The mental illness defense in the capital penalty hearing

Several defense strategies are available to the capital defendant who is arguing for life in the penalty phase, including a mental illness (MI) defense. An MI defense presents psychiatric testimony to the effect that the defendant was mentally disturbed at the time of the offense and, therefore, should not be held completely responsible. The few studies available suggest that an MI defense will be ineffective because (1) death-qualified jurors do not respond favorably to purely psychological explanations of criminal behavior and (2) an MI defense may erroneously mislead the jury regarding the defendant's unpredictability and dangerousness. Analagous studies of insanity acquittals suggest certain factors that may be associated with a succesful MI defense.     

Will jurors correct for evidence interdependence in their verdicts? It depends

Throughout an investigation, pieces of evidence are likely to contaminate one another, yet at trial jurors are expected to treat pieces of evidence as if they are independent. Are jurors able to understand potential evidence contamination? The present study showed mock jurors a videotaped trial simulation. Participants were randomly assigned to hear testimony regarding one piece of evidence, two pieces of independent evidence, or two pieces of interdependent evidence. The study tested the hypothesis that jurors who hear evidence that is interdependent will be just as likely to find the defendant guilty as jurors who hear about two pieces of independent evidence. When an eyewitness's identification was the uncontaminated piece of evidence, our hypothesis was supported. However, when the confession was the uncontaminated piece of evidence, jurors seemed to understand that one piece of evidence had been influenced by another and adjusted their beliefs about the defendant's guilt accordingly. This study supports the conclusion that jurors can sometimes identify and correct for evidence contamination in their perceptions of a defendant's guilt. Implications for reform support are discussed.     

Effects of Mental Health and Neuroscience Evidence on Juror Perceptions of a Criminal Defendant: the Moderating Role of Political Orientation

Several recent studies have examined the effects of mental health and neuroscientific evidence on attitudes toward criminal defendants, suggesting that these factors may influence juror decision‐making in meaningful ways. Few studies to date have manipulated both of these variables while also considering theoretically important individual difference variables (e.g., political orientation). Using a criminal case simulation, this study manipulated the presence of evidence concerning mental disorders (psychopathy and schizophrenia) and increasing levels of neuroscientific detail regarding a defendant's brain injury, and examined verdicts and sentencing recommendations in over 400 persons attending jury duty. Main effects were detected for mental health testimony and political orientation, although interactions were noted as well. More negative reactions to defendants labeled as psychopaths were relatively consistent, whereas participants who identified as liberal generally were less punitive towards a defendant identified as schizophrenic than were more conservative jurors. Consistent with other recent research, juror perceptions of the defendant's level of psychopathic traits (independent of the effects of the experimental manipulations) predicted guilty verdicts and longer sentencing recommendations. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Eleven angry men

While many of us would not want to abandon the requirement that a defendant can only be found guilty of a serious criminal offence by a unanimous jury, we should not expect epistemology to give us the resources we need for justifying this requirement. The doubts that might prevent jurors from reaching unanimity do not show that, say, the BARD standard has not been met. Even if it were true, as some have suggested, that rationality requires that a jury composed of epistemic peers should coalesce around one view about the defendant's guilt, the failure to reach unanimity might be a good reason to worry about the epistemic failings of some small number of jurors but no reason to worry that we've failed to protect the defendant from an unjustified imposition of, say, the risk against wrongful conviction. The arguments for the unanimity requirement will need to come from outside of epistemology.     

Habla Ingles? The Effects of Language Translation on Simulated Juror Decisions1

Two studies were conducted in which college students, acting as simulated jurors, heard the testimony of a defendant in an assault case. The testimony was presented in English or in another language (Spanish in Study 1 and Thai in Study 2) which was translated into English by an interpreter. In Study 1, non-Hispanics judged the defendant to be more guilty than did Hispanics when the defendant's testimony was presented in Spanish than when it was presented in English. This bias was offset when the judge's instructions admonished the jurors to ignore the fact that the defendant's testimony was translated. Similarly, in Study 2, subjects (all non-Thai) judged the defendent more guilty when his testimony was presented in Thai than when it was presented in English. Again, this bias was eliminated by the judge's instructions to the jurors to ignore the fact that the testimony was translated. The increased guilty verdicts for defendants who did not testify in English appeared to be due to prejudice and language ethnocentrism, the belief that defendants in U.S. courts should speak English.     

The impact of evidence lineups on fingerprint expert decisions

Forensic examiners routinely compare a crime-relevant mark of unknown origin against a single suspect's sample, which may create an expectation that the two will match. We tested how embedding the suspect's sample among known-innocent fillers (i.e., an evidence lineup) affects expert decision-making. Experienced fingerprint examiners (N = 43) compared crime-relevant marks against either individual suspect fingerprints (i.e., the standard procedure) or arrays of fingerprints (i.e., evidence lineups), with a matching fingerprint either present or absent. Evidence lineups promoted conservative decision-making, as evidenced by fewer correct IDs and a higher rate of inconclusive judgments. Though errors were rare, evidence lineups also occasionally revealed errors that would have otherwise gone undetected. Our findings thus support arguments that evidence lineups can expose fraud, identify flawed methodologies, and curb overconfidence. The potential benefits and challenges of implementing evidence lineups in forensic laboratories are discussed.     

What are we studying? Student jurors,community jurors,and construct validity

Jury researchers have long been concerned about the generalizability of results from experiments that utilize undergraduate students as mock jurors. The current experiment examined the differences between 120 students (55 males and 65 females, mean age = 20 years) and 99 community members (49 males and 50 females, mean age = 42 years) in culpability evaluations for homicide and sexual assault cases. Explicit attitude measures served as indicators of bias for sexual assault, defendant, and homicide adjudication. Results revealed that student and community participants showed different biases on these general explicit attitude measures and these differences manifested in judgments of culpability (guilt likelihood, convincingness of state's arguments, convincingness of defendant's arguments, and the defendants' criminal intentions) in sexual assault and homicide case scenarios. The results also showed that student mock jurors were more lenient when assigning guilt in homicide cases than were community members. The implications for future mock jury research are discussed. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Of private talk and public print: General pre-trial publicity and juror decision-making

The term ‘general pre-trial publicity’ refers to trial-related information that is prominently in the news, and that affects jurors in wholly unrelated cases. Two experiments explored the impact of general pre-trial publicity on juror decision-making. In Experiment 1 mock jurors who earlier read a newspaper article about a defendant mistakenly identified and subsequently convicted of a crime he did not commit were less likely to convict the defendant in an unrelated case than were jurors who read instead about a series of heinous crimes or who had no pre-trial publicity. Experiment 2 demonstrated that this effect is somewhat stronger when the general pre-trial publicity concerns a case that closely resembles the one jurors must decide than when the two cases are dissimilar. These data are discussed in terms of the availability of relevant information in memory. People may evaluate the probability of a defendant's guilt by the ease with which similar or relevant examples come to mind.     

How confession characteristics impact juror perceptions of evidence in criminal trials

A confession is one of the most impactful pieces of evidence that can be presented in a criminal trial, yet very little is known about how perceptions of evidence change based on characteristics of the confession. While researchers know that “circumstances of the setting”, such as length of interrogation, number of interrogators, and lack of sleep, increase the likelihood of false confessions, less is known about whether juror perceptions of the confession are impacted by these factors. The current research builds on the existing literature by evaluating the impact of these situational confession factors to determine whether jurors give weight to characteristics that are known to increase the likelihood of a false confession. Two experimental surveys were conducted, one using a sample of undergraduate students and one using a sample of jury‐eligible adults, in order to determine how respondents perceived a confession's strength. Results showed that confessions arising from lengthy interrogations were perceived to be weaker than those arising from short interrogations. However, multiple interrogators and a lack of sleep had little impact on evidence perceptions; these factors indicate a questionable confession to experts, but not to jurors. The implications for criminal justice theory, criminal trials, and future research are discussed.     

Effects of Victim,Defendant, and Juror Gender on Decisions in Child Sexual Assault Cases1

We examined the combined influence of juror, victim, and defendant gender on jurors’ decisions in child sexual abuse cases. Mock jurors read scenarios of an assault case involving a man or woman defendant accused of molesting a 15‐year‐old boy or girl. Jurors then rendered verdicts and rated the defendant's and victim's believability and responsibility for the abuse. Female jurors were generally more pro‐victim in case judgments than were male jurors. Additionally, a woman perpetrator was evaluated more leniently than was a man perpetrator, especially by male jurors when the victim was a boy. Case judgments were unrelated to jurors’ social conservatism, sexism, or attitudes toward homosexuality. Results have implications for understanding social perceptions of mixed‐ and same‐gender abuse involving adolescent victims, and juror decision making in man‐ and woman‐perpetrated child sexual assault cases.     

Another Look at the Impact of Juror Sentiments toward Defendants on Juridic Decisions

Abstract

This experiment tested the hypothesis that jurors' preexisting biases (sentiments) toward an accused would have a much stronger impact on the sentences that jurors recommended than on the verdicts they rendered. Specifically, a balance theory analysis of juridic decisions specifies that predeliberation sentiments toward the defendant would have little if any direct effect on jury verdicts and would be associated with verdicts rendered only if the information establishing these sentiments also implied a unit relation between the defendant and the crime. Six-person juries deliberated the case of an accused robber and murderer who had no prior criminal record, a prior conviction for a dissimilar crime, or a prior conviction for a similar crime. While on the witness stand, the defendant either withheld information or provided answers for all questions. The results provided strong support for the hypothesis. In addition, jurors' predeliberation sentiments toward the accused were unrelated either to the tone of juridic deliberations or to postdeliberation assessments of the defendant's guilt. By contrast, juror sentiments toward the defendant were a solid predictor of the severity of sentences assigned by those who voted to convict the accused.     

Why Do Eyewitnesses Make So Many Mistakes?

Previous research on eyewitness identification has demonstrated high rates of error. Subjects have frequently identified innocent targets as the "criminal" they had seen earlier (false identifications) or had falsely claimed that the criminal was not in the line-up (misses). The present study examines whether identification error rates are inflated by pressures in the typical experimental situation to "make a guess" regardless of one's confidence in the accuracy of the response. It was found that providing an explicit option for subjects to respond "don't know" significantly decreased false identifications and misses with no cost to the proportion of correct identifications. The addition of written and verbal instructions emphasizing the acceptability of the "don't know" option produced a marginally significant further decline in identification errors, again without cost to correct identifications. The discussion considered implications of the present results for experimental and actual police line-up procedures.     

Prejudicial Joinder of Multiple Offenses: Relative Effects of Cognitive Processing and Criminal Schema

The relative contributions of cognitive processing of evidence and invocation of a criminal schema to the effects of joinder of offenses was investigated. One hundred forty simulated jurors either judged no evidence or judged evidence from one or two charges with the knowledge that the defendant had been charged with either one, two, three, or four offenses. The results showed that guilt evaluations, defendant character ratings, and measures of memory were influenced more by the number of charges judged than by the number of charges filed. Results from two path analyses suggest that the joinder effect is mediated by both cognitive factors and judgments about the defendant's character. Joinder appears to affect the cognitions generated about the cases, which in turn affect perceptions of the defendant and ultimately guilt assessment.     

Reducing White Juror Bias: The Role of Race Salience and Racial Attitudes1

Both Black and White jurors exhibit a racial bias by being more likely to find defendants of a different race guilty than defendants who are of the same race. Sommers & Ellsworth (2000, 2001 ) found that salient racial issues in a trial reduced White juror racial bias toward a Black defendant. We examined if race salience could reduce White juror racial bias, even for individuals who reported high levels of racism. Making race salient reduced White juror racial bias toward a Black defendant. Jurors' racist beliefs were only associated with the verdict when the defendant's race was not made salient. This finding suggests that the effects of individual prejudice toward a Black defendant can be reduced by making the defendant's race salient.     

Racial Bias in Decisions Made by Mock Jurors Evaluating a Case of Sexual Harassment

Abstract

White (N = 161) and Black (N = 152) college students served as mock jurors in a simulated civil case in which a female plaintiff accused a male defendant of sexual harassment. The authors experimentally manipulated the race (Black or White) of the litigants and asked the mock jurors to decide whether the defendant was guilty; to rate the certainty of their belief in the defendant's guilt; and, when they judged the defendant guilty, to recommend an award to the plaintiff. Mock jurors of both races tended to favor litigants of their own race and their own gender. Racial bias was highest among White male jurors and lowest among White female jurors.     

Improving Juror Comprehension of Judicial Instructions on the Entrapment Defense1

When the defense of entrapment is raised, the legal and psychological question is not whether the defendant committed some illegal act, but rather why the defendant behaved as he or she did and whether government agents' actions provoked the defendant to commit the same crime. The subjective test of entrapment focuses on the predisposition of the defendant to commit a particular crime, while the objective test focuses on situational forces. In Study 1, type of entrapment defense (subjective, objective) and the defendant's prior record (no prior record, prior record) were experimentally manipulated. As expected, superior comprehension of the judge's instructions was found for jurors who heard subjective test instructions. Study 2 was designed to improve the comprehension and judgments of jurors who received 1 of 3 versions of the objective test. Juror comprehension of key legal concepts and subsequent judgments improved if jurors heard one of the rewritten versions of the objective test.     

The Effects of Opening Statements on Mock Jurors' Verdicts in a Simulated Criminal Trial1

Twenty-nine male and 37 female adults served as mock jurors in a simulated criminal trial in which the amount of preview offered in both the prosecution's and defense's opening statements was factorially varied. It was found that the effects upon verdicts of guilt of the amount of preview in either side's opening statement depended on that in the other side's opening statement. Extensive prosecution opening statements led to more guilty verdicts only when the de fense's opening statement was also extensive; when the defense's opening statement was brief, participants tended to find the defendant guilty regardless of the amount of preview in the prosecution's opening statement. Extensive opening statements from the defense led to more not-guilty verdicts only when the prosecution's opening statement was brief. Results from a series of mid-trial measures indicated that opening statements predisposed jurors to favor one side or the other very early in the trial, and that jurors tended to maintain this predisposition throughout the course of the trial. It was suggested that opening statements serve to create thematic frameworks which the jurors use to assist them in their processing of trial information. Implications for legal practice were also discussed.