« A copyright anomaly | Main | Police search warrants against the media »
Another Bain beat-up
By Steven | March 2, 2009
I think the SST overplayed its lead story on the Bain jury. The headline:
David Bain murder retrial: Jurors must be tested for bias – expert
The first two paras:
A TOP law professor has called for tougher testing of jurors to minimise the risk of prejudice in the retrial of David Bain on five murder charges.
His comments come as one of New Zealand’s leading jury researchers says it is impossible to be sure that pre-trial publicity about Bain’s case will have no effect on a jury’s verdict. The retrial is set to start in the High Court in Christchurch on Friday.
What’s a “top” law professor? (Scott Optican is an associate professor, actually, and I’ve got a lot of time for him, but I don’t have any idea why he’s toppier than any other senior academics).
More importantly, Optican never says in the article that Bain jurors “must” be tested, which is surely the operative part of that headline. He thinks it might be a good idea, and it’s a chance for the lawyers involved to made an application that’s never been granted before in NZ. But that’s not a “must”, which suggests that the trial would necessarily be unfair without it.
And on that point, of course, we have Yvette Tinsley (a colleague of mine, rightly described as one of NZ’s leading jury researchers) saying she can’t rule out possible jury prejudice caused by pre-trial publicity. Well, that’s not really the thrust of what she says. She says her research found little evidence of such prejudice and concluded that any prejudice was likely to be minimised by the process of jury deliberation. Of course, no-one can ever rule out the possibility of prejudice, though, she points out.
Was this really a front-page lead?
Topics: Contempt of Court, General, Media ethics | 52 Comments »
52 Responses to “Another Bain beat-up”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
March 2nd, 2009 at 8:30 pm
I’m just surprised to see Scott agreeing to talk to the SST after Steve Braunias’ rather uncharitable column on him a few months back. Shows he either has a remarkably low ego, a remarkably forgiving nature, or a remarkably thick skin!
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:23 am
Steven,
With respect to your colleague, my understanding is that there has been little research into juries in New Zealand. The problem, it seems to me, and I know Maryanne Garry from Victoria University has raised this point, is that research typically asks jurors after the event. It gives jurors wiggle room because jurors might say “well, I wasn’t biased but I think my fellow jurors might have been”. We want to be seen in the best possible light, meaning that jurors’ post-trial comments might not be so accurate. What would be an interesting research project would be to tape jurors’ deliberations and then ask jurors about their memory of those deliberations week or months later. I suspect that jurors’ memories of events would be quite different from what actually occurred.
Having said that, Optican’s suggestion about asking jurors about their knowledge of the Bain case is also fraught. I mean, if you thought Bain was guilty and you were not prepared to consider the evidence about to be presented, would you confess to this and risk being kicked off the case? You might downplay the true extent of your knowledge.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:37 am
Or the reverse. I don’t see that the idea is “fraught”, however. The problem you raise cannot be made worse by questioning jurors, it just might not be fixed as much as we might hope.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:10 pm
I agree, Graeme, that the problem cannot be made worse. However, the Judge and those observing a trial might be fooled into thinking that the jury is unbiased and free from prejudice simply because jurors have been questioned before the commencement of the trial. That would be a mistake.
I would prefer, if questioning is to occur, for jurors to be quizzed about their understanding of reasonable doubt. I think it would also be useful if they can demonstrate they have a reasonable understanding of the English language. Both are pretty important in the context of a trial.
May 20th, 2020 at 11:10 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
May 29th, 2020 at 12:45 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
June 25th, 2020 at 1:51 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
July 22nd, 2020 at 5:11 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
July 24th, 2020 at 10:52 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
August 2nd, 2020 at 2:18 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
August 21st, 2020 at 2:00 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 24404 additional Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
September 21st, 2020 at 9:51 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
October 2nd, 2020 at 6:23 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
October 4th, 2020 at 6:04 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
November 13th, 2020 at 1:12 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 33176 more Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
November 16th, 2020 at 1:20 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
November 22nd, 2020 at 10:22 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
November 26th, 2020 at 8:11 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
December 3rd, 2020 at 6:39 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
December 24th, 2020 at 12:34 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
December 31st, 2020 at 6:48 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
January 6th, 2021 at 1:42 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
January 12th, 2021 at 2:28 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
January 13th, 2021 at 7:58 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 83616 more Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
February 23rd, 2021 at 6:24 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
April 1st, 2021 at 3:16 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
May 1st, 2021 at 11:37 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
June 21st, 2021 at 6:24 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 5311 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
June 26th, 2021 at 6:30 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
June 28th, 2021 at 10:49 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
June 28th, 2021 at 4:46 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
July 3rd, 2021 at 6:16 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
September 18th, 2021 at 2:22 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
October 21st, 2021 at 1:36 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
October 31st, 2021 at 12:35 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
October 31st, 2021 at 4:51 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
November 5th, 2021 at 11:24 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
December 8th, 2021 at 7:47 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 12054 more Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
December 16th, 2021 at 11:45 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
January 16th, 2022 at 7:35 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
January 27th, 2022 at 12:37 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
April 4th, 2022 at 1:18 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 31437 more Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
April 7th, 2022 at 8:19 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
April 12th, 2022 at 4:07 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
May 8th, 2022 at 11:22 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 75914 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
May 20th, 2022 at 12:25 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
June 13th, 2022 at 10:32 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
June 20th, 2022 at 8:23 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
July 3rd, 2022 at 11:53 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
July 6th, 2022 at 11:59 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
July 12th, 2022 at 4:47 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]
July 15th, 2022 at 9:45 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=223 […]