Defendant Ethnicity Research Articles

Using a Mobile App to Identify Base Rates and Monitor Bias in Forensic Evaluation

ABSTRACT The potential for bias in forensic mental health evaluations can threaten the objectivity of psycholegal opinions. To date, individual evaluators have few mechanisms to identify bias in their own work. The present study examines the use of a recently developed iPhone App designed for this purpose. Evaluators from 18 states used this platform to enter information related to their forensic evaluations, allowing them to receive real-time data about the rates of their opinions across a variety of variables. This study discusses results from 831 evaluations entered into the app and outlines the benefits of using handheld technology in practice. Some variables appeared to influence forensic outcomes (such as the payment of a fee to an evaluator), while others did not (such as defendant ethnicity and race). Analyses also revealed a 49.6% base rate of incompetency to stand trial opinions across all competency evaluations entered into the app.

How mock jurors’ cognitive processing and defendants’ immigrant status and ethnicity relate to decisions in capital trials

This study examined how defendants’ immigrant status and ethnicity interact with evidence strength and mock jurors’ cognitive processing traits to influence decisions in a capital trial. A sample of jury-eligible participants acted as mock jurors and read a trial summary in which defendant immigrant status, defendant ethnicity, and evidence strength were experimentally manipulated. They then weighed aggravators relative to mitigators, recommended a sentence, and completed measures of rational and experiential processing. Logistic regression was used to test predicted interactions. Mock jurors weighed aggravators over mitigators when the defendant was a Latino citizen and when the defendant was an undocumented immigrant. There were no interactions on sentencing decisions. Evidence strength and experiential processing were positively related to rendering a death sentence. A defendant’s immigrant status and ethnicity might indirectly lead to punitive decisions in capital cases because they influence how jurors weigh aggravators and mitigators.

Defendant stereotypicality moderates the effect of confession evidence on judgments of guilt.

This research examined whether criminal stereotypes-i.e., beliefs about the typical characteristics of crime perpetrators-influence mock jurors' judgments of guilt in cases involving confession evidence. Mock jurors (N = 450) read a trial transcript that manipulated whether a defendant's ethnicity was stereotypic or counterstereotypic of a crime, and whether the defendant had confessed to the crime or not. When a confession was present, the transcript varied whether the confession had been obtained using high-pressure or low-pressure interrogation tactics. Consistent with the hypothesis, the presence of a confession (relative to no confession) increased perceptions of the defendant's guilt when the defendant was stereotypic of the crime, regardless of the interrogation tactics that had been used to obtain it. When the defendant was counterstereotypic of the crime, however, the presence of a confession did not significantly increase perceptions of guilt, even when the confession was obtained using low-pressure interrogation tactics. These findings demonstrate the potentially powerful effects of criminal stereotypes on legal judgments and suggest that individuals who fit a criminal stereotype may be disadvantaged over the course of the criminal justice process. (PsycINFO Database Record

Defending the Accused: The Impact of Legal Representation on Criminal Trial Outcomes in Victoria, Australia 1861–1961

ABSTRACTAccess to legal representation by accused felons was entrenched as part of the adversarial system from the early nineteenth century, but a substantial minority of defendants remained undefended at superior court level well into the twentieth century. Using a sample of criminal trials collected across a crucial hundred-year period that saw the development of incipient legal assistance schemes, this article seeks to examine what effect the presence of defence counsel had on individual trial results. It is shown that there was a significant association between defence status and a variety of outcomes, including pleas, verdicts, trial length, bail status and sentencing. This relationship was to some extent affected by the specific offence with which the accused was charged, but remains evident across various other factors, including defendant ethnicity, sex, occupation and age, and lawyer assigned to the case. The results suggest that representation was highly desirable for defendants throughout this period.

The influence of mitigation evidence, ethnicity, and SES on death penalty decisions by European American and Latino venire persons.

The purpose of the research was to determine whether European American and Latino mock jurors would demonstrate bias in death penalty decision making when mitigation evidence and defendant ethnicity and socioeconomic status (SES) were varied. A total of 561 actual venire persons acted as mock jurors and read a trial transcript that varied a defendant's case information (mitigating circumstances: strong/weak, defendant ethnicity: European American/Latino, and defendant SES: low/high). European American jurors recommended the death penalty significantly more often for the low SES Latino defendant when strength of mitigation evidence was weak. In addition, they also assigned this defendant higher culpability ratings and lower ratings on positive personality trait measures compared with all other conditions. Strong mitigation evidence contributed to lower guilt ratings by European American jurors for the high SES European American defendant. Latino jurors did not differ in their death penalty sentencing across defendant mitigation, ethnicity, or SES conditions. Discussion of in-group favoritism and out-group derogation, as well as suggestions for procedures to diminish juror bias in death penalty cases, is provided.

The impact of defendant ethnicity on the psycholegal opinions of forensic mental health evaluators

The impact of ethnicity on clinicians' decision making has received a great deal of attention and research. Several studies have documented that client ethnicity significantly influences diagnoses, testing and assessment protocols, recommendations for treatment, and expected outcomes. However, there is limited research examining the impact of a criminal defendant's ethnicity upon forensic mental health experts. To examine this issue, the authors reviewed 816 forensic reports on competency to stand trial submitted to the Hawaii judiciary between 2007 and 2008 and compared recommendation rates across categories of defendant ethnicity. Significant differences between ethnic groups were found in recommendations of competency to stand trial. Specifically, Asian misdemeanant populations were found to be incompetent to stand trial at higher rates than other ethnic groups. These findings highlight the potential impact that ethnicity may have on clinicians' decision making in certain forensic settings.

The Impact of Ethnicity, Immigration Status, and Socioeconomic Status on Juror Decision Making

The purpose of this research was to examine how ethnicity, immigration status, and socioeconomic status (SES) may contribute to juror bias. A total of 320 Euro-American venire persons were assigned to 1 of 8 criminal court trial transcript conditions that varied defendant ethnicity (Mexican or Canadian), immigrant status (undocumented or documented), and SES (low or high). Dependent measures were verdict, sentencing, culpability, and trait attributions. Results indicated that the low-SES undocumented Mexican defendant was found guilty more often, given a more severe sentence, thought to be more culpable, and rated lower on a number of trait measures compared with all other conditions. Subtle bias theories, such as aversive racism, appear to best explain the biases in juror decisions.

Perceptions of Defendant Culpability in Pretrial Publicity: The Effects of Defendant Ethnicity and Participant Gender

Previous researchers have found that individuals who are exposed to negative pretrial publicity (PTP) are more likely to judge a defendant guilty than individuals exposed to little or no negative PTP. We examined whether or not minority defendants (black, Aboriginal) are differentially disadvantaged by negative PTP in comparison with white defendants within a Canadian context. Participants read an online newspaper article about a sexual assault case involving a white, black, or Aboriginal defendant and then answered questions regarding defendant culpability and their perceptions of their own abilities to be impartial jurors. The defendant’s ethnicity and the gender of the participant impacted perceptions of defendant culpability. Participants (particularly female participants) generally favored the black defendant and disadvantaged the Aboriginal defendant (in comparison with the white defendant). Despite this fact, participants generally felt they could be impartial and fair jurors. These findings suggest that current procedures for assessing—and trying to avoid—racial biases in jurors are insufficient.

The Effects of Ethnicity, SES, and Crime Status on Juror Decision Making

In two studies, a defendant's ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), and crime status were varied for effects on verdict decisions, sentencing recommendations, culpability assignments, and trait assessments. In Study 1, European Americans ( N = 221) provided a low SES Mexican American defendant with more guilt verdicts, a lengthier sentence, and higher culpability ratings, compared to a high SES Mexican American or a European American defendant, regardless of crime status. Higher negative trait ratings occurred for a low SES Mexican American who committed a low status crime. In Study 2, Mexican Americans ( N = 136) showed no differences for guilt verdicts, recommended sentence, or culpability assignment. These findings demonstrate that European American bias toward Mexican Americans may operate in all phases of the legal process, and future research should address specific contexts where bias applies.

An examination of jury verdicts for evidence of a similarity-leniency effect, an out-group punitiveness effect or a black sheep effect.

Archival data from cases adjudicated by jury in El Paso and Bexar County, Texas, were used to test whether a similarity-leniency effect, an out-group punitiveness effect, or a black sheep effect (BSE; J. M. Marques, V Y. Yzerbyt, & J. P. Leyens, 1988) influenced jury decisions. Defendant ethnicity, jury ethnic composition, and strength of evidence against the defendant were coded for 418 closed noncapital, felony cases to test their impact on trial verdicts and sentence lengths. Results indicated complex relations exist among juror and defendant characteristics and their influence on trial outcomes. No support was found for any of the theoretical models as predictors of jury decision-making. Strength of evidence was the most influential variable for both verdicts and length of sentences. Case strength, defendant ethnicity, and jury composition were related to sentence lengths.

Effects of Defendant Ethnicity on Juries' Dispositions of Felony Cases1

This research examined jury decisions in 317 noncapital felony cases in El Paso, Texas, and assessed the impact of juror ethnicity on jury trial outcomes. Results revealed that there was no relation between defendant ethnicity and the probability of conviction. Anglo American defendants, however, received sentences that were approximately twice as severe as Hispanic defendants. Sentences imposed by juries were significantly related to defendant ethnicity and type of crime for which they were tried. Sentences were also influenced by defendant ethnicity in interaction with jury ethnic composition. Important differences appeared when there was a critical mass of 6 or more Hispanics on juries. This study, using criminal court data, provides a unique opportunity to examine the utility of social psychological theories for understanding actual trial outcomes.

Sentencing under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Effects of Defendant Characteristics, Guilty Pleas, and Departures on Sentence Outcomes for Drug Offenses, 1991–1992

The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 mandated major restructuring of federal sentencing through specific sentencing guidelines. New sentencing guidelines developed by the United States Sentencing Commission and adopted in 1987 explicitly linked sentencing to “relevant conduct”—offense characteristics—and sought to abolish unwarranted sentence disparity. The guidelines substantially reduced judicial discretion and resulted in a criminalization and sentencing process that is largely prosecutor controlled. The author has generated hypotheses that relate defendant characteristics, guilty pleas, and departures from sentencing guidelines to sentence outcomes under the federal sentencing guidelines. She first examined the variables influencing sentence severity for the drug offenders who were sentenced in 1991–92. She then explored the interaction effects by estimating the tobit equation separately for three groups—black, white, and Hispanic defendants—to discover whether defendant's ethnicity conditions the effect of other defendant characteristics, guidelines-defined legally relevant variables, guilty pleas, and departures on sentence severity. Her analysis reveals that disparity in federal sentencing of drug offenders is linked not only to offense-related variables, as structured by the guidelines, but also to defendant characteristics such as ethnicity, gender, educational level, and noncitizenship, which under the guidelines are specified as legally irrelevant.

Ethnicity of Defendants and Jurors as Influences on Jury Decisions1

To assess the influence of ethnicity on jury decisions, 480 subjects viewed a videotaped trial of an Anglo or Hispanic defendant. Anglo or Hispanic majority 6‐person juries deliberated until a unanimous verdict was reached. The juries that convicted the defendant were asked to determine sentence length and to provide a probation/ parole recommendation. Anglo majority juries convicted the defendant significantly more (M= 79%) than did the Hispanic majority juries (M= 52%), x2= 5.45, p < 0.02. No main effect of defendant ethnicity was obtained, but there was an interaction between the defendant and the jury's ethnicity, x2= 5.41, p < 0.02. Anglo majority juries were more lenient with the Anglo defendant, but the Hispanic majority juries did not differ in their conviction rates. No significant effects were obtained for sentence length. Differences in probation/parole recommendations were a function of jury ethnicity, F(l, 15) = 4.74, p < 0.05. Anglos were more likely to recommend that the defendant serve the full term of the sentence. These results are interpreted in terms of stereotyping and are discussed regarding their implications for a defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial.