Search

Empirical research indicates that jurors routinely undervalue circumstantial evidence (DNA, fingerprints, and the like) and overvalue direct evidence (eyewitness identifications and confessions) when making verdict choices, even though false-conviction statistics [...]

Research investigating intentional forgetting has found that disregarding information may be more difficult when the to-be-forgotten material is strongly related to information that must be retained. The present study investigated [...]

Victim impact testimony (i.e., testimony concerning the harmful consequences on the victim's surviving family) was examined to determine its effect on the sentencing judgments of mock jurors. Undergraduate students (N = 293) watched a videotaped murder trial simulation, rendered verdicts, and made sentencing judgments. During the penalty phase of the trial, participants were either given no victim impact testimony, or they were given victim impact testimony that varied both the severity of the harm information (mild harm/ severe harm) and the demeanor of the witness (low affect/high affect). The results indicate that information concerning the harm experienced by the victim's relatives, not the affective demeanor of the witness, influenced sentencing judgments. Implications for the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Payne v. Tennessee (1991) are discussed.

Can jurors separate their perception of the ideal gender for a profession from the testimony of an expert witness representing that profession? Mock jurors read about a civil case involving an automobile accident. Plaintiff's evidence came from an automotive engineer depicted as either male or female. Individual juror response measures and jury responses indicated no significant effect of gender on the effectiveness of the expert witness. Results are discussed in terms of similar research and implications for civil trials., Articles discussing the admissibility of expert witness testimony have appeared more frequently as the courts and professionals grapple with the standard to be used for admitting expert testimony (Blau, 1998; [...]

The ability of a civil jury to render fair and rational decisions in complex trials has been questioned. However, the nature, dimensions, and effects of trial complexity on decision making have rarely been addressed. In this research, jury-eligible adults saw a videotape of a complex civil trial that varied in information load and complexity of the language of the witnesses. Information load and complexity differentially affected liability and compensatory decisions. An increase in the number of plaintiffs decreased blameworthiness assigned to the defendant despite contrary evidence and amount of probative evidence processed. Complex language did not affect memory but did affect jurors' ability to appropriately compensate differentially worthy plaintiffs. Jurors assigned compensatory awards commensurate with the plaintiffs' injuries only under low-load and less complex language conditions.

In the first of two experimental trial simulations, the authors manipulated exposure to publicity about the defendant and exposure to general stories about acquaintance rape that portrayed men as sexual predators. Participants then viewed an enacted acquaintance rape trial. Across many dependent measures, men exposed to the predatory rape publicity exhibited a pronounced pro-defendant tendency, whereas women were unaffected. Case-specific pretrial publicity had a relatively small impact. In a follow-up experiment, participants were exposed to the predatory acquaintance rape scenario or to a scenario emphasizing male-female miscommunication. Again, men exposed to the predatory publicity became more pro-defendant; men receiving the miscommunication scenario did not exhibit such an effect. The tendency of male jurors to react against information that reflects negatively on them is discussed in the context of psychological reactance and social judgment theory.

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.

The present research explored the influence of four factors on mock jurors' decisions in a homicide trial involving a battered woman who killed her abusive husband: (a) jurors' preexisting beliefs about wife abuse, (b) the presence of expert testimony on the battered woman syndrome, (c) jurors' beliefs in a just world, and (d) gender. Mock jurors listened to a trial involving a woman who had killed her abuser, which either contained expert testimony or did not, and then rendered various judgments about the case. Results indicated that those individuals who were more informed about the dynamics of abuse and those exposed to the expert testimony, compared to their respective counterparts, were more believing of the battered woman's account of what occurred. In general, weak believers in a just world were more lenient in their judgments, with verdicts of not guilty being associated with weaker beliefs in a just world than guilty verdicts. Weak believers in a just world also felt that the expert testimony applied more to the defendant than did strong believers. Finally, women who were weak believers in a just world were less likely to hold the defendant responsible for the events and to be more informed about the dynamics of abuse following the experiment.

The American legal system depends on judicial instructions to structure jury death penalty decisions and thus avoid unconstitutional arbitrariness. Some death penalty instructions, however, provide woefully inadequate guidance and ignore schemas that lead jurors to misconstrue instructions. Empirical research has just begun to document sources of misunderstanding and ways to improve communication. Psychological research can assist in reducing arbitrariness in death penalty decisions, but even optimal instructions may not produce constitutionally sufficient consistency. To be constitutional, capital punishment must be imposed according to a consistent set of standards. Simultaneously, juries must be free to consider in mitigation any relevant case or offender characteristic. It is far from clear that this constitutional conflict between standards and discretion can be resolved.