| Abstract: | The present study was conducted to determine the process by which jurors reach verdicts in trials in which multiple charges are joined in one indictment. The experiment was designed to test the impact of joinder of affenses, similarity of offenses, and evidentiary strength of jurors' ability to process trial evidence. The results gathered from 220 male and female subjects indicated, as previous research has shown, that joined trials lead to more guilty verdicts than severed trials; that the first charge in a joined trial accounts for this "joinder effect," receiving significantly more guilty verdicts than its severed counterpart. When joined trials are composed of similar categories of crimes, guilt verdicts increase and jurors tend to confuse evidence-as shown by a high rate of antidefendant intrusions from case two to case one. More antidefendant cognitions were also found when the cases were similar. Furthermore, case similarity interacted with the evidentiary strength of the charges in joined trials. |
