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 consensus requirements and multiple decisions on mock juror verdict preferences

After watching a simulated rape trial, prerecorded on videotape, mock jurors either did or did not expect to sentence a defendant following deliberation with or without a group verdict required. Both sentencing expectation and verdict requirement significantly elevated jurors' preference for conviction (and average ratings of guilt likelihood). Closer analyses of personal changes (before and after deliberation) in the distribution of opinions suggested that majorities favoring not guilty were more influential than guilty-favoring majorities; and, somewhat unexpectedly, minorities in juries which deliberated without a verdict required were more likely to change personal opinions than minorities in juries required to render a verdict. The overall social decision scheme confirmed earlier observations about the importance of the initial majority in determining the verdict; but the majority did not always prevail and there was a marked asymmetry (“defendant protection”) in its action.     

An investigation of persuasion and sentencing severity with mock juries

The extent to which the personal characteristics of individual mock jurors affect participation and influence with other jurors within the deliberation process was the focus of this investigation. A predeliberation locus of control measure, along with two conditions of jury composition (heterogenous vs homogenous with respect to the locus of control measure) were used to investigate interactions among sentencing severity, persuasiveness in deliberation, and demographic characteristics among 96 jurors. Results indicated that group sentences were significantly more severe than predeliberation sentences and that postdeliberation shifts were significantly more pronounced for the heterogenous juries than for the homogeneous juries.     

Jurors’ perception of violence: A framework for inquiry

The impact that the perceived violence of a crime has on jury decision making has received much controversy lately. Violence may affect juries by how it is presented, as in the case of graphic evidence; its evidentiary purpose, as in establishing a history of violence in domestic abuse cases; and in sentencing, when the question of the heinousness of the crime is raised. Many judicial experts argue that evidence of violence may prejudice juries’ verdicts. There is also concern within the legal community that what constitutes a heinous crime cannot be objectively determined. Psychological research has only just begun to explore these issues. This paper reviews the current legal state of these issues, the arguments and questions that have been raised within the legal community, and the empirical research that has been conducted thus far. The paper concludes with directions for future research that would improve our understanding of how jurors’ perception of violence affects their decisions.     

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.     

THE FORUM

Expertise for Sale. Zack and Martha Prophet are behavioral scientists with more than 20 years experience in studying the behavior of jurors. They have set up a consulting firm, Jury Dynamics Inc., to work with lawyers in two major arenas. The first consulting activity is jury selection. They advise lawyers on which questions to ask and how to exercise challenges in order to empanel a jury most sympathetic to the case the attorney plans to present. The second major consulting activity involves empaneling shadow juries, comprised of demographically similar individuals to the actual juries. These shadow juries are used to test lawyer's tactics for effectiveness and to listen to tapes of trials in progress. In the latter instance, the shadow juries can provide advance data on potential outcomes, thereby indicating when settlement options should be considered.     

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.     

The Impact of Case Characteristics and Prior Jury Experience on Jury Verdicts1

An archival analysis of records from 206 criminal cases was used to evaluate the impact of personal and situational factors on jury verdicts. In particular, we evaluated whether repeated jury service produced bias in jurors that was sufficient to affect jury decisions. A variety of case characteristics and indices of prior jury experience was examined for their relative impact on trial outcomes. Several of the case characteristics were related to verdicts, but the personal characteristics were not. Although more than half of the juries contained experienced jurors, juror experience had little influence on verdicts in either major or subsidiary analyses. However, there was a slight tendency for small juries with large proportions of experienced jurors to convict. This result is consistent with data from Kentucky; a meta-analysis across the two data sets indicates that it is a reliable finding. The results have implications for the determination of jury size. We suggest that future research examine the possibility that increasing jury size may reduce the influence of an individual's bias by providing a balance of other jurors with no or offsetting biases.     

Effects of Prejudicial Pretrial Publicity From Physical and Witness Evidence on Mock Jurors' Decision Making1

The effects of prejudicial pretrial publicity (PTP) from physical and witness evidence on decisions made by trained and untrained mock jurors were compared. Mock jurors viewed a videotaped rape trial and participated in jury deliberations. Training consisted of completion of a university course on psychology and law. As expected, physical evidence PTP produced more guilty votes than witness or no PTP. Both types of PTP influenced untrained mock jurors' punishment preferences and perceptions of satisfaction and fairness, whereas trained mock jurors' opinions on these measures were unaffected by PTP. Deliberations of trained mock juries were more task‐oriented and focused on relevant evidence and legal issues than that of their untrained peers. Limitations of this mock jury study were discussed.     

Gender effects on individual verdicts and on mock jury verdicts in a Simulated Acquaintance Rape Trial

Since more women than men college students vote guilty in a simulated acquaintance rape trial [e.g., G. J. Fischer (1991) “Cognitive predictors of not-guilty verdicts in a Simulated Acquaintance Rape Trial,”Psychological Reports, Vol. 68, pp. 1199–1206], guilty mock jury verdicts were expected to increase as a function of the number of women on the jury (i.e., 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12). However, guilty verdicts did not increase significantly until either females were an overwhelming majority (i.e., 10 women to 2 men) or the jury was all female. Even in the latter conditions, guilty verdicts were fewer than would be expected based on the 86% of women and 66% of men voting guilty on a survey completed after reading about the trial, but before serving on a jury. Although a very large majority of females were needed to increase guilty verdicts, a majority appeared to lessen the likelihood of not guilty verdicts. For example, when a majority of jurors were female, 0/18 hung juries leaned toward a not guilty verdict vs. 11/34 juries leaning toward a not guilty verdict when less than or equal to one half of the jurors were female. Most of the students were White (85%), with 4% Asian, 3.2% Black, 3.2% Hispanic, and 4% “Other.”     

Probability of Criminal Acts of Violence: A Test of Jury Predictive Accuracy

The ability of capital juries to accurately predict future prison violence at the sentencing phase of aggravated murder trials was examined through retrospective review of the disciplinary records of 115 male inmates sentenced to either life (n = 65) or death (n = 50) in Oregon from 1985 through 2008, with a mean post‐conviction time at risk of 15.3 years. Violent prison behavior was completely unrelated to predictions made by capital jurors, with bidirectional accuracy simply reflecting the base rate of assaultive misconduct in the group. Rejection of the special issue predicting future violence enjoyed 90% accuracy. Conversely, predictions that future violence was probable had 90% error rates. More than 90% of the assaultive rule violations committed by these offenders resulted in no harm or only minor injuries. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Information Integration Theory,Juror Bias,and Sentence Recommendations Captured Over Time in a Capital Trial

Initial juror verdicts have been shown to predict final verdicts, leading researchers to conclude that jurors seek confirmatory information during trial (confirmation bias) or distort information to fit pre‐existing biases (pre‐decisional distortion). However, Information Integration Theory suggests that individuals are not distorting/ignoring this information, and instead, information influences judgments in the direction of the message. The current study sought to test these competing theories in a juror setting. Mock jurors were presented with the sentencing phase of a capital trial and were asked to give sentence recommendations at eight different time points. Additionally, they were grouped by their pretrial bias as being pro‐defense, neutral, or pro‐prosecution. Results showed support for Information Integration Theory; although jurors' pretrial bias predicted final sentence, sentence recommendations were affected in the direction of the testimony presented throughout the trial (e.g., pro‐defense testimony lowered death penalty decisions across all groups). Implications and future directions are discussed. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

How reason for surgery and patient weight affect verdicts and perceptions in medical malpractice trials: a comparison of students and jurors

Jurors' decision-making processes are often influenced by extra-legal factors, including judgments of defendants and plaintiffs. Two studies comparing the decisions of university students with those of community jurors sought to determine if extra-legal factors such as individual differences (including identity as a student or juror participant), the reason for surgery (medically necessary vs. elective), the type of surgery (e.g., gastric bypass, nasal reconstruction) or weight of the patient influenced jurors' decisions and perceptions in medical malpractice suits, such that participants would hold negative perceptions of overweight patients or patients who undergo elective surgeries. Results indicate that students and jurors differ in perceptions of the patient's injury and perceptions of risk, which explains some of the variance in liability verdicts. Students were more likely to find doctors liable, but also were more likely to assign responsibility to patients than were jurors. Patients who had undergone elective surgery were seen as more responsible for their situation - and their doctors were assigned less responsibility - than those who had undergone a medically necessary surgery. Tests of weight bias showed that jurors found overweight patients less responsible for their situation than patients of normal weight, but students showed the opposite pattern. Theoretical explanations are explored and implications discussed.     

Individual Differences in Attitudes Relevant to Juror Decision Making: Development and Validation of the Pretrial Juror Attitude Questionnaire (PJAQ)1

This study involves scale development using theoretically derived items from previous measures and a lay consensual approach for generating new items. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to validate the emergent constructs assessing individual differences in attitudes of prospective jurors. Using case summaries, the Pretrial Juror Attitude Questionnaire (PJAQ) demonstrates superior predictive validity over commonly employed measures of pretrial bias. The PJAQ confirms the importance of theoretically derived constructs assessed by other scales and introduces new constructs to the jury decision‐making literature. The attitudes assessed by the PJAQ are conviction proneness, system confidence, cynicism toward the defense, racial bias, social justice, and innate criminality. Implications for assessing such attitudes and for better understanding the decision‐making process of jurors are discussed.     

How jurors use and misuse character evidence

The Federal Rules of Evidence allow defendants to offer testimony about their good character, but that testimony can be impeached with cross-examination or a rebuttal witness. It is assumed that jurors use the defense's character evidence (CE) to form guilt and conviction judgments but use impeachment evidence only to assess the character witness's credibility. Two experiments tested these assumptions by presenting mock jurors with various forms of CE and impeachment. Participants made trait ratings for the character witness and defendant and guilt and conviction judgments. Positive CE did not affect guilt or conviction judgments, but cross-examination caused a backlash in which judgments were harsher than when no CE was given. Using path analysis, the authors tested a model of the process by which CE and impeachment affect defendant and witness impressions and guilt and conviction judgments. Implications for juror decision making are discussed.     

An experimental investigation of the misinformation effect in crime-related amnesia claims

Research suggests that both internal (i.e., lying) and external (i.e., misinformation) factors can affect memory for a crime. We aimed to explore the effects of post-event misinformation on crime-related amnesia claims. We showed participants a mock crime and asked them to either simulate amnesia (simulators) or confess to it (confessors). Next, some participants were provided with misinformation. Finally, all participants were requested to genuinely recollect the crime. Overall, simulators reported less correct information than confessors. Moreover, these two groups were equally vulnerable to misinformation. In addition, exploratory analyses on strategies adopted by simulators revealed that those who previously, mostly omitted information while simulating amnesia exhibited the lowest amount of correct details. Simulators who instead used a mixed strategy disclosed more fabricated memory errors. Findings suggest that legal professionals and jurors should take into account that even offenders, irrespective of confessing or simulating memory loss for a crime, can be susceptible to post-event misinformation.     

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.     

Stigma against false confessors impacts post‐exoneration financial compensation

False confessors are stigmatized more than other exonerees. Traditional theories of stigma suggest that this difference may result from confessors being seen as more responsible for their own wrongful conviction. In the current study, we examined an important tangible consequence of stigma against false confessors—namely, that it might impede their ability to win financial restitution in post‐exoneration civil lawsuits. Mock jurors (N = 129), recruited online, read a case summary in which an exoneree is seeking damages after being wrongly convicted due to a false confession or eyewitness misidentification, which either did or did not result from police misconduct. When the exoneree falsely confessed in the absence of police misconduct, mock jurors rated him as most responsible for his own conviction and expressed the most doubt over his actual innocence. Contrary to legal criteria, they also awarded him smaller compensatory and punitive damage awards. Notably, the false confessor was seen as more responsible than the misidentified exoneree even if his interrogation was highly coercive. In turn, false confessors who were seen as more responsible received smaller damage awards. Implications for trial procedure and exoneree compensation are discussed.     

The construction and validation of a juror bias scale

A questionnaire was constructed to measure individual differences in pretrial bias among jurors. The final Likert scale, called the Juror Bias Scale (JBS), contains 17 items—8 that reflect pretrial expectancies that defendants, in general, commit the crimes with which they are charged and 9 that reflect the value attached to conviction and punishment. The scale is internally consistent and test-retest reliable. Scores are uncorrelated with social desirability, moderately correlated with I-E control and belief in a just world, and more highly correlated with authoritarianism. In one validation experiment, student jurors were exposed to three trial presentations in a laboratory setting. Overall, subjects classified as prosecution biased were more conviction prone and adopted a less stringent standard of reasonable doubt. In a second study, community jurors watched one of two videotaped mock trials in a courtroom. Prosecution-biased subjects asserted a higher probability that the defendent committed the crime and rendered a higher percentage of guilty verdicts than defense-biased subjects for one of the two trials. JBS scores were unrelated to all demographic variables, but were significantly correlated with political views. The potential uses and limitations of the JBS are discussed.