Abstract
We investigated the effects of evidence order on juror verdicts. Results from 4 mock juror studies suggest that incriminating evidence is more likely to lead to a guilty verdict when it is presented late in the trial than when it is presented early. This recency effect was found both with admissible and inadmissible evidence. Further analyses suggested that recency effects may have been mediated by jurors' memory of the incriminating evidence: Evidence presented late in a trial was more likely to be remembered by jurors and thus more likely to have influenced their verdicts. Implications for the judicial system and juror decision making are discussed.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
