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.