Mock juror sensitivity to forensic evidence in drug facilitated sexual assaults

Abstract

Mock jurors' reactions to variations in the quality of toxicological evidence regarding the presence of drugs in a sexual assault trial were examined. In Study 1, participants received a trial summary in which a negative test result, a negative test result plus expert testimony, or no test result was presented. The time taken by the complainant to report the alleged sexual assault was manipulated. The negative test result influenced participants' judgments, but this effect was minimized by the presence of expert testimony. The complainant's delay in reporting had little impact on judgments. In Study 2, complainant time to report was again manipulated along with the outcome of the test result (negative finding and no result). Results revealed that men were less conviction prone when the negative test result was obtained early as opposed to late. In contrast, when the test result was unavailable, men were more conviction prone when the complainant reported late as oppose to early.