Defendant Remorse and Publicity in Capital Trials

AuthorJennifer A. Tallon,Tarika Daftary-Kapur,Steven Penrod
DOI10.1177/0093854815602500
Date01 December 2015
Published date01 December 2015
Subject MatterArticles
/tmp/tmp-173mRwEKAy1hPz/input 602500CJBXXX10.1177/0093854815602500Criminal Justice and Behaviortallon et al. / RemoRse anD Publicity in caPital tRials
research-article2015
DefenDant RemoRse anD Publicity in
caPital tRials

is seeing truly believing?
JENNIFER A. TALLON
Center for Court Innovation
TARIkA DAFTARy-kAPUR
Fairleigh Dickinson University
STEVEN PENROD
City University of New York
Exposure to negative pre-trial publicity (PTP) can bias jurors, but the role of PTP in capital sentencing remains unclear. The
goal of this study was to examine how variations in PTP concerning a defendant’s emotions prior to sentencing and variations
in the defendant’s emotions during sentencing influenced sentencing decisions. One hundred death-qualified community
members served as mock jurors in a 2 (pre-sentencing publicity [PSP]: emotional vs. unemotional) × 2 (defendant’s behavior
at sentencing: emotional vs. unemotional) between groups factorial design. Participants were exposed to PSP approximately
1 week before viewing a DVD of a simulated sentencing hearing in which we manipulated the defendant’s behavior.
Appearing emotional during sentencing decreased the likelihood of a death sentence and improved evaluations of the defen-
dant, but PSP exerted no effect on decision making. Attitudes toward the death penalty directly affected sentencing decisions
and moderated the effects of both publicity and sentencing behavior.
Keywords: media; death penalty; remorse; attitudes; emotion
In the era of the 24-hr news cycle, reports about violent crime unfold in real time and
provide a narrative and commentary through which the community may begin to under-
stand sometimes horrific events. For example, in the days following the mass shooting at
a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, suspect James Holmes was portrayed as remorseless
at various procedural hearings by both established media outlets (CNN: “Detective
Describes Colo. Shooting Suspect’s Odd Police Station Behavior”; Wian, Spellman, &
Pearson, 2013) and the blogging community (Huffington Post: “James Holmes, Alleged
Aurora Shooter, Shows No Emotion to Court Discussion of Victims’ Charity”; Banda,
authoRs’ note: This research was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF)
SES—0617152 to Steven D. Penrod. This article was presented at the 2013 American Psychology—Law Society
Annual Conference, Portland, Oregon Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jennifer
A. Tallon, Center for Court Innovation, 520 8th Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10018; e-mail: tallonj@
courtinnovation.org.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2015, Vol. 42, No. 12, December 2015, 1282 –1302.
DOI: 10.1177/0093854815602500
© 2015 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology
1282

Tallon et al. / REMORSE AND PUBLICITy IN CAPITAL TRIALS 1283
2012). Speculation about a defendant’s emotional state may unfold throughout any trial,
but it can hold serious impact for death penalty trials, given that evidence of remorse (or
lack therefore) may be presented to argue against/for the imposition of the death penalty
during sentencing. For example, Eisenberg, Garvey, and Wells (1998) note the media
attention surrounding the lack of emotion displayed by Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy
McVeigh during trial. In the current study, we were interested in examining how a defen-
dant’s emotional behavior during the trial phase (as portrayed by the media) would inter-
act with defendant’s emotional behavior at the sentencing phase (as portrayed by the
defendant himself) and influence mock juror decision making. We also wanted to exam-
ine the extent to which attitudes concerning the death penalty moderate media portrayals
of the defendant and defendant behavior.
influence of the meDia on JuRoR Decision making
Research on the influence of media on juror decision making has been mostly limited to
the realm of pre-trial publicity (PTP), which refers to any information disseminated by the
media regarding a civil or criminal case making its way through the legal system. The
potential biasing effect of PTP has been recognized both in the research literature (Daftary-
kapur, Penrod, O’Connor, & Wallace, 2014; Imrich, Mullins, & Linz, 1995; Minnow &
Cate, 2001; Otto, Penrod, & Dexter, 1994; Ruva & LeVasseur, 2012; Simon & Eimermann,
1971; Studebaker, Robbennolt, Pathak-Sharma, & Penrod, 2000) and by legal institutions,
such as the American Bar Association. Specifically, research shows that those exposed to
negative PTP regarding the defendant are more likely to view the defendant as guilty and
less credible as opposed to when exposed to pro-defendant PTP (e.g., Daftary-kapur et al.,
2014; Otto et al., 1994).
One possible mechanism by which publicity might affect juror decision making is by
influencing perceptions of the defendant and his emotional response (this is particularly
salient in a death penalty trial). A handful of studies have looked at the differential effects
of emotional and factual PTP, with mixed findings (Hoiberg & Stires, 1973; Honess,
Charman, & Levy, 2003; kramer & kerr, 1989; kramer, kerr, & Carroll, 1990; Ruva,
Guenther, & yarbrough, 2011; Wilson & Bornstein, 1998). kramer and kerr (1989) found
evidence that both emotional and factual PTP produced significant bias against the defen-
dant. When either type of PTP was present, participants rendered significantly more guilty
verdicts than when PTP was absent. Wilson and Bornstein (1998) found that when the
amount and duration of PTP as well as its degree of bias (i.e., functional equivalence) were
held constant, the effect of PTP was not significantly different for emotional and factual
PTP. This was true even though the emotional PTP article was perceived by mock jurors as
significantly more arousing than the factual PTP article. In the civil context, Honess et al.
(2003) compared recall of factual versus affective PTP in a high-profile fraud case. Their
results revealed that affective recall was associated with anti-defendant sentiment and an
increase in confidence of defendant guilt. Finally, Ruva et al. (2011) found that jurors
exposed to negative PTP were more emotional and had more angry reactions toward the
defendant. This is particularly important, as scholars have theorized that emotional process-
ing may play a part in how jurors process evidence (Feigenson & Park, 2006). At the same
time, no research exists that examines how the media’s portrayal of emotion displayed by
the defendant affects jurors’ perceptions.

1284 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR
DefenDant RemoRse anD Decision making
Remorse may serve to establish mitigation in capital sentencing hearings by highlight-
ing a defendant’s moral character and rehabilitation potential (Eisenberg et al., 1998) as
well as conveying pleas for mercy on the part of the defendant (Costanzo & Costanzo,
1992). Research shows that apology, and specifically emotional displays associated with
remorse, affect many types of judgment (e.g., Darby & Schlenker, 1989; Pipes & Alessi,
1999). Scher and Darley (1997) assert that remorse or regret are the central messages
conveyed in an apology as it qualifies the acceptance of responsibility with an expression
of emotion on the part of the offender. Thus, remorse can be expressed through both
explicit statements of apology in which the offender accepts responsibility for their
actions as well as nonverbal, emotional behaviors displayed by the defendant (crying,
appearing distraught, etc.).
Data derived from actual jurors as part of the Capital Jury Project (CJP) highlight the
importance of making this distinction in studying remorse. Antonio and Arone’s (2005)
results revealed that no matter what a defendant did (testify or remain silent) in either phase
(guilt or sentencing), jurors perceived them to be lacking in remorse and sincerity. Thus,
jurors may not be particularly sensitive to the content of the defendant’s remorse statement,
but rather chose to focus on behavioral cues. In examining the role of emotional behavior,
Sundby (1998) found evidence that jurors were attuned to the behaviors of the defendant
during the trial and frequently cited lack of remorseful behavior as reason for the death pen-
alty. In addition, Eisenberg et al. (1998) showed that defendants were perceived as more
remorseful when they addressed the court and did not appear bored during the trial. As with
emotional publicity, direct observation of the defendant’s emotional displays may affect the
processing of evidence. Capital jurors reported greater uncertainty or leniency when a defen-
dant consistently appeared emotionally involved and displayed remorseful behavior through-
out trial (Antonio, 2006). Although the research on emotional displays in non-capital cases
largely indicates that displays of emotion can be beneficial to defendants (Heath, 2009;
Heath & Grannemann, 2014; Heath, Grannemann, & Peacock, 2004; MacLin, MacLin, &
Caspers, 2009; Peace & Valois, 2014), the defendant antipathy associated with capital defen-
dants who address the court creates a need for scholars to examine the conditions under
which emotion may enhance (or detract from) verbal expressions of remorse.
One possible explanation as to why defendants may experience backlash when they
address the court is that their behavior may not be calibrated with the content of their mes-
sage. In resolving inconsistencies between behavior and message (i.e., smiling while criti-
cizing an individual), individuals...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT