Opinion ID: 1407576
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: The Ellsworth Attitude Survey [97]

Text: The final attitude survey was conducted in April 1979 in Alameda County. The subjects were 811 persons randomly selected from the adult population of the county. All participants were registered to vote in the county or had a California driver's license; all lived in a household with an operational telephone. The survey questionnaire was prepared by Drs. Ellsworth and Fitzgerald. The questions were pretested to insure that the questions were comprehensible and the responses were sufficiently variable so that meaningful between-group comparisons would be possible. ( Id., at p. 3.) The survey was administered by the Field Research Corporation (FRC). The subjects were selected by FRC using a process known as random digit dialing, and the interviews were conducted by experienced professional interviewers at FRC. The methodology of this survey was universally praised by the experts below. The prosecution experts called it very well done, an excellent job, and far better in quality than earlier surveys such as Bronson's. The results of this study were considered representative of the above-delineated adult population of Alameda County. The survey asked questions concerning the subjects' attitudes toward capital punishment. ( Ellsworth Attitude Survey, supra, appen. I, p. 2.) Of the 811 subjects participating, 73 indicated that their opposition to the death penalty would preclude them from being fair and impartial at the guilt phase (i.e., these 73 were guilt phase nullifiers); 21 more subjects gave no answer on the nullification question. These two sets of subjects apparently did complete the interview procedure. However, since petitioner does not quarrel with the exclusion of these persons from the guilt phase of a capital trial, their responses are excluded in the results reported in this survey. Thus, the total sample size was 717 subjects, and Ellsworth was able to compare directly the guilt phase includable jurors with the Witherspoon -qualified jurors. [98] The subjects were asked 13 attitudinal questions. There were statistically significant differences between the guilt phase includable subjects and the Witherspoon -qualified subjects on 11 of them. The subjects were asked initially whether unemployment or violent crime was the more serious problem for Alameda County residents. A significant majority of the Witherspoon -qualified subjects (62.5 percent) chose violent crime, while a slight majority of the guilt phase includables (50.4 percent) selected unemployment. (P = .01.) As in many of the previous surveys, there was a majority of both groups who viewed the insanity defense as a loophole allowing too many guilty people to go free, but the majority was much larger for the Witherspoon -qualified jurors (78 percent) than for the guilt phase includable group (59.2 percent). (P The subjects were asked to agree or disagree with the statement It is better for society to let some guilty people go free than to risk convicting an innocent person. A majority of the guilt phase includable group (62.5 percent) agreed, whereas a majority of the Witherspoon -qualified group disagreed (56.1 percent). The table below sets forth these results, which are significant at a level less than .001: Differences in attitudes toward the privileges against self-incrimination were measured in two questions. About one-third of the Witherspoon -qualified subjects (32.3 percent) indicated agreement with the statement A person on trial who doesn't take the witness stand and deny the crime is probably guilty. Only 23.5 percent of the guilt phase includables agreed. (P Witherspoon-qualified subjects disagreed with it, compared to 14.0 percent of the guilt phase includable subjects. (P The two groups also indicated sharp divergences in their attitudes toward the statement that Even the worst criminal should be considered for mercy. The Witherspoon -qualified subjects indicated overall disagreement with the statement (56.0 percent), whereas a large majority of guilt phase includables agreed (77.8 percent). (P Witherspoon-qualified group. The pattern of attitudinal differences was significant at better than a .001 level. [99] The subjects were also asked to suppose you're a juror in a criminal trial.... From the newspaper and television stories you have seen you know that the defendant made a confession to the crime. But the confession isn't presented during the trial. The judge instructs you that you must make your decision about guilt or innocence only on the evidence you heard during the trial. Without the confession the prosecution's case is weak; it would not convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. In reaching your verdict what would you do? A majority of the guilt phase includable subjects (60.2 percent) indicated they would not consider the confession, whereas a slight majority of the Witherspoon -qualified subjects indicated they would take the confession into consideration. (P Finally, the survey dealt with the attitudes toward counsel at a criminal trial. The results were similar to those in Harris 1971. In separate questions, the subjects were asked to agree or disagree with the statement that defense attorneys [or district attorneys] have to be watched carefully, since they will use any means they can to get their clients off [or get convictions]. The results are tabulated below. A majority of guilt phase includable subjects agreed that both the district attorney (53.1 percent) and the defense counsel (64.7 percent) must be watched carefully. However, whereas only 48.9 percent of the Witherspoon -qualified subjects agreed as to the district attorney, nearly three-quarters (73.5 percent) believed that defense counsel must be watched carefully. Ellsworth sought to combine the results from all 13 questions into one general index of prosecution-proneness. [100] In doing so, she computed that there was a difference of about 12 percent in the proportion of pro-prosecution attitudes between the Witherspoon -qualified group and the guilt phase includable group. This overall difference was statistically significant (p