1989-03-24 Comments of Star Tribune.pdf - Minnesota Judicial Branch

l As of July, 1981, 54% of judges, 47% of prosecutors
and 13% of defenders approve of EMC for criminal
proceedings.
l The attitude measures revealed that judges, attorneys,
and jurors possess a complex multi-factor set of
attitudes'toward EMC. Factor analysis yielded four
reliable indices on which measures of judges and
attorneys attitudes toward EMC can be conceptualized.
0 Overall, the aggregate attitude measures are negative
to neutral for judges and attorneys. Defense attorneys
are considerably more negative than either judges or
prosecutors in their attitudes toward EMC.
l Judges and prosecutors developed a more positive set
of attitudes toward EMC in the course of the experi-
mental year. Defenders remained strongly negative
in their attitudes.
l Transference of responsibility, a phenomenon in which
one group sees other groups but not their own group
as being affected negatively by EMC, persisted in
posttesting.
l Factor analysis yielded five reliable indices on which
measures of jurors' attitudes toward EMC can be con-
ceptualized.
0 Overall, the aggregate attitude measures are neutral
to positive for jurors.
l Large numbers of jurors, especially the inexperienced,
felt that even the presence of conventional reporters
and sketch artist (as well as EMC) creates the poten-
tial for disruption, distraction, and participant
apprehension.
l Experience with EMC left jurors with positive atti-
tudes toward EMC.
Defenders, to a great extent, and judges and prosecu-
tors to a lesser extent, seem to display one set of
attitudes when measured by the Survey and another set
when_.interviewed after an EMC event. In puzzling over
the possible explanations for this apparent discrepancy,
the evaluators postulated several options.
.
-2250
.