Child‐Witness and Defendant Credibility: Child Evidence Presentation Mode and Judicial Instructions1

Child‐witness presentation mode, judicial instructions, and deliberation stage effects on juror ratings of child witness and defendant were investigated Perceptions of the impact of presentation mode on witnesses, juror task, and justice also were explored. Participants (N= 108) viewed a simulated child sexual abuse trial videotape. Overall child‐witness credibility was significantly more positive with videodeposition or court‐given child evidence than with videolink. The defendant was seen as more definitely guilty when child testimony was court given than by videodeposition or videolink. Presentation mode also significantly influenced perceived impact on child witness, defendant case, and juror task. Judicial instructions interacted with presentation mode to affect perceptions of impact on child witness and juror task. Findings are discussed in relation to previous research, and implications for future research and practice are outlined.     

An Aiibi Witness' Influence on Mock Jurors' Verdicts1

The impact of alibi testimony on juror decision making is not yet clear because it has been examined empirically infrequently. This study was designed to determine the impact of alibi witness' testimony, the impact of an alibi witness with a relationship in comparison to one without a relationship to the defendant, and the impact of an eyewitness' confidence on juror decision making. Results indicated that mock jurors acquit a defendant more often when an alibi witness with no relationship to the defendant testified on his behalf. Participants did not believe an alibi witness who had a relationship with the defendant even though the witness was not a family member. Implications for these results are discussed.     

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.     

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.     

Polygraph Testimony and Juror Judgments: A Comparison of the Guilty Knowledge Test and the Control Question Test1

The present experiment investigated the impact of the Control Question Test (CQT) and the Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT) on the verdicts of mock jurors. Although studies have indicated that polygraph evidence has little influence on jurors' verdicts (Cavoukian & Heselgrave, 1980; Spanos, Myers, Dubreuil, & Pawlak, 1992–1993), no research has previously distinguished between the different types of polygraph tests and their impact on juror verdicts. In the present study, jurors were shown a videotape of a simulated rape-murder trial that contained either CQT polygraph evidence, GKT polygraph evidence, or no polygraph evidence. No differences were found among the 3 conditions for either jury verdicts or individual juror verdicts, and jurors tended to rate both forms of polygraph testimony below other forms of equally suspect evidence, such as eyewitness testimony, in its influence on their decision-making process.     

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.     

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.     

Effect of viewing the interview and identification process on juror perceptions of eyewitness accuracy

This study examined whether showing jurors a video of the witness's initial attempts to describe and identify the perpetrator would facilitate jurors' ability to discriminate between accurate and inaccurate witnesses. Mock jurors observed a simulated trial in which the key witness testified under direct examination and cross‐examination. The jurors saw either the witness's testimony or the witness's testimony plus videotape footage of the earlier police interviews in which the witness described and attempted to identify the perpetrator. Results support the hypothesis: Jurors in the examination‐plus‐video condition discriminated between accurate and inaccurate witnesses better than jurors in the examination‐only condition. We discuss various mechanisms to explain the advantage provided by the video. It is recommended that police officers videotape the line‐up procedure and that jurors be shown this video at trial. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

How type of excuse defense, mock juror age, and defendant age affect mock jurors' decisions

The authors investigated the effects of mock juror age (younger vs. older), defendant age (22 vs. 65), and type of excuse defense used by defendants (a highly self-inflicted condition, Cocaine Dependency Disorder, vs. a less self-inflicted condition, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder) on mock juror decisions. Ninety-six younger and 96 older adults read a scenario and answered a questionnaire. Results indicated that the defendant using the highly self-inflicted excuse was more likely to receive a guilty verdict and a longer sentence than was the defendant using the less self-inflicted excuse. Older jurors were more certain of their verdicts and saw the defendant as more responsible for his condition than did younger jurors. Defendant age did not affect juror decisions. In addition, excuse type and juror age affected the jurors' perceptions of the victim's responsibility for the attack. The authors discuss the potential influence of juror age on perceptions of defendant responsibility.     

Nonadversarial Methods for Sensitizing Jurors to Eyewitness Evidence

Tested the effects, on juror decision making, of court-appointed expert testimony and judge's instructions designed to sensitize jurors to eyewitness evidence. Subjects ( N = 144) viewed a videotaped trial in which the primary evidence was the testimony of and identification by an eyewitness. Three levels of expert advice (court-appointed expert, judge's instructions, no expert advice) were crossed with two levels of witnessing and identification conditions and two levels of witness confidence The court-appointed expert produced skepticism toward the identification but did not improve juror sensitivity to the eyewitness evidence. The judge's instructions produced neither skepticism or sensitization effects.     

The effects of rational and experiential information processing of expert testimony in death penalty cases

Past research examining the effects of actuarial and clinical expert testimony on defendants' dangerousness in Texas death penalty sentencing has found that jurors are more influenced by less scientific pure clinical expert testimony and less influenced by more scientific actuarial expert testimony (Krauss & Lee, 2003; Krauss & Sales, 2001). By applying cognitive-experiential self-theory (CEST) to juror decision-making, the present study was undertaken in an attempt to offer a theoretical rationale for these findings. Based on past CEST research, 163 mock jurors were either directed into a rational mode or experiential mode of processing. Consistent with CEST and inconsistent with previous research using the same stimulus materials, results demonstrate that jurors in a rational mode of processing more heavily weighted actuarial expert testimony in their dangerousness assessments, while those jurors in the experiential condition were more influenced by clinical expert testimony. The policy implications of these findings are discussed.     

The influence of lawyers' questions on witness accuracy,confidence, and reaction times and on mock jurors' interpretation of witness accuracy

Two studies demonstrate the influence of lawyers' complex questions on mock‐witness accuracy, confidence, and reaction times and on the interpretation of witness accuracy by mock jurors. In study one, 32 mock witnesses were shown a short film and then questioned either with lawyers' complex questions or simple alternatives. In Study 2, 20 mock jurors viewed video footage of the mock witnesses assigned to each of the two previous conditions and were asked to rate their confidence in the witnesses' answers. The findings of the two studies indicated that lawyers' use of confusing questions reduce not only accuracy but also speed of response and both witnesses' and jurors' ability to determine accuracy. The implication of these findings is straightforward, lawyers should ask simple questions wherever possible. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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 effect of jury deliberations on jurors' propensity to disregard inadmissible evidence

The goal of this research was to examine the effect of jury deliberations on juror's propensity to disregard inadmissible evidence. Extant research is inconclusive; some research indicates that jurors do follow judicial instructions to ignore inadmissible evidence, but other research suggests that jurors do not. Two experiments examined whether jurors were affected by inadmissible evidence. The results revealed that although mock jurors were biased by inadmissible evidence prior to deliberations, the bias was tempered following deliberations. In Experiment 1, post deliberation jurors disregarded incriminating evidence that was ruled inadmissible because of due-process concerns. Experiment 2 replicated these results with less incriminating inadmissible evidence and also revealed that jurors did not accurately gauge the impact that the inadmissible evidence had on their verdicts. Theoretical and judicial policy implications are discussed.     

Prior Allegations of Harassment Impact Mock Jurors’ Perceptions of Sexual Harassment in a Criminal Trial

The current study examined factors that may influence jurors’ judgments in a criminal sexual harassment case with Canadian undergraduate students. Undergraduate students (n?=?268) examined whether defendant’s gender, victim’s gender, and whether the victim had made similar accusations in the past were influential in mock jurors’ judgments. Participants read a case summary describing an alleged sexual harassment and answered questions concerning defendant’s guilt, defendant’s culpability, and perceptions of the victim. Additionally, attitudes concerning sexual harassment and sexism were measured. The presence of prior allegations was a driving force in mock juror decisions, with mock jurors providing more guilty verdicts, more favorable perceptions of the victim, and less favorable perceptions of the defendant when no prior allegations of harassment had been made by the victim. The results of the current study suggest that the presence of prior allegations have a large impact on mock jurors’ decisions, suggesting that prior allegations may need to be considered more closely in court before they can be used as evidence.