In case Judge Girolami missed the memo after the 2000 presidential
election, surveys and polls are notoriously unreliable, even when
conducted by professionals.
|
Just
the Facts, Please:
Judges Must Exercise Caution When Relying on Surveys and Polls
By
Erin Murphy
Last
weeks change-of-venue proceedings in Scott Petersons
double-murder trial beg the question. Who is less concerned with
legitimate evidence: the college students who falsified survey data
used to demonstrate juror bias, or the judge who cited a college
classs survey in his ruling?
Citing
evidence of bias due to intense media coverage of the Scott Peterson
case, Stanislaus County Superior Court Judge Al Girolami ruled last
week that Petersons trial should be moved to another county.
Among that evidence was the testimony of Stephen Schoenthaler, a
California State University criminology professor, who conducted
a survey regarding potential juror bias in Stanislaus and its surrounding
counties. The survey, which reportedly included information from
1,175 potential jurors polled by 65 of Schoenthalers students
as part of a fall semester course, demonstrated heightened bias
among Stanislaus County residents.
But
some interesting facts about Schoenthalers survey have emerged
since the ruling came down. Apparently plagued with guilt or incredulity
at seeing Judge Girolami seemingly rely upon their survey, at least
nine students have come forward and admitted fabricating some or
all of the data they submitted. The details of the situation give
rise to a host of questions and concerns not just about the classroom,
but also about the courtroom.
Schoenthaler
violated a federal mandate and school policy by failing to notify
university officials that students would be conducting the survey.
Further, despite having phone numbers of all alleged survey respondents,
he made no attempts to verify any of the data before submitting
it to the court. And upon hearing of his students admissions
of guilt, Schoenthalers initial reaction was to dispute their
claims. What exactly would drive students to pretend they
fabricated a project worth 20 percent of their grades is a mystery
the professor has yet to explain. While Schoenthalers apparent
motives to provide a public service and save taxpayers money
may be admirable, his faulty method has more likely served
to stigmatize any future data collected by students.
Although
Schoenthaler is an obvious scapegoat for the survey fiasco
the American Association for Public Opinion Research has even accused
him of exploiting his students the students are far from
victims. These are seniors in the universitys criminology
program; they represent the future of our criminal justice system.
The message they appear to have learned in college? Truth isnt
that important. And were not just talking about taking a few
short cuts. At least six students admit making up every answer
they submitted, despite having to include respondents
phone numbers as a failsafe against cheating.
As
if there arent enough criminals out there with no regard for
the rules, this criminology program is apparently fostering the
same mentality among future law enforcers. These students
actions demonstrate not only a disturbing disregard for rules, but
also an utter lack of concern for being caught. Students attempted
to justify their behavior based on time and budgetary constraints;
they had to complete the project during final exams and pay for
the long distance phone calls themselves. Did it cross anyones
mind to present these complaints to the professor? Even if the professor
had no sympathy (which some of their classmates have said is not
the case), a university would be hard pressed to deny assistance
to students who couldnt afford the costs of a project worth
20 percent of their grade. Any responsible student truly burdened
by such constraints would have at least explored these options before
determining that fabricating results was the best route to take.
Perhaps
the most troublesome issue is how this survey got into Judge Girolamis
courtroom in the first place. The town of Modesto has to close down
an entire block every time Peterson makes a court appearance. The
case has been the subject of more than 150 stories in the local
newspaper, and thousands of residents in the relatively small town
helped search for Laci Peterson after her disappearance. Is a survey
conducted by 65 college students really necessary to demonstrate
the need for a change of venue? Yet the judge not only accepted
the survey as an official exhibit but even cited it in his ruling.
In
case Judge Girolami missed the memo after the 2000 presidential
election, surveys and polls are notoriously unreliable, even when
conducted by professionals. Although such studies have their place,
that place is not the courtroom. Judges must keep in mind that these
are social studies, not conclusive science. Possibilities of data
manipulation, biased question design, inaccurate samplings and dishonest
respondents put surveys on shaky ground to begin with; throw in
inexperienced student surveyors working on their own dime and you
have a recipe for disaster. Particularly given a situation where
the facts alone can easily justify the result, such inherently suspect
data warrants no role in judicial decision-making. Although Schoenthalers
survey may not have provided the public service he intended, hopefully
it imparted an equally valuable lesson regarding the dangers of
relying on pseudoscientific research in the courtroom.
Erin
Murphy is a student at Georgetown University Law Center and an intern
at the Center for Individual Freedom.
[Posted
January 16, 2004]
Return
to Current Events Index
|