Opinion ID: 1810757
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the survey

Text: At the time of the initial experiment which was to involve only two trials, it was contemplated that academicians from the Florida State University System would interview all trial participants as soon after their participation as feasible. Their responses were to be transcribed and filed in these proceedings as evidence. Unhappily, the interview technique proved impractical once the one-year pilot program was instituted. However, shortly before conclusion of the program a representative of the academic community [5] urged upon us the feasibility of a sample survey of the attitudes of the nonjudicial participants [6] in the judicial proceedings which had been covered by the electronic media during the experimental period. Although it was apparent that no controlled experiment could be conducted due to the lapse of time, the Court was persuaded that a post hoc sample survey of the participants' attitudes would be an aid to our decision, though by no means conclusive. After consultation with counsel for the parties and with their cooperation, we called upon the Judicial Planning Coordination Unit of the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) to identify through court records the participants in trials which had received electronic media coverage and to devise appropriate questionnaires for submission to the nonjudicial participants. The parameters established for development of the survey were: (i) responses would be sought only from individuals who had participated in or were associated with trials that had electronic media coverage; (ii) judges would not be included in the survey; [7] (iii) all data would be collected by August 4, 1978; and (iv) all responses would remain anonymous. The final survey questionnaires [8] evolved through an eclectic process of review and modification by the Court, the parties, OSCA staff, and interested academicians. The questionnaires were essentially based upon a five-point, modified Lickert scale, but with an additional summary question permitting the expression of personal views. [9] The questionnaires were distributed on July 19, 1978. The majority of the responses were received by the August 4, 1978 deadline. The survey response was extraordinarily high (1349). The percentage response was: Witness 44% Attorney 65% Court Personnel 72% Juror 65% Combined Response Rate 62% [10] Results of the survey were compiled by OSCA staff and filed as a report in this cause on November, 1, 1978. [11] Mindful that the survey results are non-scientific and reflect only the respondents' attitudes and perceptions about the presence of electronic media in the courtroom, nonetheless, the results do provide some general indications: (1) Presence of the electronic media in the courtroom had little effect upon the respondents' perception of the judiciary or of the dignity of the proceedings. [12] (2) It was felt that the presence of electronic media disrupted the trial either not at all or only slightly. [13] (3) Respondents' awareness of the presence of electronic media averaged between slightly and moderately. [14] (4) The ability of the attorney and juror respondents to judge the truthfulness of witnesses was perceived to be affected not at all. [15] The ability of jurors to concentrate on the testimony was similarly unaffected. [16] (5) All respondents were made to feel slightly self-conscious by the presence of electronic media. [17] (6) Both jurors and witnesses perceived that the presence of electronic media made them feel just slightly more responsible for their actions. [18] (7) Presence of electronic media made all respondents feel only slightly nervous or more attentive. [19] (8) The distracting effect of electronic media was deemed to range from almost not at all for jurors, to slightly for witnesses and attorneys. [20] (9) The degree to which jurors and witnesses felt the urge to see or hear themselves on the media fell between not at all and slightly. [21] (10) Presence of electronic media affected the different participants' sense of the importance of the case in varying degrees. Jurors felt that it made the case more important to a slight degree; witnesses to a degree between slightly and moderately; court personnel slightly; and attorneys moderately. [22] (11) To a degree between not at all and slightly, jurors perceived that the presence of electronic media in the courtroom during the testimony of a witness made that witness's testimony more important. [23] (12) There was no significant difference in the participants' concern over being harmed as a result of their appearance on electronic media broadcast (including still photography) as opposed to their names appearing in the print media. In each instance the concern ranged on the scale between not at all and slightly. [24] (13) Jurors and witnesses manifested the same attitude concerning the possibility that persons would attempt to influence their decision or testimony. There was no discernible difference in the height of their concern as between electronic and print media; the average response was slightly on the lower end of the spectrum between not at all and slightly. [25] (14) Court personnel and attorneys perceived that the presence of electronic media made the participating attorneys' actions more flamboyant only to a slight extent. [26] (15) Court personnel and attorneys were of the attitude that the presence of electronic media affected the flamboyancy of witnesses to a degree between not at all and slightly. [27] (16) They also felt that the witnesses were slightly inhibited by the presence of electronic media [28] and that jurors were made slightly self-conscious, nervous, and distracted, but also slightly more attentive. [29] No survey sample was taken with respect to participants in appellate proceedings. However, no response, positive or negative, was received from any source commenting upon experience in the appellate courts. From our own experience with electronic media coverage of oral arguments before this Court during the pilot program we found absolutely no adverse effect upon the participants' performance or the decorum of the proceedings.