Undermining Reasonableness: Expert Testimony in a Case Involving a Battered Woman Who Kills

Student participants  ( N = 316)  viewed a videotaped simulated case involving a woman who had entered a self-defense plea in the shooting death of her abusive husband. As successful claims of self-defense rest on the portrayal of a defendant who has responded reasonably to his/her situation, the implications of various forms of expert testimony in constructing this narrative were examined. Jurors were presented with either expert testimony regarding the battered woman syndrome (BWS), the BWS framed within post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) nomenclature, or a no-expert control condition. As the BWS classification may support a stereotypical victim, the degree to which the defendant fit the stereotype in terms of her access to a social support network (family, friends, employment outside of the home) was varied within the expert testimony conditions to reflect either a high or low degree of stereotype fit. Although jury verdicts failed to differ across expert testimony and stereotype fit conditions, perceptions of her credibility and mental stability did. Although affording jurors a framework from which the defendant's experiences as a battered woman may be acknowledged, this portrayal, as advanced within PTSD nomenclature, endorsed a pathological characterization of the defendant. Implications of this discourse for battered women within the context of self-defense are discussed.     

The impact of expert testimony on trials of battered women who kill their husbands

Increased attention to family violence is reflected, in part, in the growing number of social scientists who have applied the results of their work in trials of battered women who have killed their husbands. Acting as expert witnesses, these individuals detail their knowledge and offer opinions in order to educate jurors about the social and psychological consequences of abuse within marital relationships. Little is known about the actual impact of expert testimony on jury deliberation in cases involving battered women. Those engaged in studying the interface of psychology and criminal justice have relied primarily on anecdotal evidence which suggests that expert testimony shapes jurors' attitudes and their ultimate decisions. (Ellison & Buckhout, 1981). This article summarizes psychological research on how individuals, including battered women, react to victimization and provides a preliminary theoretical formulation of this problem.     

The Determinants of Mock Jurors' Verdicts in a Rape Case1

The determinants of verdicts in a rape case were examined. Pretrial attitudes (rape empathy, juror bias, belief in a just world, and authoritarianism) were measured to ascertain both the intercorrelations among the attitudes and their predictive value of verdicts. The eye contact (staring, avoiding, or random) of the alleged rape victim with the defendant was also examined. Results showed that rape empathy was predictive of verdict. The eye contact of the alleged victim with the defendant also affected verdicts of female mock jurors. Specifically, when eye contact was avoided, more guilty verdicts were rendered. Furthermore, interpretation of eye contact was found to be a function of mock jurors' reported rape empathy. Specifically, subjects who reported empathy with the victim tended to interpret the victim's behavior as consistent with being raped. Finally, differences were found between high and low empathizers for the rape victim in what aspects of the trial were important to mock jurors' decisions.     

How the Defendant's Emotion Level Affects Mock Jurors' Decisions When Presentation Mode and Evidence Strength Are Varied1

Two experiments (N= 443) were conducted to investigate the effects of a defendant's emotion level during testimony on mock jurors' decisions. In Experiment 1, the defendant's level of emotion (low, moderate, high) and mode of presentation (audio, video) were varied. The defendant displaying a low level, as opposed to a higher level of emotion was perceived as more guilty and less credible. In Experiment 2, using only the video mode, emotion level and evidence strength (strong, weak) were varied. Defendant emotion level tended to affect jurors' decisions only when the evidence against the defendant was weak (i.e., a stronger display of emotion was associated with a lower proportion of guilty verdicts, shorter sentence assignments, and perceptions of a more honest defendant). Path analyses for both experiments indicate that the effects of emotion on perceived guilt level are mediated by perceptions of the defendant (e.g., the defendant's level of honesty). Implications of using defendant emotion level for determining guilt are discussed.     

Perceptions of Children's Credibility in Sexual Assault Cases1

Children's testimony often plays a central role in prosecutions of child sexual abuse. Nevertheless, research on jurors' perceptions of the credibility of child sexual assault victims remains limited. In three experiments, we examined mock jurors' reactions to children's testimony about sexual abuse. Participant jurors were exposed to videotaped or written scenarios of child sexual abuse trials and then rated victim credibility and defendant guilt. Analyses indicated that: (a) victim age was either inversely related or unrelated to perceptions of victim credibility, (b) women were more likely than men to find child victims credible, (c) corroborating testimony from a child victim increased the credibility of another child victim, and (d) exposure of participants to past criminal acts and other negative defendant character evidence heightened perceived victim credibility and defendant guilt. Implications for understanding jurors' reactions to child witnesses are discussed.     

Well…ah…: Hesitations and Hedges as an Influence on Jurors' Decisions1

Hispanic jurors' verdicts and whether these decisions were related to jurors' judgments of the credibility of the witness were the focus of this experiment. A prosecution witness testified in English or in Spanish with interpretation in English. Witnesses' speaking style systematically included hedges and hesitations or did not. Guilty verdicts were independent of language of testimony. Within Spanish‐interpreted conditions, jurors convicted the defendant 47% of the time in the absence of hedges and hesitations. When he hedged and hesitated, they convicted 34% of the time. This effect was complicated by a reliable Witness Hesitation × Juror Language Dominance interaction. These results are interpreted in the context of the courtroom impact of non‐English‐speaking witnesses and the impact of interpretation.     

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.     

Preventing the Application of Stereotypic Biases in the Courtroom: The Role of Detailed Testimony1

To determine whether detailed testimony has equivalent effects on judgments of stereotyped and nonstereotyped defendants, subjects read a synopsis of a criminal court case in which the defendant either was a stereotyped offender or was not. Additionally, the degree of detail in the prosecution testimony and defense testimony was varied. Results indicated that defendant stereotypicality had a greater impact under conditions in which witnesses provided equal amounts of detail in their testimony. When witnesses differed in the degree of detail in their testimony, the stereotypicality of the defendant was disregarded and judgments favored the witness who provided greater detail. These findings suggest that stereotype application is not inevitable; rather, stereotypes may bias jurors' decision-making processes when the quality and quantity of the evidence does not easily lead to a confident judgment.     

Improving the Credibility of Child Sexual Assault Victims in Court: The Impact of a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner

The present study investigated the influence of a sexual assault nurse examiner's (SANE's) testimony on mock juror perceptions of a child or adolescent victim of child sexual assault. Community members (N = 252, 156 females) read a fictional criminal trial summary of a child sexual assault case in which the victim was 6 or 15 years old and the prosecution presented medical testimony from a SANE or a traditional registered nurse (RN), or did not present medical testimony. Mock jurors were more likely to render guilty verdicts when a SANE testified compared with the other two testimony conditions. In addition, pro-victim judgments (e.g., sympathy toward the victim) and negative defendant judgments (e.g., anger toward the defendant) mediated this relation. Finally, cognitive network representations of the case demonstrated that the RN and no-medical-testimony groups were similar and the SANE group was distinct from the other two conditions. We discuss these results in terms of the implications of SANE testimony in child sexual assault court cases. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Influence of Eyewitness Nonidentifications on Mock-Jurors' Judgments of a Court Case1

Two experiments examined the effect of an eyewitness nonidentificution on mock-jurors' verdicts in robbery cases, as well as the effects of number of identifying eyewitnesses and status of the identifying witness (victim or bystander). Subjects read court case summaries that included variable eyewitness evidence and constant alibi, circumstantial, and character evidence. In Experiment 1, frequency of guilty verdicts was significantly less when an eyewitness testified in court that the defendant was not the perpetrator, even when this nonidentification opposed two positive identifications. In Experiment 2, a low guilty rate was again associated with the presence of a nonidentifier, but only when the nonidentifier actually testified in court and stipulated that the defendant is “not the man.” On the average, 70% of the jurors delivered guilty verdicts when both the victim and bystander gave identifying testimony, whereas 12.5% delivered guilty verdicts when the bystander gave opposing nonidentifying testimony. Guilty rates were unaffected by the identifying eyewitness' status and (in Experiment 2, but not Experiment 1) were higher when there were two (vs. one) identifying eyewitnesses.     

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.     

The influence of FMRI lie detection evidence on juror decision-making

In the current study, we report on an experiment examining whether functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) lie detection evidence would influence potential jurors' assessment of guilt in a criminal trial. Potential jurors (N = 330) read a vignette summarizing a trial, with some versions of the vignette including lie detection evidence indicating that the defendant was lying about having committed the crime. Lie detector evidence was based on evidence from the polygraph, fMRI (functional brain imaging), or thermal facial imaging. Results showed that fMRI lie detection evidence led to more guilty verdicts than lie detection evidence based on polygraph evidence, thermal facial imaging, or a control condition that did not include lie detection evidence. However, when the validity of the fMRI lie detection evidence was called into question on cross-examination, guilty verdicts were reduced to the level of the control condition. These results provide important information about the influence of lie detection evidence in legal settings. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Socioeconomic Status and Belief in a Just World: Sentencing of Criminal Defendants1

The present study investigated whether defendants' socioeconomic status (SES) and jurors' beliefs in a just world affected punishment and blame decisions. The study's 273 participants completed the Just World Scale ( Rubin & Peplau, 1975 ) and read a case scenario describing an aggravated murder. Participants rendered a verdict and answered questions concerning confidence, responsibility, and degree of guilt. Analyses partially supported the hypothesis. High believers in a just world were more likely to assign higher degrees of guilt and to sentence low SES defendants more severely than high SES or no SES information defendants.     

Videotaped Versus In-Court Witness Testimony: Does Protecting the Child Witness Jeopardize Due Process?1

Videotaping depositions may protect a child witness from the stress of testifying in court but also may influence jurors’ perceptions of the child and the defendant, and jurors’ verdicts in systematic ways. The present study examines several psychological hypotheses that emerge from the controversy over the use of videotaped depositions of child witnesses in child sexual abuse trials. We predicted that student jurors viewing a videotaped deposition would be more proprosecution and less prodefense than those who did not receive testimony in such a form. Thus, it was predicted that jurors viewing a videotaped deposition would perceive the prosecution witnesses and their testimonies more favorably, the defense witnesses and their testimonies less favorably, and give more guilty verdicts than jurors who viewed identical testimony during the course of a trial. We also predicted that females would be more proprosecution and less prodefense than males and that this gender difference would be accentuated by the medium of presentation. The medium of presentation had only a few effects on jurors’ responses. However, when differences emerged, they generally provided support for the predicted main effects. The implications of these findings for the use of videotaped depositions of child sexual abuse victims are discussed.     

The Effect of Several Types of Pretrial Publicity on the Guilt Attributions of Simulated Jurors1

The experiment (N= 312) tested the effects of two types of pretrial publicity (PTP) on the guilt verdicts of simulated jurors. Heinous PTP was manipulated by varying the degree to which the lurid details of a rape-murder were presented to prospective jurors. Prejudgement PTP varied in the extent to which it implied that the defendant was the perpetrator or the rape-murder. As predicted, PTP which was high in either heinousness or prejudgment increased the females' tendency to conclude-after the trial evidence-that the defendant was guilty of the crime. The biasing effect of prejudgment PTP, however, was significant only among females categorized as being of low IQ. In contrast, neither dimension of PTF' significantly influenced the guilt verdicts of male jurors. Several possible explanations of the sex's differential vulnerability to PTP were proposed. In addition, evidence was obtained that female jurors may have been derogating the rape-murder victim and defensively minimizing the gravity of her fate, as a result of motivations to believe in a just world.     

Mock Jurors' Evaluations of Child Sexual Abuse: The Impact of Memory Recovery and Therapeutic Intervention

The present research assessed whether mock jurors' decisions in a case involving allegations of child sexual abuse would be influenced by (1) the nature of the plaintiff's memory of the abuse (repressed, nonrepressed) and (2) therapeutic intervention (present, absent). Participants (N=123) were given a trial summary in which the plaintiff's memory and involvement in therapy were systematically varied to produce four conditions. Although verdicts varied only by sex of participant, some judgments of the plaintiff's claim were more favorable to the plaintiff in the non-repressed condition. Female participants were also less likely to believe that the claim involving memory repression was truthful when the woman was in therapy as opposed to not in therapy. Results also indicated that people who were aware of “False Memory Syndrome” were more likely to think the plaintiff was lying and less likely to think she was telling the truth compared to those who were not aware.