Effect of Crime Seriousness on Simulated Jurors' Use of Inadmissible Evidence

Abstract

The effect of crime seriousness on American student jurors' use of inadmissible evidence was examined. Previous research has shown that sometimes simulated jurors disregard inadmissible evidence, and sometimes they do not. Various factors have been investigated in an attempt to account for these mixed results (reactance, direction of the inadmissible evidence, objections, and rulings). In the present study, students read a brief trial summary of a crime that was low, intermediate, or high in seriousness (vandalism, arson, or murder). Half of the sample was exposed to ambiguous evidence, and the other half was exposed to damaging, inadmissible evidence. Across crimes, all factors were held constant except for descriptions of the crimes themselves. Only when the crime was not serious were students biased by the inadmissible evidence. Crime seriousness was positively correlated with guilt judgments when the evidence was ambiguous, but not when damaging inadmissible evidence was added.