How Video Image Size Interacts with Evidence Strength,Defendant Emotion,and the Defendant–Victim Relationship to Alter Perceptions of the Defendant

Courtroom video presentations can range from images on small screens installed in the jury box to images on courtroom video monitors or projection screens. Does video image size affect jurors' perceptions of information presented during trials? To investigate this we manipulated video image size as well as defendant emotion level presented during testimony (low, moderate), the defendant–victim relationship (spouses, strangers), and the strength of the evidence (weak, strong). Participants (N = 263) read a case and trial summary, watched video of defendant testimony, and then answered a questionnaire. Larger screens generally accentuated what was presented (e.g., made stronger evidence seem stronger and weaker evidence seem weaker), acting mainly upon trial outcome variables (e.g., verdict). Non‐trial outcomes (e.g., defendant credibility) were generally affected by defendant emotion level and the defendant–victim relationship. Researchers and attorneys presenting video images need to recognize that respondents may evaluate videotaped trial evidence differently as a function of how video evidence is presented. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

From Compassion to Compensation: The Effect of Injury Severity on Mock Jurors' Liability Judgments1

Two studies were performed to ascertain the effect of injury severity on participants' judgments in a simulated jury task. Participants read a summary of a personal-injury case in which the severity of the plaintiffs injury was varied; they were asked to judge the defendant's liability, award compensation. and rate their feelings toward the litigants. In Study I, more severely hurt plaintiffs were more likely to obtain a favorable verdict, even though evidence of liability was held constant. Greater severity influenced liability judgments only insofar as it elicited positive feelings toward the plaintiff or negative feelings toward the defendant, In Study 2, severity was found to have no effect when participants could not award damages, suggesting that more severe injuries arouse feelings for the litigants that are associated with a motivation to alleviate the plaintiffs suffering or to punish the defendant. Strategies for reducing the extralegal influence of injury severity 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.     

Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases: The effects of evidence,coherence and credentials on juror decision making

Psychological experts have been used increasingly to testify in child sexual abuse cases, yet little research has investigated what specific factors make experts effective. This study examined the potential effects that credentials, evidence strength and coherence may have on juror decision making. Sixty‐four mock jurors read cases of child sexual abuse, followed by experts' testimony and rated guilt of the defendant, effectiveness of the expert testimony and credibility of the victim. Evidence strength and coherence of the testimony affected all dependent variables, and the interaction was significant. Guilt ratings of the defendant were lower and the victim was rated as less credible when both evidence strength and coherence were low. The credentials of the expert, however, had negligible impact. These findings indicate that experts can be effective and impact jurors when testimony is either high in coherence or high in evidence. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.

     

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.     

How a “Reasonable Doubt” Instruction Affects Decisions of Guilt

Jurors are instructed to render a guilty verdict if they feel the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury is often told that this does not mean an absolute certainty of guilt and that even if it were possible to imagine a scenario in which the defendant is innocent, a guilty verdict may still be appropriate. Here, participants read a case summary. They were either told to say that the defendant was guilty if they believed in guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or were given more detailed instruction stressing that they did not have to be absolutely certain of guilt to give a guilty verdict. In Experiment 1, participants provided “think-aloud” protocols. Content analysis revealed that those who were given this instruction often used the phrase reasonable doubt to justify their guilty verdicts by saying that although they were not certain of the defendant's guilt, their belief exceeded the reasonable doubt threshold. None of the participants in the control group did this. Experiment 2 was designed to test if the instruction affected belief in guilt and the reasonable doubt threshold quantitatively. The instruction affected both people's belief in guilt and the threshold that they used to define reasonable doubt. The implied values for reasonable doubt were 63% for those who received the instruction and 77% for the control group. Implications for jury decision making are discussed.     

Reducing racial bias in the penalty phase of capital trials

Past research (e.g. Lynch & Haney, 2000) has shown that race plays a significant role in juror decision making in the penalty phase of capital murder trials. This study investigates the possibility of reducing juror bias towards Blacks by altering the content of jury instructions. White and non-White participants received trial information and jury instructions in which the defendant's race (Black or White) and the instruction type (standard or simplified) were manipulated. Participants rendered a sentence recommendation, identified factors they considered to be aggravating or mitigating, and responded to instruction comprehension questions. Bias against the Black defendant was significantly reduced when simplified instructions were used and when the defendant was judged by racially diverse jurors. Simplification also led to better comprehension of sentencing instructions. Implications for capital trials are discussed.     

The Effects of Victim’s Substance Use and Relationship Closeness on Mock Jurors’ Judgments in an Acquaintance Rape Case

Previous research has demonstrated that jurors perceive a female victim who is drunk at the time when she is sexually assaulted as less credible and more deserving of such punishment than a sober victim. In this experiment, we investigated the effect of an alleged acquaintance rape victim’s type of substance use and closeness of relationship with the defendant on the judgments of 152 student mock jurors. Participants read a case summary and answered a series of questions about their impressions of the actors and actions involved in the case. Participants perceived a victim who was sober at the time of the incident as more credible than a victim who was intoxicated due to illegal substance use (alcohol or LSD), and convictions were also most likely when the victim was sober. Women perceived the victim as more credible than men did. Higher victim credibility judgments were associated with less rape myth acceptance (RMA) on the part of participants.     

Mock Jurors’ Perception of Stalking: The Impact of Gender and Expressed Fear

Two experiments investigated mock-juror perceptions of intimate stalking using Kentucky’s (United States) anti-stalking legislation. Experiment 1 used a mock-juror methodology in which 177 undergraduates (87 men and 90 women) from a large southeastern US university read a stalking trial summary and rendered individual judgments as mock jurors. The main research question of Experiment 1 was how participant gender impacted trial judgments (e.g., verdict) when the gender of both the defendant and victim were manipulated. Overall, the results showed that men rendered significantly fewer guilty verdicts than women, particularly in conditions that included the prototypical type of intimate stalking (female victim/male defendant). In Experiment 2, also using a mock-juror methodology, 129 undergraduates (51 men and 78 women) from a large southeastern U.S. university read a stalking trial summary (involving a female victim and male defendant) and rendered individual judgments as mock jurors. The main research question of Experiment 2 focused on whether victim fear (high or low) impacted trial judgments (e.g., verdict). The results yielded an interaction of participant gender and victim fear. Specifically, whereas different levels of fear did not impact women, men yielded fewer guilty verdicts in the low victim fear condition compared to the high victim fear condition. The results of the present experiments are discussed in terms of the implications of stalking allegations brought to trial.     

Race,Rape, and Bias: Distortion of Prior Odds and Meaning Changes

Two experiments were conducted to investigate how racial bias affects juror decision making. Three sources of bias were studied: (1) prior probabilities of guilt, (2) distortion of the meaning of evidence, and (3) differential weighting of information. A paired comparison technique employed in the first study revealed that pretrial probabilities of guilt were greater when the victim was White than when she was Black. In the second experiment, a different group of subjects viewed one of four videotaped simulated rape trials in which seven segments of testimony had been previously rated as pro-prosecution, pro-defense, or neutral. During the trial, subjects rated each segment on three different scales: prosecution, defense, and degree of defendant guilt. Results indicated that neutral evidence was seen as more favorable to prosecution for a White victim compared to a Black victim. Evidence which favored either prosecution or defense was not distorted. Regression analyses revealed a positive relationship between estimates of guilt and distortion of evidence. The weight or importance of the evidence did not vary as a function of victim or defendant race. Years of recommended imprisonment indicated greater severity toward the Black assailant of a White woman. The results suggest that bias in favor of White victims occurs both in the assessment of pretrial probabilities and perception of evidence.     

On racial diversity and group decision making: identifying multiple effects of racial composition on jury deliberations

This research examines the multiple effects of racial diversity on group decision making. Participants deliberated on the trial of a Black defendant as members of racially homogeneous or heterogeneous mock juries. Half of the groups were exposed to pretrial jury selection questions about racism and half were not. Deliberation analyses supported the prediction that diverse groups would exchange a wider range of information than all-White groups. This finding was not wholly attributable to the performance of Black participants, as Whites cited more case facts, made fewer errors, and were more amenable to discussion of racism when in diverse versus all-White groups. Even before discussion, Whites in diverse groups were more lenient toward the Black defendant, demonstrating that the effects of diversity do not occur solely through information exchange. The influence of jury selection questions extended previous findings that blatant racial issues at trial increase leniency toward a Black defendant.