Greater Knowledge Enhances Complainant Credibility and Increases Jury Convictions for Child Sexual Assault.

Jane Goodman-Delahunty,Annie Cossins,Natalie Martschuk,Eunro Lee

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.624331

Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Annie Cossins + Show 2 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.624331

Copy DOI

Abstract

Child sexual assault (CSA) cases reliant on uncorroborated testimony yield low conviction rates. Past research demonstrated a strong relationship between verdict and juror CSA knowledge such as typical delays in reporting by victims, and perceived victim credibility. This trial simulation experiment examined the effectiveness of interventions by an expert witness or an educative judicial direction in reducing jurors' CSA misconceptions. Participants were 885 jurors in New South Wales, Australia. After viewing a professionally acted video trial, half the jurors rendered individual verdicts and half deliberated in groups of 8–12 before completing a post-trial questionnaire. Multilevel structural equation modeling exploring the relationship between CSA knowledge and verdict demonstrated that greater CSA knowledge after the interventions increased the odds ratio to convict by itself, and that the judicial direction predicted a higher level of post-trial CSA knowledge in jurors than other expert interventions. Moreover, greater CSA knowledge was associated with heightened credibility perceptions of the complainant and a corroborating witness. At the conclusion of the trial, the more jurors knew about CSA, the higher the perceived credibility of both the complainant and her grandmother, and the more likely jurors were to convict the accused.

Highlights

Analyses to test for differences between juror demographics, their pre- vs. post-trial child sexual assault (CSA) knowledge and perceived witness credibility revealed that female jurors in the sample were somewhat more formally educated than their male counterparts, with 63.9% of women and 60.8% of men holding a university degree, 20.0% of women and 14.4% of men had some tertiary and further education (TAFE) diploma, and 11.0% of men and 1.9% of women held a trade certificate
Our study confirmed that in CSA trials, similar to results in studies of jury behavior in other selected types of cases, such as capital crimes, a statistically significant relationship exists between the pre-existing attitudes and demographic characteristics of citizens called for jury duty, their perceptions of the evidence, assessments of witness credibility, and verdicts
Educational interventions in the form of a judicial direction and expert evidence from a psychologist statistically significantly increased jurors’ CSA knowledge, which enhanced the credibility of the complainant and increased the conviction rate

Summary

Introduction

In Australia, child sexual assault (CSA) cases typically result in low conviction rates, possibly because of a lack of corroborative evidence to prove the alleged sexual abuse (Cossins, 2020) and because of research findings suggesting a strong relationship between juror misconceptions about CSA, such as expectations that the victim will resist and immediately report the abuse (Quas et al, 2005; Cossins, 2008; Cossins et al, 2009), low assessments of complainant credibility (Gabora et al, 1993), and a high acquittal rate (Wundersitz, 2003; Fitzgerald, 2006; Goodman-Delahunty et al, 2017a,b). Jury Deliberation in a CSA Case of forensic evidence (Cossins and Goodman-Delahunty, 2013) This view is consistent with dual processing social persuasion theories of jury decision making showing that jurors may resort to quick, heuristic peripheral information processing in the absence of motivation or time to engage in more effortful central processing of substantive, scientific information (Salerno et al, 2017). Two intervention sources presented the educative information to mock jurors: (a) expert witness evidence; or (b) the presiding judge, in the form of a specially drafted educative judicial direction to jurors. A comparison of the effectiveness of these two interventions is important to inform legal practitioners about the efficacy of expert evidence and to consider law reform proposals regarding judicial directions. Other legal mechanisms to reduce jury bias, such as jury selection, were not tested since prospective jurors cannot be questioned before empanelment in Australian courts, where juror selection is limited to a few peremptory challenges based on the appearance of the juror, or challenges for cause (Horan and Goodman-Delahunty, 2010)

Results

Discussion

Conclusion