairing of coburger with negative
• 24:53
  Speaker 1: stimuli could still result in the same negative conditioning. People
• 24:57
  Speaker 1: exposed to more media about the case naturally be exposed
• 25:01
  Speaker 1: to more of these pairings and likely have a stronger
• 25:04
  Speaker 1: conditioned response to mister Kolberger's name and image. All right,
• 25:08
  Speaker 1: we're gonna wrap up right here, and in the next episode,
• 25:10
  Speaker 1: we're gonna pick up with four emotional motivational influences. All
• 25:15
  Speaker 1: of the information that goes with this episode can be
• 25:17
  Speaker 1: found in the description box. What's up everyone, and welcome
• 25:21
  Speaker 1: back to the program. In this episode, we're going to
• 25:23
  Speaker 1: pick up where we left off with the scientific report
• 25:26
  Speaker 1: in support of Brian Kohberger and the request to change
• 25:30
  Speaker 1: the venue four emotional motivational influences. Another reason why jurors
• 25:35
  Speaker 1: recruited from Latai County may struggle to remain unbiased is
• 25:39
  Speaker 1: that emotions ran high after the murders took place In
• 25:42
  Speaker 1: the small, tightly knit community of Moscow, Idaho. This led
• 25:46
  Speaker 1: to a lot of sharing of communication and likely spread
• 25:49
  Speaker 1: of emotions throughout social media and other discussions about the incident.
• 25:54
  Speaker 1: Evidence of emotional impact on Layta County residents can be
• 25:57
  Speaker 1: gleaned from the Trial Innovation Survey results and doctor edelman
• 26:01
  Speaker 1: submitted declaration report. These indicated that the University of Idaho's
• 26:05
  Speaker 1: students were so distraught that they felt that they could
• 26:08
  Speaker 1: not begin healing until the house where the murders took
• 26:10
  Speaker 1: place was demolished, which it ultimately was by the order
• 26:15
  Speaker 1: of the University of Idaho President, even in the face
• 26:18
  Speaker 1: of objections from the victim's family members. The emotional impact
• 26:21
  Speaker 1: is also evidenced in the numerous candlelight vigils held for
• 26:25
  Speaker 1: the victims and their families and the creation of the
• 26:27
  Speaker 1: Healing Garden at the University of Idaho to memorialize the victims,
• 26:32
  Speaker 1: which are also mentioned in doctor Edelman's submitted declaration. Along
• 26:37
  Speaker 1: with sadness, there was also widespread fear during the long
• 26:40
  Speaker 1: search for a suspect, as seen in the Trial Innovation
• 26:43
  Speaker 1: Survey results responses from Letah County. People felt a sudden
• 26:47
  Speaker 1: sense of disruption that they perceived to be a once innocent, peaceful,
• 26:51
  Speaker 1: and safe community. Survey respondents noted being afraid to go
• 26:55
  Speaker 1: out alone, running from their cars to buildings, locking their
• 26:59
  Speaker 1: doors for the first time, increasing their personal or home security.
• 27:03
  Speaker 1: Fear among University of Idaho students and how some did
• 27:06
  Speaker 1: not return to campus was also mentioned. Some respondents indicated
• 27:10
  Speaker 1: that they still feel emotional e g. Fearful, on edge,
• 27:14
  Speaker 1: unsettled to this day. This is logical considering that community
• 27:18
  Speaker 1: members were for a long time advised to remain vigilant
• 27:21
  Speaker 1: and take extra precautions as shown in doctor edelman submitted declaration.
• 27:25
  Speaker 1: For weeks, the media contained fear inducing messages about a
• 27:29
  Speaker 1: killer on the loose, increased campus patrols and advice to
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: be aware of surroundings, and a report suspicious activity. The
• 27:36
  Speaker 1: Trial Innovation Survey results illustrate that the stress, anxiety, and
• 27:40
  Speaker 1: fear were a more prevalent in Letah County than other
• 27:43
  Speaker 1: surveyed counties during the long search for a suspect. Studies
• 27:47
  Speaker 1: have shown that emotions can bias our perceptions, even making
• 27:51
  Speaker 1: us more likely to view fictional information as real and informative,
• 27:56
  Speaker 1: thus lingering emotions during the trial could influence juror's objectivity.
• 28:00
  Speaker 1: Research is shown that juro motion can influence judgments of
• 28:04
  Speaker 1: guilt as well as interpretation and consideration of presented facts,
• 28:08
  Speaker 1: as evidenced in doctor Edelman's submitted declaration and the Trial
• 28:11
  Speaker 1: Innovation Survey results. Because the community was shaken emotionally Leta
• 28:15
  Speaker 1: County community, members felt that they could not live free
• 28:18
  Speaker 1: from fear and could not begin healing until the police
• 28:21
  Speaker 1: arrested someone for the murders. Thus, the motivation to identify
• 28:25
  Speaker 1: the killer and feel safe in their community was strong. Thus,
• 28:29
  Speaker 1: once mister Coburger was arrested, members of the community would
• 28:32
  Speaker 1: reasonably be motivated to believe that he was the perpetrator
• 28:35
  Speaker 1: of the crimes so that they could alleviate their emotions
• 28:38
  Speaker 1: and return to normal life. This could have caused people
• 28:42
  Speaker 1: to have unquestioned faith in mister Coburger indeed committed the
• 28:45
  Speaker 1: crimes in their search for relief. B Reasons for ongoing
• 28:49
  Speaker 1: biased during the trial. Once a person develops impressions about
• 28:53
  Speaker 1: a defendant's guilt from the media or community, those impressions
• 28:57
  Speaker 1: can impede the individual's ability to be a fair juror.
• 29:00
  Speaker 1: As mentioned previously, more participants in Leta County recognize specific
• 29:05
  Speaker 1: incriminating details about the case against mister Colberger, and exposure
• 29:09
  Speaker 1: to pre trial anti defendant publicity increases the likelihood of
• 29:13
  Speaker 1: a guilty verdict. The reasons underlying these effects or a
• 29:16
  Speaker 1: psychological process, which are well documented in the field of psychology.
• 29:21
  Speaker 1: One confirmation bias as a filter for new information. People
• 29:25
  Speaker 1: tend to exhibit a confirmation bias, which involves the unconscious
• 29:29
  Speaker 1: tendency to seek out in favor evidence that supports their
• 29:32
  Speaker 1: initial opinions or expectations. In media's stories and or comments
• 29:36
  Speaker 1: from peers cause people to form an expectation about mister
• 29:40
  Speaker 1: Colberger's guilt or about specific information that incriminates mister Colberger
• 29:45
  Speaker 1: or paints them in a negative light. Those beliefs will
• 29:47
  Speaker 1: likely serve as unconscious filters for new incoming information about
• 29:52
  Speaker 1: the case, even among well intentioned jurors. Specifically, they would
• 29:57
  Speaker 1: likely cause individuals to direct their attention towards belief consistent information,
• 30:02
  Speaker 1: to interpret ambiguous information as more supportive of their expectations
• 30:06
  Speaker 1: than it actually is, and to dismiss or forget information
• 30:10
  Speaker 1: that disconfirms their expectations. Well sounds like the who last
• 30:14
  Speaker 1: political world. At this point, specific beliefs about mister Coburger
• 30:18
  Speaker 1: and the case should be more pervasive among people living
• 30:21
  Speaker 1: in Latah County. According to the Trial Innovation Survey results,
• 30:25
  Speaker 1: a large percentage of surveyed residents in Latah County remembered
• 30:29
  Speaker 1: multiple media items with incriminating information, including misinformation against mister Colberger.
• 30:35
  Speaker 1: The report also found that prejudgments of guilt were particularly
• 30:39
  Speaker 1: high among those who remembered more of these items. If
• 30:42
  Speaker 1: these residents were to serve as jurors, they could not
• 30:45
  Speaker 1: be expected to evaluate information objectively during the trial. Confirmation
• 30:50
  Speaker 1: bias leads to the problem of pre trial predecisional distortion,
• 30:54
  Speaker 1: which is when early judgments about the accused or the
• 30:57
  Speaker 1: case caused distortion of new information life learned about the case,
• 31:01
  Speaker 1: e g. During the trial. The distortion has been discussed
• 31:04
  Speaker 1: and tested as a reason for why pre trial publicity
• 31:07
  Speaker 1: can bias potential jurors. For example, in one two thousand
• 31:11
  Speaker 1: and four study, some participants were giving a short news
• 31:14
  Speaker 1: article about a defendant describing that he had been arrested
• 31:17
  Speaker 1: following a shooting incident. The only negative information provided about
• 31:21
  Speaker 1: him aside from his arrest was what neighbors described him
• 31:24
  Speaker 1: as a bully. This new story alone caused participants to
• 31:27
  Speaker 1: be significantly more likely than those in control group to
• 31:31
  Speaker 1: view the defendant as having a criminal history, resulting in
• 31:34
  Speaker 1: predecision distortion. After later reading a trial transcript with various
• 31:39
  Speaker 1: testimonies in which the defendant was charged with murder, the
• 31:42
  Speaker 1: participants who had previously been exposed to their news articles
• 31:45
  Speaker 1: about the arrest were more likely to return a guilty
• 31:48
  Speaker 1: verdict than those who instead had read an article on
• 31:51
  Speaker 1: an unrelated subject. The authors specifically found that pre trial
• 31:55
  Speaker 1: distortion from the article led participants to view new evidence
• 31:59
  Speaker 1: or a god guarding the case filtered through their own expectations,
• 32:03
  Speaker 1: causing them to favor new testimony that align with their
• 32:06
  Speaker 1: current leading theory regarding the accused instead of evaluating new
• 32:10
  Speaker 1: evidence objectively. According to doctor edelman submitted declaration and Truscope's
• 32:15
  Speaker 1: list of media stories, rumors had spread regarding mister Colberger
• 32:19
  Speaker 1: having stalked one of the victims, being associated with murders
• 32:22
  Speaker 1: or murderers irrelevant to this case. Media and social media
• 32:27
  Speaker 1: were also rife with stories about mister Coberger's apparent academic, social,
• 32:31
  Speaker 1: and behavioral issue circumstances. If prospective jurors received Mister Coberger
• 32:36
  Speaker 1: negatively from the onset due to this exposure, then they
• 32:40
  Speaker 1: are likely to follow the same pattern described in the research,
• 32:43
  Speaker 1: specifically favoring anti defendant evidence and having a greater probability
• 32:48
  Speaker 1: of returning a guilty verdict. Certainly, juror's viewpoint regarding a
• 32:52
  Speaker 1: criminal case should change after becoming fully informed and presented
• 32:56
  Speaker 1: with all of the evidence regarding the case, but it's
• 32:59
  Speaker 1: less likely that jurors would reach a conclusion diametrically opposed
• 33:03
  Speaker 1: to their initial impression then one consistent with it. In
• 33:06
  Speaker 1: other words, they would be less likely to conclude innocence
• 33:09
  Speaker 1: if they had even a slight leaning towards assuming guilt,
• 33:12
  Speaker 1: because they're anchored by their initial judgments. It's noteworthy that
• 33:16
  Speaker 1: predecisional distortion effects in both civil and criminal mock trials
• 33:20
  Speaker 1: have been observed even when participants receive formal instructions to
• 33:24
  Speaker 1: suspend judgment until after all of the evidence was presented.
• 33:29
  Speaker 1: Two belief perseverance, resulting in more predecisional distortion of information
• 33:36
  Speaker 1: if potential jurors have more than just a mild suspicion
• 33:39
  Speaker 1: or expectation and have formed a clear initial opinion about
• 33:42
  Speaker 1: mister Coberger, their perceptual bias can become even stronger. Belief
• 33:47
  Speaker 1: preseverance is a phenomenon illustrating that people's beliefs often persist
• 33:53
  Speaker 1: even when presented with information that completely discredits those beliefs.
• 33:57
  Speaker 1: The more confident people are in their initial prejudgment, the
• 34:00
  Speaker 1: more predecisional distortion will result when interpreting subsequent information. Media
• 34:05
  Speaker 1: consumers may become more confident if they're exposed to more
• 34:09
  Speaker 1: media coverage about a case, and if the media coverage
• 34:12
  Speaker 1: presents stronger suggestions of a defendant's guilt e g. Evidence
• 34:17
  Speaker 1: commentary by authority figures. Confidence of mister Coburger's guilt may
• 34:21
  Speaker 1: have also arisen from the motivation to feel safe within
• 34:24
  Speaker 1: the community. The differences in judgment of guilt across communities
• 34:28
  Speaker 1: in the Trial Innovation Survey results were not as consistent
• 34:32
  Speaker 1: and apparent as one might expect, but there is no
• 34:35
  Speaker 1: data on whether those in Letah County have more confidence
• 34:38
  Speaker 1: in their guilt ratings other than a seemingly greater proportion
• 34:41
  Speaker 1: believing he is definitely guilty, more emotional involvement in them,
• 34:45
  Speaker 1: or more motivation to believe mister Coburger is guilty. There
• 34:49
  Speaker 1: is also no data on other potential prejudicial judgments, such
• 34:53
  Speaker 1: as personality judgments, likability, or criminality. Moreover, even if differences
• 34:58
  Speaker 1: in pre existing guilt judge moments across counties were minimal,
• 35:02
  Speaker 1: exposure to more pre trial publicity in Letah County would
• 35:05
  Speaker 1: be sufficient in reducing the ability to serve as an
• 35:08
  Speaker 1: unbiased jur According to what we know from research on
• 35:11
  Speaker 1: publicity's effects, because of confirmation bias and belief preseverance, the
• 35:16
  Speaker 1: effects of pre trial publicity can persist throughout the course
• 35:20
  Speaker 1: of an entire trial and still influenced guilty verdicts after
• 35:23
  Speaker 1: all trial arguments and evidence are presented. One way in
• 35:27
  Speaker 1: which was demonstrated in research was using a shadow jury
• 35:31
  Speaker 1: paradigm in which researchers exposed mock jurors recruited from the
• 35:35
  Speaker 1: jury eligible community members to ongoing trial information as though
• 35:40
  Speaker 1: they were active jurors. During a ten week time period.
• 35:43
  Speaker 1: One sample of mock jur was naturally exposed to pre
• 35:46
  Speaker 1: trial publicity. The other sample was recruited from different regions
• 35:50
  Speaker 1: so that exposure to pre trial publicity could be experimentally manipulated.
• 35:54
  Speaker 1: Guilt ratings were assessed at several points in time during
• 35:57
  Speaker 1: the trial. Despite admonitions to refrain from using pre trial
• 36:01
  Speaker 1: publicity information and their decision making similar to instructions given
• 36:05
  Speaker 1: to actual jurors, mock jurors continued to be influenced by
• 36:08
  Speaker 1: pre trial publicity all the way through their post trial verdicts.
• 36:12
  Speaker 1: Their initial impression likely served as a filter for how
• 36:15
  Speaker 1: they receive subsequent trial evidence and arguments consistent with confirmation
• 36:20
  Speaker 1: bias and belief preseverance tendencies, causing their bias to persist
• 36:25
  Speaker 1: even after all the evidence was presented. All right, we're
• 36:28
  Speaker 1: going to wrap up right here, and in the next episode,
• 36:30
  Speaker 1: we're going to pick up with three cognitive dissonance effects.
• 36:33
  Speaker 1: All of the information that goes with this episode can
• 36:35
  Speaker 1: be found in the description box. What's up everyone, and
• 36:38
  Speaker 1: welcome back to the program. In this episode, we're getting
• 36:41
  Speaker 1: right back to the scientific report in support of Brian
• 36:45
  Speaker 1: Kolberger's motion to change venues three cognitive dissonance effects. Another
• 36:51
  Speaker 1: potential obstacle for impartiality among prospective jurors recruited from Letah
• 36:56
  Speaker 1: County is their connection to their community. The small community
• 37:00
  Speaker 1: together after the murders, holding vigils and supporting one another.
• 37:03
  Speaker 1: According to the Trial Innovation Survey results, most lived in
• 37:07
  Speaker 1: Moscow or knew someone who lived there at the time
• 37:10
  Speaker 1: of the murders, twenty five percent where students or employees
• 37:13
  Speaker 1: or were related to students' employees of the university, and
• 37:16
  Speaker 1: twenty two percent were affiliated with someone working for a
• 37:19
  Speaker 1: law enforcement agency involved in the investigation. This emotional connectedness
• 37:24
  Speaker 1: could cause someone to lean towards a conviction. It would
• 37:27
  Speaker 1: be difficult to return to that tightly knit community as
• 37:30
  Speaker 1: a former juror who did not decide to convict mister Coburger.
• 37:33
  Speaker 1: As evidenced within the Trial Innovation Survey, participants from Leta
• 37:37
  Speaker 1: County indicated that a conviction would help people heal and
• 37:41
  Speaker 1: recover the sense of safety that was lost, whereas an
• 37:44
  Speaker 1: acquittal would result in fear, pain, and outrage. Jurors are
• 37:48
  Speaker 1: likely to know this and that could influence their judgments.
• 37:51
  Speaker 1: According to well established theory of cognitive dissonance and many
• 37:55
  Speaker 1: decades of research supporting the theory, people often distort reality
• 38:00
  Speaker 1: in order to avoid feeling an inner sense of hypocrisy
• 38:03
  Speaker 1: or conflict. Because of this, I think it's highly probable
• 38:07
  Speaker 1: that a jurve from Latak County would be more likely
• 38:09
  Speaker 1: to unintentionally favor information that supports a conviction than would
• 38:14
  Speaker 1: adjur from another area. If a jurve from Latah County,
• 38:17
  Speaker 1: particularly Moscow, Idaho, began to support a view of mister
• 38:21
  Speaker 1: Coberger's innocence, they would likely feel cognitive dissonance due to
• 38:25
  Speaker 1: the conflict between that view and the loyalty that they
• 38:28
  Speaker 1: have for their community. Additionally, they may fear backlash from
• 38:31
  Speaker 1: their community, which could also influence their information processing and judgments.
• 38:37
  Speaker 1: Research is shown that members of cohesive, tightly knit groups,
• 38:40
  Speaker 1: such as a small community, are more likely to conform
• 38:44
  Speaker 1: to the group three attempts to mitigate jur bias. Due
• 38:48
  Speaker 1: to all the reasons noted in this report, it would
• 38:50
  Speaker 1: be best to recruit jurors from an area where there
• 38:53
  Speaker 1: has been less emotional investment and less publicity exposure regarding
• 38:56
  Speaker 1: the case. Research has yet to determine a reliable method
• 39:00
  Speaker 1: for eliminating pre trial publicity bias effects after exposure has occurred,
• 39:05
  Speaker 1: suggesting that limiting potential jurors exposure in the first place
• 39:09
  Speaker 1: would be the best avenue in the pursuit of a
• 39:11
  Speaker 1: fair trial. This is why change of venue and a
• 39:14
  Speaker 1: non dissemination order have such importance a screening jurors. Although
• 39:20
  Speaker 1: this research is limited, some work finds that even extended
• 39:24
  Speaker 1: vordere by seasoned attorneys does not specifically mitigate pre trial
• 39:28
  Speaker 1: publicity effects, despite its other potential benefits one selecting jurors
• 39:33
  Speaker 1: based on prior exposure. There are a number of psychological
• 39:37
  Speaker 1: reasons why it would be difficult to identify jurors who
• 39:40
  Speaker 1: are not exposed to pre trial publicity. First, perspective, jurors
• 39:44
  Speaker 1: may not consciously recollect their exposure. Some of our memories
• 39:48
  Speaker 1: are unconscious. We do not know the memories are there,
• 39:51
  Speaker 1: but they can still affect us. For example, someone may
• 39:54
  Speaker 1: not remember that they learn something negative about someone, but
• 39:57
  Speaker 1: they still have a negative impression of that person at
• 40:00
  Speaker 1: a conscious or unconscious level. Several decades of research have
• 40:04
  Speaker 1: shown that our judgments can be influenced by information in
• 40:08
  Speaker 1: our unconscious mind. Moreover, weaker or unconscious memories may resurface
• 40:14
  Speaker 1: if something triggers them during trial. Thus, a juror may
• 40:17
  Speaker 1: report not having been exposed to pre trial publicity, but
• 40:20
  Speaker 1: then later remembers some specific publicity exposure after something during
• 40:24
  Speaker 1: trial reminds them of the memory. This process is called
• 40:28
  Speaker 1: priming due to the presence of retrieval cues cues that
• 40:31
  Speaker 1: prompt us to recollect something. This is consistent with the
• 40:34
  Speaker 1: Trial Innovation Survey results in which the vast majority of
• 40:38
  Speaker 1: Letah County participants recognized additional facts regarding the case beyond
• 40:43
  Speaker 1: what they were able to recall from memory without any
• 40:45
  Speaker 1: retrieval cues. Research on retrieval cues has been shown to
• 40:49
  Speaker 1: explain why eyewitnesses sometimes recall more information during subsequent interviews.
• 40:55
  Speaker 1: A second problem is that prospective jurors may not be
• 40:58
  Speaker 1: honest about their exposure, perhaps due to social desirability, concerns,
• 41:03
  Speaker 1: wanting to appear favorable to others, or conformity observed in
• 41:07
  Speaker 1: many different scenarios has been shown to contribute to dishonest responding.
• 41:11
  Speaker 1: During Vorder two, selecting jurors based on ability to remain impartial,
• 41:16
  Speaker 1: the ability to identify unbiased jurors would pose even more
• 41:20
  Speaker 1: of a challenge. One problem with the approach of asking
• 41:23
  Speaker 1: jurors if they are able to remain unbiased is that
• 41:26
  Speaker 1: although they may take due process seriously, people may be
• 41:29
  Speaker 1: unaware of their bias and thus unable to correct for them. Most,
• 41:33
  Speaker 1: if not all, of the effects discussed in this report
• 41:36
  Speaker 1: occur automatically and beyond people's level of awareness. For example,
• 41:39
  Speaker 1: when people's opinions are biased by pre trial publicity information,
• 41:43
  Speaker 1: they tend to deny any such influence. In order to
• 41:47
  Speaker 1: control our own bias, we must at a minimum have
• 41:49
  Speaker 1: awareness that the bias are there and the motivation to
• 41:53
  Speaker 1: overcome them. However, even when warned about the potential for bias,
• 41:57
  Speaker 1: jurors are often incapable of ignoring any prior judgments or
• 42:01
  Speaker 1: preconceptions when evaluating evidence from a trial. Additionally, some people
• 42:06
  Speaker 1: may think they are incapable of unfair bias and may
• 42:10
  Speaker 1: not put effort forth to offset them. There's a tendency
• 42:13
  Speaker 1: to recognize bias more in others than in oneself, which
• 42:16
  Speaker 1: is known as bias blind spot. This is unsurprising given
• 42:20
  Speaker 1: that people generally tend to overestimate their abilities and underestimate
• 42:24
  Speaker 1: their weaknesses, a phenomenon called the self enhancement bias, which
• 42:28
  Speaker 1: has been documented time and time again in peer reviewed research.
• 42:32
  Speaker 1: Because people tend to view themselves as less biased and
• 42:35
  Speaker 1: less prejudiced than others, they may feel it necessary to
• 42:38
  Speaker 1: be attuned to and correct for the potential flaws in
• 42:42
  Speaker 1: their judgment. People also have an overconfidence bias, wherein they
• 42:46
  Speaker 1: overestimate their confidence regarding their judgments, perceptions, and decisions. For example,
• 42:52
  Speaker 1: one study found that when people say they're one hundred
• 42:55
  Speaker 1: percent certain of something, they are incorrect on average twenty
• 42:58
  Speaker 1: percent of the time. These areas of research suggest that
• 43:02
  Speaker 1: one can simply ask jurors if they are capable of
• 43:06
  Speaker 1: being bias free when evaluating a case, and then choose
• 43:09
  Speaker 1: those who say yes. In fact, those who say yes
• 43:12
  Speaker 1: or that they are biased free may underestimate their level
• 43:15
  Speaker 1: of bias the most. This is consistent with the research
• 43:18
  Speaker 1: showing that people who have the highest level of sexism
• 43:21
  Speaker 1: racism are the most inaccurate when estimating their level of
• 43:25
  Speaker 1: sexism or racism. Unfortunately, people are typically unable to make
• 43:29
  Speaker 1: determinations regarding their current level of bias, their inclination to
• 43:33
  Speaker 1: be biased when evaluating new information, and their ability to
• 43:36
  Speaker 1: control their bias in cognitive tasks. B instructions and deliberation
• 43:42
  Speaker 1: one judicial instructions disregard information. Asking jurors to be on
• 43:46
  Speaker 1: biased during a trial is also problematic. Several decades of
• 43:51
  Speaker 1: research have investigated whether instructions to disregard evidence are successful,
• 43:56
  Speaker 1: finding that such instructions typically do not work and can
• 43:59
  Speaker 1: even backfire. Two thousand and six meta analysis examine the
• 44:02
  Speaker 1: effects of instructions given to jurors to disregard inadmissible evidence
• 44:07
  Speaker 1: across forty eight studies, concluding that when evidence is presented,
• 44:11
  Speaker 1: verdicts become more aligned with that evidence, even when jurors
• 44:15
  Speaker 1: are asked to disregard it. This was also true when
• 44:18
  Speaker 1: examining as a whole the subset of studies which specifically
• 44:21
  Speaker 1: involved instructions to disregard pre trial publicity information. Other research
• 44:26
  Speaker 1: found such instructions to be ineffective in offsetting the influence
• 44:30
  Speaker 1: of both factual pre trial publicity, incriminating evidence, and emotional
• 44:34
  Speaker 1: pre trial publicity that was not evidence based. Studies have
• 44:38
  Speaker 1: shown that getting jurors to pledge impartiality and degree to
• 44:42
  Speaker 1: refrain from using prior knowledge does not eliminate bias from
• 44:45
  Speaker 1: pre trial publicity. Two. Jury deliberation. Just as the presentation
• 44:50
  Speaker 1: of trial evidence and arguments does not eliminate pre trial
• 44:53
  Speaker 1: publicity effects, neither does jury deliberation, as observed in mock
• 44:57
  Speaker 1: trial studies. In fact, deliberation and may increase the effects
• 45:01
  Speaker 1: of pre trial publicity. Recall from the twenty twenty two
• 45:04
  Speaker 1: meta analysis that the effects of pre trial publicity were
• 45:08
  Speaker 1: stronger when examining group verdicts versus individual verdicts. Although most
• 45:13
  Speaker 1: studies examining post deliberation verdicts in groups have typically exposed
• 45:17
  Speaker 1: all jurors to the negative pre trial publicity information in
• 45:21
  Speaker 1: the experimental condition, which might be a rare occurrence in
• 45:24
  Speaker 1: real world situations, some have examined mixed juries where only
• 45:29
  Speaker 1: some members were exposed. A twenty seventeen mock jury study
• 45:33
  Speaker 1: showed that in mixed juries, the bias among those exposed
• 45:37
  Speaker 1: to pre trial publicity can spread to other jurors during deliberations.
• 45:42
  Speaker 1: Subsequent experimental research in twenty twenty one yielded the same result,
• 45:47
  Speaker 1: showing that if some jurors are exposed to pre trial
• 45:49
  Speaker 1: publicity information, that information can steer the discussion in the
• 45:53
  Speaker 1: same direction e g. Anti defendant during jury deliberation with
• 45:57
  Speaker 1: jurors who had not yet been exposed. Moreover, group discussion
• 46:02
  Speaker 1: tends to cause a group's initial leanings to become stronger
• 46:05
  Speaker 1: more polarized after group discussions, a widely research phenomenon known
• 46:10
  Speaker 1: as group polarization. Thus, if some jurors have initial leanings
• 46:14
  Speaker 1: that are anti defendant, that could be enough to influence
• 46:16
  Speaker 1: the overall group's initial leaning, ultimately resulting in even more
• 46:20
  Speaker 1: anti defendant views post deliberation. Group polarization effects have been
• 46:25
  Speaker 1: confirmed to exist in mock juries conclusions. My conclusion from
• 46:31
  Speaker 1: the review of the research is that pre trial publicity
• 46:33
  Speaker 1: effects on judgments tend to affect judgments of guilt and
• 46:36
  Speaker 1: are pervasive, lasting through trial, and hard to reduce. As such,
• 46:41
  Speaker 1: the best way to prevent them, based on our current
• 46:43
  Speaker 1: knowledge base, would be to utilized jurors who have not
• 46:46
  Speaker 1: been exposed to such coverage. Moreover, the probability of a
• 46:50
  Speaker 1: fair trial should be greater if jurors are less emotionally
• 46:53
  Speaker 1: invested and connected with the case. For the reasons noted
• 46:56
  Speaker 1: in this report. Research suggests that preventing limit emotions among
• 47:01
  Speaker 1: jurors in the first place is more effective path to
• 47:04
  Speaker 1: objectivity than trying to reduce the effects of emotions on
• 47:07
  Speaker 1: legal decisions. Because of the difficulties with asking jurors about
• 47:12
  Speaker 1: their exposure and bias, it would be best to recruit
• 47:15
  Speaker 1: jurors from a location which there has been less media
• 47:18
  Speaker 1: exposure to information, less discussion regarding the case, and less
• 47:22
  Speaker 1: personal and emotional investment in the case. Although this case
• 47:26
  Speaker 1: has received widespread national attention, residents within Leayta appear to
• 47:31
  Speaker 1: have more exposure to the case and have been more
• 47:33
  Speaker 1: personally and emotionally invested in it. Thus my recommendation for
• 47:37
  Speaker 1: a change of venue to a location outside of Leatah County.
• 47:41
  Speaker 1: This document was signed by Amani L. Aliley. All Right, folks,
• 47:46
  Speaker 1: that's going to do it for the scientific report in
• 47:49
  Speaker 1: support of Brian Kohberger's motion to change the venue. All
• 47:53
  Speaker 1: of the information that goes with this episode can be
• 47:56
  Speaker 1: found in the description box.