The effects of complexity on jurors' verdicts and construction of evidence

One hundred twenty mock jurors heard 1 of several versions of a civil trial. The tort trial was either high or low in information load and contained evidence that either clearly favored the plaintiffs or was ambiguous. Expert witnesses testified in either technical or less technical language. Verdicts favored the plaintiffs when the evidence was clear and was presented in technical language because technical language enhanced witnesses' credibility when the evidence was clear. Although high information loads and technical language hindered evidence processing, jurors endeavored to comprehend, as indicated by the recall of more facts and alternative constructions of the evidence when that evidence was ambiguous. However. those constructions were of poorer quality, incorporating evidence of lesser probative value.     

The cognitive effects of jury aids on decision‐making in complex civil litigation

Two hundred seventy nine individuals served as mock jury members in a civil trial that involved multiple plaintiffs and several expert witnesses. Juries were or were not provided with written summary statements of the testimony of expert scientific witnesses, and were either permitted or not permitted to take notes. The results showed that the combination of summary statements and note‐taking had a synergistic effect on the quality of decision‐making. Mock juries enabled by both cognitive aids provided significantly higher awards, as compared to mock juries aided by one or none of the jury‐aids, to the most severely injured plaintiffs without increasing compensation for those less worthy. Aided mock juries also recalled more probative evidence than non‐aided jurors, and were more satisfied with the efficacy of their deliberations. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Community members' perceptions of evidence: the effects of gender in a recovered memory civil trial.

Community members judged a civil trial in which a memory had either been recovered or kept secret until therapy 12 years later. Female jurors were more likely to find the defendant liable and to compensate female plaintiffs more than male plaintiffs, whereas the reverse pattern held for male jurors. Female plaintiffs who reported recovered memories were compensated least, whereas female plaintiffs who kept the abuse secret were compensated most. A mediational model was posited and results indicated that the origin of the memory of sexual abuse and victim gender influenced assessments of trial testimonies that were related to the trial outcomes. Results supported the postulated model and indicated significant juror-gender differences in evaluating and weighing the evidence.     

Racial Bias in Juridic Judgment at Private and Public Levels

Mock jurors (college students and prospective jurors) made individual decisions regarding liability and damages (before and after deliberation) in response to a case of sexual harassment. There were no significant differences in damage awards from college students and prospective jurors. There was evidence of racial bias among White mock jurors against plaintiffs who accused a Black supervisor of sexual harassment: Lower damages were recommended for plaintiffs who accepted an offer to meet for drinks in a Black supervisor's room than for plaintiffs who accepted the same offer from a White supervisor. There was also evidence of racial bias among White mock jurors against Black plaintiffs: Lower damages were recommended for Black plaintiffs than for White plaintiffs. These effects were present in the individual judgments of college students and prospective jurors. However, these forms of racial bias did not carry over into the decisions made by juries comprised of college students or prospective jurors. Subtle racial biases operating primarily at a subconscious level may get washed out in the complex task of coming to agreement on an appropriate award. The effects of manipulated variables on damage awards probably are overestimated in general in mock juror studies that do not examine group verdicts.     

The effects of defendant conduct on jury damage awards

Laws of negligence dictate that jurors' decisions about damages be influenced by the severity of plaintiffs' injuries and not by the reprehensibility of defendants' conduct. The authors simulated an automobile negligence trial to assess whether jurors' decisions are in accord with those expectations. Conduct of the defendant and severity of the plaintiff's injuries were manipulated. Jurors listened to the evidence, completed predeliberation questionnaires, deliberated as a jury, and completed postdeliberation questionnaires. Severity of the plaintiff's injury had a strong impact on damage awards, but evidence related to the defendant's conduct was also influential, particularly when the plaintiffs injuries were mild. Here, jurors with any conduct-related evidence gave larger damage awards than jurors with no conduct-related evidence. Findings suggest an effect of defendant conduct on damage awards that may be mediated by judgments that the defendant was negligent.     

Jurors' Use of Standards of Proof in Decisions about Punitive Damages

Standards of proof define the degree to which jurors must be satisfied that a fact is true, and plaintiffs in civil lawsuits assume the burden of proving their claims to the requisite standard of proof. Three standards—preponderance of evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and beyond a reasonable doubt—are used by different jurisdictions in trials involving liability for punitive damages. We investigated whether individual mock jurors apply these standards appropriately by instructing them to read two personal injury trial summaries and to use one of three standards in either qualitative or quantitative format when deciding punitive liability. Results showed that jurors tended not to incorporate the standard into their judgments: defendants were just as likely to be found liable when the plaintiff's burden was high (“beyond a reasonable doubt”) as when the burden was low (“preponderance of evidence”). The format of the instruction also had a negligible effect. We suggest that nonuse of the standard of proof is related to jurors' preferences for less effortful or experiential processing in situations involving complicated or ambiguous material. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Decision‐making in civil litigation: Effects of attorney credibility,evidence strength,and juror cognitive processing

The current study examined the relationship between juror cognitive processing (measured by need for cognition [NFC]), attorney credibility, evidence strength, and civil litigation verdicts (liability, likelihood of causation, and compensatory damages). Participants (N = 446) viewed a videotaped mock civil trial in which the credibility of the attorneys and the strength of the plaintiff's evidence were manipulated. Plaintiff attorney credibility, defense attorney credibility, and strength of evidence interacted with one another for liability verdicts. In the strong evidence condition, the likelihood of a liable verdict was higher for a credible plaintiff attorney than a non‐credible plaintiff attorney when facing a non‐credible defense attorney. In the ambiguous evidence condition, the likelihood of a liable verdict was higher for a credible plaintiff attorney than a non‐credible plaintiff attorney when facing a credible defense attorney. Plaintiff attorney credibility, however, was found to be more influential on jurors’ decision‐making than case evidence for likelihood of causation and compensatory damage award decisions. Participants’ NFC also interacted with plaintiff attorney credibility. High NFC jurors were more influenced by a credible plaintiff attorney than low NFC jurors. Although these findings are counter to common findings in the NFC literature, they conform to a body of literature that supports the notion that jurors view attorney credibility as a piece of case evidence and not a peripheral cue as is often assumed. Thus, the findings indicate that attorneys do matter to the outcomes of cases. Policy and practice implications for attorneys and the courts are discussed.     

Expert testimony and jury decision making: An empirical analysis

This experiment examines the influence of expert psychological testimony on juror decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Experienced jurors and undergraduate mock jurors viewed versions of a videotaped trial, rated the credibility of the eyewitness and the strength of the prosecution's and defense's cases, and rendered verdicts. In the absence of expert testimony jurors were insensitive to eyewitness evidence. Expert testimony improved juror sensitivity to eyewitness evidence without making them more skeptical about the accuracy of the eyewitness identification. Few differences emerged between the experienced jurors and undergraduate mock jurors.     

Deciding the Fate of Others: The Cognitive Underpinnings of Racially Biased Juror Decision Making

In criminal law, jurors are supposed to ignore defendant race when considering factual matters of culpability. However, when judging the merits of a criminal case, jurors’ ability (or inability) to avoid bias may affect verdicts. Fact-based decision making expend cognitive resources, while heuristic-based decisions (e.g., using criminal stereotypes) conserve resources. Here, we investigated whether differences in cognitive resources and prejudice attitudes about Blacks influenced trial outcomes. We tested the impact of working memory capacity (WMC), cognitive load, prejudice, and target race (Black, White) on penalties ascribed to fictional criminal defendants in ambiguous-fact cases. Results showed that when “loaded,” prejudiced-low-WMC persons supported guilty verdicts with higher confidence more often for Black than White defendants. Conversely, regardless of WMC or prejudice attitude, participants penalized White defendants more often when not loaded. We suggest that cognitive resources and prejudice attitude influence fact-based decisions. Links to juror judgments and potential trial outcomes are discussed.     

Arbitrariness and the death penalty: how the defendant's appearance during trial influences capital jurors' punishment decision

This paper examines the impact of the defendant's appearance during the trial on capital jurors' punishment decision. The data used in this analysis were gathered by the Capital Jury Project (CJP), a national program of research on the decision-making of capital jurors. A series of multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted using four aggravating circumstances related to the killing and eight defendant appearance variables as predictors of jurors' punishment decision at three points during the capital trial: (1) after the punishment phase ended, but before formal deliberation began; (2) when the first vote was taken on punishment at jury deliberations; and (3) at the final vote on punishment. Results indicated that when the defendant appeared emotionally involved during the trial (i.e. sorry and sincere) jurors either favored a life sentence or were undecided about punishment; however, when the defendant appeared emotionally uninvolved during the trial (i.e. bored) jurors either sought a death sentence or remained undecided. Policy implications will be discussed.     

Negative Emotions Felt During Trial: the Effect of Fear,Anger, and Sadness on Juror Decision Making

During trial, jurors may experience a variety of emotions, many of which are negative. The current study examined the effects the negative emotions anger, fear, and sadness had on jurors' sentencing decisions and explored whether the cognitive appraisal theory or the intuitive prosecutor model could explain these effects. Jurors viewed the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial and were asked to sentence the defendant. Results indicated that after viewing the trial, jurors reported increased anger and sadness, but not fear. However, only change in anger affected jurors' sentences. Jurors who reported a greater change in anger were more likely to sentence the defendant to death. This effect was mediated by the level of importance that jurors placed on the prosecution's evidence and argument. Consistent with the intuitive prosecutor model, increased anger led to higher ratings of the importance of the aggravating evidence and an increase in death sentences. Implications are discussed. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Understanding pretrial publicity: predecisional distortion of evidence by mock jurors

Prejudicial pretrial publicity (PTP) constitutes a serious source of juror bias. The current study examined differences in predecisional distortion for mock jurors exposed to negative PTP (N-PTP) versus nonexposed control participants. According to work by K. A. Carlson and J. E. Russo (2001), predecisional distortion occurs when jurors bias new evidence in favor of their current leading party (prosecution or defense) rather than evaluating this information for its actual probative properties. Jury-eligible university students (N=116) acted as jurors in a mock trial. Elevated rates of guilty verdicts were observed in the N-PTP condition. Predecisional distortion scores were significantly higher in the N-PTP condition and reflected a proprosecution bias. The effect of prejudicial PTP on verdict outcomes was mediated by predecisional distortion in the evaluation of testimony. Results are discussed in relation to motivated decision making and confirmation biases.     

Replications and Limitations of a Two-Factor Model of Child Witness Credibility

Two experiments are reported that test the idea that jurors perceive child witnesses in terms of a 2-factor model of credibility with the factors defined as cognitive ability and honesty (Leippe & Romanczyk, 1987; Ross, Millers, & Moran, 1989). In the first experiment, 300 mock jurors watched a realistic videotaped recreation of a sexual abuse trial and rated the credibility of the child witness. Mock jurors perceived the child witness in terms of 2 factors: cognitive ability and honesty. Only honesty predicted verdict. These findings were replicated in Experiment 2 ( N = 300) when only the child's testimony was presented and the perceptions of the child witness were not contaminated by the testimony of the other witnesses in the trial.     

Elders in the justice system: how the system treats elders in trials, during imprisonment, and on death row

As the average lifespan increases, it becomes increasingly likely that elders will be involved in the justice system. Elders may be witnesses, victims, plaintiffs, or defendants in a trial. They are also prisoners and, in some cases, death row inmates. Because there are special needs and costs associated with elders, it is important to consider how they are treated in each of these areas of the justice system. For instance, jurors may have age biases; some prisons are unable to address elders' health problems; and critics have questioned the constitutionality of executing frail elders. In order to determine whether the court system is treating elders fairly, this analysis reviews current policies, research, and anecdotal evidence from recent high-profile cases. Recommendations for future research and policy changes are offered to ensure that elders are treated fairly in the justice system.     

Evaluating Gender Discrimination Claims: Is There a Gender Similarity Bias?

A rich literature exists that examines individuals' perceptions of affirmative action in organizations. However, little is known regarding the evaluation of reverse gender discrimination claims arising from gender-based preferential treatment. This study investigated the possible existence of a gender similarity bias in evaluations of gender discrimination allegations using a laboratory experiment in which the strength of evidence against the defendant company and the gender of the plaintiff were manipulated. Our sample consisted of 120 undergraduate students (60 men, 60 women) from diverse racial/ethnic groups (35% Asian, 6% African American, 18% Hispanic, and 41% Caucasian). Results suggested that female mock jurors favored female plaintiffs over male plaintiffs. In contrast, there were no gender-related differences in perceptions of male plaintiffs. Thus, although women did not disadvantage male plaintiffs, there was a tendency for them to be favorably biased in favor of female plaintiffs. As expected, this tendency was greatest under conditions of evidential uncertainty about the company's guilt.     

The Social Psychology of Jury Nullification: Predicting When Jurors Disobey the Law1

The United States judiciary assumes jurors obey the law as it is charged to them in the trial judge's instructions. This paper contends that jurors' comprehension of the law results from an active intelligence which makes available alternative decision rules giving rise to the power of juries to nullify instructions. To study the compliance assumption, we presented to mock jurors pattern jury instructions along with summaries of testimonies from a rape trial. Four times during the trial we administered to participants measures of their attributions of defendant responsibility, judgments about the legal elements of the case, and verdicts. Multiple regressions conducted with data from separate subsamples and with separate questionnaire administrations revealed that a) verdicts were based on attributions independent of the jury instructions, b) individual differences in life experiences predicted the degree to which decision makers used their attributions, and c) the more practiced participants were at applying the jury instructions the more heavily they weighed their own attributions and less heavily the judgments required by the law. We concluded that comprehension alone cannot predict the likelihood that jurors will comply with the law. Therefore, the assumption that jurors follow the law needs to be more carefully considered.     

Reality check: A comparison of college students and a community sample of mock jurors in a simulated sexual violent predator civil commitment

Despite concerns about generalizability, past mock trial research has concluded that effects of sample (i.e., students versus representative mock jurors) are negligible. The current study was conducted to explore this conclusion within the conceptual framework of cognitive–experiential self‐theory (CEST). Through a mock civil commitment hearing of a sexually violent predator, responses of student (n = 138) and representative (n = 240) mock jurors were compared. Results revealed several important differences between samples: (a) the student sample scored higher on the rational processing measure (i.e., need for cognition); (b) students' verdicts were also significantly correlated to a measure of their cognitive processing style, an enduring personal characteristic related to the extent to which an individual engages in either effortful/effortless cognition; and (c) the representative sample was more punitive, was more persuaded by clinical expert testimony, and evidenced a greater gender effect in its decisions. Implications for jury decision‐making research are discussed. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The effects of jury size, evidence complexity, and note taking on jury process and performance in a civil trial

A total of 567 jury-eligible men and women who were assigned to 6- or 12-person juries saw a videotaped civil trial that contained either I or 4 plaintiffs. Half the juries took notes, whereas the remainder did not. Six-person juries that did not take notes awarded multiple plaintiffs the highest amounts of compensation. Six-person juries also gave the highest punitive damages when they did not take notes and judged multiple plaintiffs. The punitive awards of 6-person juries were highly variable compared with 12-person juries. Multiple plaintiffs also increased the unpredictability of jury punitive awards. Twelve-person juries deliberated longer, recalled more probative information, and relied less than 6-person juries on evaluative statements and nonprobative evidence. Limitations and implications are discussed.     

Effects of pre‐trial publicity and jury deliberation on juror bias and source memory errors

We examined the effects of exposure to pre‐trial publicity (PTP) and jury deliberation on juror memory and decision making. Mock jurors either read news articles containing negative PTP or articles unrelated to the trial. They later viewed a videotaped murder trial, after which they either made collaborative group decisions about guilt or individual decisions. Finally, all participants independently attributed specific information as having been presented during the trial or in the news articles. Exposure to PTP significantly affected guilty verdicts, sentence length, perceptions of defendant credibility, and misattributions of PTP as having been presented as trial evidence. Jury deliberation had significant effects on jury verdicts, perceptions of defendant credibility, source memory for trial items, and confidence in source memory judgements, but did not affect sentences or critical source memory errors. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.