Legal Communication Papers @ NCA 2012

Many papers on legal communication were presented at NCA 2012: The 98th Annual Convention of the National Communication Association, held November 15-18, 2012 in Orlando, Florida, USA. Here is a list of those I could identify. For abstracts and full text, please contact the authors. (If you know of other papers on legal communication presented at NCA 2012, please feel free to identify them in the comments to this post. Click here for the complete NCA 2012 program.)

• Daniel Bergan and Richard T. Cole, Michigan State University: Call Your Legislator: The Impact of Citizen Contacts on Legislative Voting
• Mike Bergmaier, Penn State University: From Miscegenation to Contemporary Marriage Equality: Marriage as a Function of Ideological State Apparatuses
• Lacey Brown, University of West Florida, Chair: Panel: Trayvon Martin and COMMunity: Exploring the Interpretive Frames of the “Stand Your Ground” Law in Shaping 21st Century American Communities
• Kathryn A. Cady and Kerith M. Woodyard, Northern Illinois University: All the Working Woman’s Friends: Protective Labor Legislation and the Early ERA Controversy
• Peter Odell Campbell, Univ of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: The Abject of Community: The Majoritarian ‘Fourth Persona’ in U.S. Equality Rhetoric
• Kelly Carr, University of Baltimore: Inventing Continuity While Enacting Change: The Supreme Court Opinion Writing Process
• Michael S. Chouinard, Florida State University: Judge or Activist? Vaughn Walker and the Overturning of Proposition 8
• Hayley Jeanne Cole, Univ of Missouri, Columbia: Same Sex Marriage Ads: Don’t Mention It: A Content Analysis of the No on Prop 8 Ads
• Josh Compton and Paul Klaas, Dartmouth College: Oh, the Places Legal Rhetoric can Go: Prosecuting and Defending Characters of Dr. Seuss’s Bartholomew and the Oobleck
• Christopher R. Darr, Indiana Univ, Kokomo, and Harry C. Strine IV, Bloomsburg University: Partisanship, Ideology and Advice and Consent: A Content Analysis of Incivility in Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings
• Daniel Emery, University of Oklahoma: Property Crimes: Castle Laws, the 2008 Mortgage Crisis, and Privatization of Public Space
• Jerri Faris, Purdue University: Celebrating COMMunity with Ex-prisoners: Engaged Communication Scholarship in a Reentry Court
• Ryan P. Fuller, Univ of California, Santa Barbara: Agenda Denial Strategies in Regulating Vertical Integration: The Case of California SB 1765
• Joshua Gonzalez, University of Iowa: Undignified: Poverty and Personhood in the 1996 Welfare Reform Debates
• Nichola Gutgold, Penn State Univ, Lehigh Valley: The Enactment Rhetoric of Ruth Bader Ginsburg
• Leslie J. Harris, Univ of Wisconsin, Milwaukee: Spousal Correction or Spousal Cruelty? The Rhetoric of Nineteenth-Century Domestic Violence
• Amy Hasinoff, McGill University: Social Media and Sexuality: The Missing Discourse of Consent in New Sexting Legislation
• Erik Jimenez, California State University, Los Angeles: Are You a Mexican? Investigating the Devastating Implications of Alabama’s Hammon-Beason (HB) 56
• Katherine R. Knobloch, University of Washington, and John W. Gastil, Penn State University: Civic (Re)Socialization: The Educative Effects of Deliberative Participation
• Jeff Kurr, Baylor University: President Obama’s Rhetorical Pivot in Avoiding the Detainment of Deliberation over Closing the Detention Facilities at Guantanamo Bay
• Derek Lackaff, Elon University: Open Governance Experiments in the Icelandic Context
• Owen H. Lynch, Southern Methodist University: Lowering the Bar or the Important Role of Humor in The Legal Community
• Carol L. Mammel, University of the Fraser Valley: The Osoyoos Indian Band, Canadian Wildlife Service, and the Species at Risk Act: Lack of consultation, and perpetuation of underdevelopment on reserves
• Bryan J. McCann, Wayne State Univ: Between Thugs and Innocents: Racialized Violence and the Perogative of ‘Self Defense’ in the Trayvon Martin Case
• Robert Mills, Northwestern University: The Harmonious Vocalics of Judicial Unanimity: Authorship and Legitimacy in Cooper v. Aaron
• Jay Reynolds Patterson, Georgia State University: Contemporary Legal Discourse and the Graeco-Roman Tradition: The 2009 OJ Simpson Kidnapping Trial
• Carlo A. Pedrioli, Barry University: Constructing Modern-day U.S. Legal Education through Rhetoric: Langdell, Ames, and the Scholar Model of the Law Professor Persona
• Preconference: Reading the Rhetoric of Civil Rights Sit-Ins
• Alessandra Renzi, Ryerson University: Get Out of My Park: Occupying Discourse on Public Use
• Robert Richards, Penn State University: Legal Narrative in the Citizens’ Panel: Identifying Theories to Explain Storytelling in a Small Group Deliberation about Ballot Initiatives
• Brandi Dale Rogers, University of Wisconsin, Madison: Science, Law, and the Argumentative Antecedents of Fetal Personhood: A Rhetorical Analysis of Early Prenatal Torts
• Clarke Rountree, University of Alabama, Huntsville: Reversing Course: Supreme Court Overruling in an Early Admiralty Case
• Clariza Ruiz De Castilla, University of Texas, Austin: Citizenship in the Sunshine State: Florida News Coverage on Arizona’s SB 1070
• Kristina Ruiz-Mesa, Univ of Colorado, Boulder: COMMunities of Practice and Discourses of a DREAM: How Congress and Fox News Represent ‘Others’ within the DREAM Act
• Susan H. Sarapin, Troy University: Forget about It! The Ironic Effects of Instructions to Disregard Perry, Ben, Gil, and Ducky
• Susan H. Sarapin, Troy University: Toward a Causal Explanation of ‘The CSI Effect’: Self-efficacy as Mediator between Fictional Crime-TV Exposure and Verdict Certainty
• Joseph Sery, University of San Francisco: ‘Fruit from the Poisonous Tree’: The Rhetorical Strategy behind Mapp v. Ohio
• Rohini Singh, Univ of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: Turning the Tables: Refutation by Reversal in Clarence Darrow’s Plea for Leopold and Loeb
• Jeff Swift, North Carolina State University: The Invisible Hand of the Speech Marketplace: The Supreme Court’s Currency Manipulation
• Elycia M. Taylor, Catherine Knight Steele, and Emilie Lucchesi, University of Illinois, Chicago: Protective or Oppressive? Analyzing Death Penalty Framing
• Dave Tell, University of Kansas, and Eric C. Miller, Penn State University: Rhetoric and Judicial Activism: The Case of Hillary Goodridge v. Department of Public Health
• Mary Lynn L. Veden, Univ of Arkansas, Fayetteville: The Alchemy and Antirrhetic of West Coast Hotel v. Parrish
• Rachel Avon A. Whidden, Lake Forest College: Proving Science in Court: Vaccine Injury Payouts and the Legitimization of the MMR-Autism Connection

Smith on Identifying and Measuring Juror Bias About Forensic Science Evidence

Lisa L. Smith, BSc., MSc., MFSSoc., of the University of Leicester School of Psychology presented a paper entitled Identifying and Measuring Juror Bias About Forensic Science Evidence, at Jury Research Symposium 2010, held 25-26 March 2010 in Glasgow, Scotland, UK.

Click here for the slides accompanying the paper.

Here is the abstract:

This series of mock jury studies has investigated the process of juror decision making about the probative value of different types of forensic evidence (e.g. DNA, fingerprints, etc.). The findings suggest that there is widespread agreement among mock jurors about the usefulness of forensic evidence that has very high probative value[;] however evidence of a weak or moderate standard produces significant disagreement among jurors regarding its usefulness in determining the guilt of a defendant. An Interactionist model of jury decision making would predict that in cases where evidence is weak or ambiguous individual jurors’ pre‐trial beliefs and opinions will have a greater impact on the decision making process. The Forensic Evidence Evaluation Bias Scale (FEEBS) was developed to determine whether a pre‐trial bias related to perceptions of forensic evidence could be measured, and the scale’s ability to predict judgments about evidence and verdicts was investigated. A factor analysis of the FEEBS revealed that participants could be conceptualised as having either a pro‐prosecution or pro‐defence bias concerning forensic evidence. This presentation will discuss these findings in relation to the recent attention given to anecdotal reports of a ‘CSI Effect’ as well as the implications that this bias has on verdict decisions both within the current research and in the courtroom.

For the full text of the paper, please contact the author.

Strutin: Forensic Evidence and the CSI Effect: Selected Resources

Ken Strutin, JD, MLS, of the New York State Defenders Association has published a bibliography of recent scholarly studies of the so-called “CSI Effect” — i.e., that watching television programs similar CSI: Crime Scene Investigation “raises jurors’ expectation[s] about scientific evidence and leads jurors to acquit guilty defendants due to [a] lack of scientific evidence” (Shelton et al. 2009) — entitled Forensic Evidence and the CSI Effect, LLRX.com, May 9, 2010. For some reason, authors’ names are omitted from the bibliography, so extra effort is required to evaluate the works described. Here is a summary:

This is a collection of select legal scholarship and media studies that illuminates the extent of the ["CSI Effect"] and whether it needs to be addressed and how. It should be noted that there is a large body of news articles, short-form scholarship, books and other media concerning this topic that is not covered in this survey.

Wheate on the Importance of DNA Evidence to Juries in Criminal Trials

Dr. Rhonda Wheate, of the Glasgow Caledonian University School of Law and Social Sciences, Department of Law, has published The Importance of DNA Evidence to Juries in Criminal Trials, 14 International Journal of Evidence and Proof 129-145 (no. 2) (2010). Here is the abstract:

This article draws upon interviews of real jurors in criminal trials in the Australian Capital Territory about scientific evidence and expert witnesses, which revealed that jurors’ expectations of scientific evidence, particularly DNA profiling evidence, play an important role in determining whether or not the jurors, and juries, are able to comfortably deliver a guilty verdict or an acquittal. Where their expectations of DNA evidence are not met, high levels of juror frustration and speculation may culminate in hung juries.

Kim, Barak, & Shelton: Two New Articles on the “CSI Effect”

Professor Young S. Kim and Professor Gregg Barak, both of the Eastern Michigan University Department of Sociology, Anthropology & Criminology, and The Honorable Donald E. Shelton, Circuit Judge of the 22nd Circuit Court of Michigan, have published two articles reporting results of empirical research on the so-called “CSI Effect” upon jurors. Here are the citations and abstracts:

Examining the “CSI-effect” in the Cases of Circumstantial Evidence and Eyewitness Testimony: Multivariate and Path Analyses, 37 Journal of Criminal Justice 452 (2009) (click here for full-text of published version) (click here for full-text of preprint on bepress).

• ABSTRACT: “As part of a larger investigation of the changing nature of juror behavior in the context of technology development, this study examined important questions unanswered by previous studies on the ‘CSI-effect.’ In answering such questions, the present study applied multivariate and path analyses for the first time. The results showed that (a) watching CSI dramas had no independent effect on jurors’ verdicts, (b) the exposure to CSI dramas did not interact with individual characteristics, (c) different individual characteristics were significantly associated with different types of evidence, and (d) CSI watching had no direct effect on jurors’ decisions, and it had an indirect effect on conviction in the case of circumstantial evidence only as it raised expectations about scientific evidence, but it produced no indirect effect in the case of eyewitness testimony only. Finally, implications of the present study as well as for future research on the ‘CSI-effect’ on jurors are discussed.”

An Indirect-Effects Model of Mediated Adjudication: The CSI Myth, the Tech Effect, and Metropolitan Jurors’ Expectations for Scientific Evidence, forthcoming in Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law.

• ABSTRACT: “Part I of this article defines the ‘CSI effect’, given that the phrase has come to have many different meanings ascribed to it. It emphasizes the epistemological importance of first describing the effect of the ‘CSI effect’ as observed in juror behavior documented in a new study conducted in Wayne County (Detroit), Michigan, and then looking at causative factors that may be related to an explanation of those observed effects. Part II describes the methodology of the Wayne County study, provides a descriptive analysis of Wayne County jurors, and compares the jurors demographically to the Washtenaw County jurors who were surveyed in 2006. Part III analyzes the Wayne County study results with respect to jurors’ expectations and demands for scientific evidence. The Wayne County study findings reinforce the earlier Washtenaw findings of heightened juror expectations and demands for scientific evidence in almost every respect. This most recent analysis of the impact of viewing CSI or similar programs on jurors in Wayne County likewise reinforces the conclusions from the earlier Washtenaw County study that there is no such causative relationship between watching CSI and the heightened expectations and demands of jurors. Part IV explores the nature of the ‘tech effect’ as one causative factor for those heightened juror expectations and demands as an alternative to the ‘CSI effect.’ It also proposes an indirect-effects model of juror influences that combines the perception of a ‘CSI effect” with the ‘tech effect’ of modern scientific advances and the generalized effect of media portrayals about crime. This model triangulates the potential interactive effects of a ‘CSI effect’ myth with the likelihood of a ‘tech effect’ in the context of the ‘mass mediated effects’ of law and order or crime and justice news. The results of regression analyses of data from Wayne County jurors provide some support for the 2006 study’s suggestion of a ‘tech effect’ — that the broader changes in popular culture brought about by rapid scientific and technological advances and widespread dissemination of information about them is a more likely explanation for increased juror expectations and demand for scientific evidence in the courtroom than simply viewing CSI or related programs. Part V provides an overview of contemporary perspectives of ‘mass-mediated effects’ on public attitudes, behaviors, and expectations as a prelude to the suggested Indirect-effects Model of Mediated Adjudication.”

Many thanks to Judge Shelton and Professor Barak for pointing to the full-text and abstracts of these articles.

HT @TheJuryExpert.

Fordham on Empirical Juror Research in Western Australia

Professor Judith Fordham of Murdoch University’s School of Biological Sciences and Biotechnology, has given a paper entitled Bad Press: Does the Jury Deserve It?, at the 36th Australian Legal Convention, held September 17-19, 2009, in Perth. The paper describes results of three empirical studies utilizing semi-structured interviews with jurors following criminal trials. The studies concerned “Jurors, Juries, and Expert Evidence”, “Jury Intimidation,” and “Jury Experience.” Final reports on the studies were submitted to the Attorney General of Western Australia, and do not appear to have been made public.

Professor Fordham summarized the major findings of the research as follows:

• “[M]ost jurors identify prejudice within themselves, and direct themselves to put their prejudices aside and concentrate on the facts”;
• Most jurors “take … very seriously” the court’s instructions to put aside prejudices and to decide on the basis of the evidence;
• Some jurors conducted their own investigations of evidence, notwithstanding courts’ prohibiting such investigations;
• 51% of juror respondents “indicated the verdict [in their case] was the right one” because they believed that the verdict was “based on evidence”;
• 28% of juror respondents “indicated the verdict [in their case] was not the right one” “based on evidence”;
• The researchers “found almost no evidence of any media influence” on verdicts;
• Many jurors reported that deliberations were influenced by jurors’ desire simply “to go home”;
• Jurors reported wishing they had had clearer instructions from the court respecting law and facts early in the trial;
• Jurors help each other understand complicated evidence, but many jurors nonetheless have difficulty understanding complicated evidence;
• Jurors are aware of the possibility that relevant evidence has been kept from them;
• Respecting expert evidence, jurors appeared to understand the potential for bias in expert evidence, and considered the consistency of such evidence. Jurors gave more weight to evidence of experts considered to be independent, but jurors also generally gave expert evidence more weight than lay evidence;
• Professor Fordham concludes that the results “support[] the existence of [the] ‘tech effect’” described by the Hon. Donald E. Shelton et al. in A Study of Juror Expectations and Demands Concerning Scientific Evidence: Does the “CSI Effect” Exist? as the phenomenon that “jurors [] significantly expect that prosecutors will use the advantages of modern science and technology to help meet their burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. … [T]he origins of those expectations lie in the broader permeation of the changes in our popular culture brought about by the confluence of rapid advances in science and information technology and the increased use of crime stories as a vehicle to dramatize those advances.”

On the basis of the research results, Professor Fordham recommends the following:

• Juries should be provided with “a jury facilitator and/or a deliberation guidebook”;
• Improvements should be made “in modes of presentation of evidence” and in “the technical and scientific knowledge of all ‘players’ in the system: judges, counsel, courtroom architects, and prosecuting agencies”.

Professor Fordham’s paper is cited in a new report by the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, entitled Selection, Eligibility and Exemption of Jurors: Discussion Paper (September 2009).

An initial report on the research was published as Muddying the Waters with Red Herrings: Jurors, Juries, and Expert Evidence, in Law and Psychology (Freeman and Brooks-Gordon eds. 2006) (Current Legal Issues ; v. 9).

Here is a news article from The Australian describing the paper.

HT @TheJuryExpert.