Juror Decision Research Articles

Punished, dead or alive: Empirical perspectives on awarding punitive damages against deceased defendants.

Punitive damages are a tool for punishing defendants who engage in reckless and wanton behaviors that cause injury to others. As with criminal punishment, goals of punitive damages include retribution, specific deterrence, and general deterrence. Unlike criminal punishment, however, some courts allow punitive damages to follow the death of defendants. To explore this issue, we first conducted a legal analysis of appellate court decisions concerning punitive damages against deceased defendants. While the majority of courts suggest that punitive damages against deceased individuals are not appropriate, some argue that favorable policy implications of allowing punitive damages to follow the defendant’s death merit their survivability. Next, we conducted a simulation study to investigate the effects of defendant injury severity, including death, on juror decisions in a punitive damages case. Consistent with some judicial reasoning, mock jurors’ liability and damage awards were not influenced by a defendant’s injury severity, but defendant death did influence participants’ self-reported goals of their punitive damage awards. We conclude with a discussion of policy and research implications.

Mock Juror Decision Making in a Civil Negligence Trial: The Impact of Gruesome Evidence, Injury Severity, and Information Processing Route

Legal doctrine in common law jurisdictions reflects a concern that some types of evidence may lead to bias in jury decision making, and that prejudice can be driven by the emotional reactions of jurors to the evidence. The current study extends previous research by examining the synergistic influence of gruesome details and injury severity In a mock jury study, 240 first-year psychology students were assigned to one of two visual evidence conditions: neutral and gruesome photographs, and one of two injury severity conditions: moderate injury severity and high injury severity. Participants were further assigned to one of two information processing conditions in which they were instructed to process information in either the rational or experiential mode. The main findings were: (1) mock jurors who read about a more severely injured plaintiff were more sympathetic towards the plaintiff compared with mock jurors who read about a less severely injured plaintiff; (2) mock jurors exposed to gruesome photographs rated the defendant as significantly more negligent compared with mock jurors exposed to neutral photographs. Implications of these findings are that gruesome photographic evidence may bias jurors' perceptions of the responsibility of the plaintiff and defendant.

Factors Affecting Juror Decisions in Historic Child Sexual Abuse Cases Involving Continuous Memories

The study investigated how jurors perceived historic child sexual abuse (HCSA) cases involving continuous rather than repressed memories of the abuse. Mock jurors ( N = 295) read a simulated trial transcript involving a case of HCSA that varied the length of delay between the end of the alleged abuse and time of reporting (2 vs. 15 vs. 30 years), relationship to the alleged victim (uncle vs. former coach), and abuse frequency (1 vs. 12 times). The effects of these variables on mock jurors’ decisions were investigated. The shorter delay led to significantly higher guilt ratings and lengthier sentence recommendations compared with longer delays. Mock jurors assigned higher guilt ratings when the defendant was the uncle rather than the coach but only when the abuse was perpetrated once rather than 12 times. Mock jurors were more confident in their verdict decisions when the defendant was the uncle rather than the coach and when the abuse occurred 12 times rather than once.

Effects of Experiencing the Eyewitness Identification Procedure on Juror Decisions

Mistaken eyewitness identifications are believed to contribute to a preponderance of wrongful convictions, underscoring the need to identify methods to help decrease the likelihood of false convictions based on eyewitness testimony. The present study tested the hypothesis that providing jurors with first-hand experience with eyewitness identification procedures could help further sensitize them to the limitations of eyewitness testimony. Eighty college students watched a videotaped mock trial in which the prosecution’s sole evidence was eyewitness testimony. In a 2 × 2 randomized factorial design, we manipulated whether participants heard expert psychological testimony (henceforth referred to as expert testimony) on the limitations of eyewitness identification and whether they experienced an eyewitness identification procedure. As predicted, experiencing the eyewitness identification procedure had a significant impact on juror decisions, suggesting that this procedure could further help reduce the likelihood of wrongful convictions.

Jury decision‐making biases and methods to counter them

Purpose. The objective of this review was to give a broad overview of various biases associated with jury decision making. Specifically we review research on the impact of pretrial publicity, jury instructions, inadmissible evidence, and scientific evidence. This article elucidates various challenges jurors may face across systems around the world and remedies to counter these challenges.Results. After 50 years of scientific research on juries and juror decision making, there are still many gaps in understanding how factors such as pretrial publicity, inadmissible evidence, scientific evidence, and jury instructions influence juries. At the same time the field has developed a level of appreciation for these problems and is making strives toward understanding them.Conclusion. Based on this review some conclusions can be drawn regarding the areas of decision making reviewed. Jury instructions: Research shows that jurors have difficulties in understanding pattern instructions, at the same time we have developed some insights into ways instructions can be rewritten to increase comprehensibility. Inadmissible evidence: We are aware of the cognitive effort involved in attempting to disregard evidence but are at this point unclear on how to eliminate the associated problems. Scientific evidence: Research has illuminated the difficulties jurors have with comprehending scientific evidence. Better education of jurors and judges can help to address this issue. Pretrial publicity: The threats posed by pretrial publicity to the defendant's right to a fair trial are clear. At the same time (save change of venue) there is a need to develop cost‐effective remedies to help overcome media‐induced biases.

The Effects of Victim Gender, Defendant Gender, and Defendant Age on Juror Decision Making

Mock jurors provided credibility ratings for a victim (12 years old) and defendant when victim gender, defendant gender, and defendant age (15 vs. 40 years old) were manipulated. Verdicts and sentence recommendations also were assessed. Higher guilt ratings were found for a male versus female defendant. Juror gender was examined as a covariate in the analyses. Female jurors rated the victim higher on accuracy, truthfulness, and believability than male jurors. Male jurors rated the defendant higher on reliability, credibility, truthfulness, and believability than female jurors. Male jurors perceived the victim to desire and cause the crime to a greater extent than female jurors. Mock jurors rated the victim as more responsible for the crime with an older versus younger defendant. Female jurors ascribed higher responsibility to the defendant compared to male jurors. The younger versus older defendant was perceived to have desired the event but only when the victim was female versus male.

Are Jurors Capable of Deciding the Outcome in Complex Case Trials?

The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that individual and corporate citizens have the right to a trial by jury in all matters involving common law where a dispute involves more than twenty dollars in controversy. Despite this constitutional right, some federal and state courts have chosen to deny an individual or corporate litigant the right to a trial by jury in some cases where the court deems a matter too complicated for a jury to comprehend. In this article, the author examines the nature of the controversy relating to jury competency to decide trials with complex subject matter and the attempts by courts to address the issue. Second, he discusses the actual dimensions and effects of trial complexity upon juror decision making from a psychological point of view. Third, he examines the effects of recent jury trial innovations, including some revolutionary ideas about giving jurors more of the same tools that trial judges and arbitrators now enjoy. Finally, he explores some powerful ways for trial lawyers to help jurors understand complicated subject matter and complex situations in the cases they will decide. The author concludes that given the constitutional mandate in favor of the right to trial by jury for all individual and corporate citizens, the most practical solution for resolving the complaints about jury competency to decide complex cases is to provide jurors with the same tools for understanding the facts that trial judges and arbitrators now enjoy. The author further concludes that through the use of enhanced learning tools and improved trial advocacy skills, the satisfaction with jury performance will improve and confidence in the American trial advocacy system will increase.

The Influence of Identification Decision and DNA Evidence on Juror Decision Making1

This study examined the influence of identification decision type and DNA evidence on mock jurors' ratings of evidence reliability, witness credibility, and verdict decisions. Type of identification decision was found to influence jurors' perceptions of the reliability of eyewitnesses' descriptions of various details related to the crime. Specifically, positive identifications resulted in the highest reliability ratings. Type of DNA evidence presented was found to impact on ratings of expert witness reliability. Overall, inconsistent DNA evidence that was statistical in nature resulted in the lowest reliability ratings. DNA‐consistent evidence led to more convictions than did DNA‐inconsistent evidence. Furthermore, jurors rendered more guilty verdicts when witnesses made a non‐identification or a positive identification, as compared to a foil identification.

The Biasing Effect of Gang Evidence on Juror Decisions

This study was designed to examine the potential biasing effects of gang association on mock juror verdicts. Three hundred and fifteen undergraduate psychology students watched one of three versions of a simulated trial that included opening and closing arguments by the defense and prosecution, together with direct and cross examination of the investigating officer and the victim/eyewitness. The three versions differed only in regard to mention of the defendant’s gang association. Gang association was manipulated by having the defendant described as either seen hanging out with gang members on the night of the incident (Gang affiliate), or being a documented gang member with a gang tattoo (Hardcore gang member). In the control condition, no mention of gangs was made. As predicted, when testimony on gang affiliation was introduced, guilty verdicts rose significantly. Overall, participants were more likely to find the defendant guilty in the Gang affiliate and Hardcore gang conditions when compared to the No gang control condition. These data demonstrate the prejudicial effect of linking a criminal defendant to a street gang by membership or mere association. Various explanations for this effect are examined, and the potential prejudicial impact of gang evidence is discussed.

Assessing Liability for Sexual Harassment: Reactions of Potential Jurors to Email Versus Face-to-Face Incidents

This paper investigates reactions of potential jurors to sexual harassment incidents. Email and face-to-face incidents are compared to determine the importance of context on decision-making. The paper considers juror decision-making for both guilt and level of award to randomly assigned scenarios involving multiple levels of harassment. Results found that email harassment was perceived more harshly, consistent with a context-based hypothesis. The paper concludes with organizational implications for better handling sexual harassment awareness training as well as Internet usage guidelines.

Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases: The effects of evidence, coherence and credentials on juror decision making

AbstractPsychological experts have been used increasingly to testify in child sexual abuse cases, yet little research has investigated what specific factors make experts effective. This study examined the potential effects that credentials, evidence strength and coherence may have on juror decision making. Sixty‐four mock jurors read cases of child sexual abuse, followed by experts' testimony and rated guilt of the defendant, effectiveness of the expert testimony and credibility of the victim. Evidence strength and coherence of the testimony affected all dependent variables, and the interaction was significant. Guilt ratings of the defendant were lower and the victim was rated as less credible when both evidence strength and coherence were low. The credentials of the expert, however, had negligible impact. These findings indicate that experts can be effective and impact jurors when testimony is either high in coherence or high in evidence. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Emotional evidence and jurors' judgments: the promise of neuroscience for informing psychology and law

This article is a review of psychological and neuroscience research addressing how juror decision making is influenced by emotion elicited from potentially disturbing evidence such as gruesome autopsy photographs, victim impact statements, and information about a defendant's tragic personal history presented as mitigating evidence. We review (a) converging evidence suggesting that the presence versus absence of such evidence results in more punitive juror judgments, (b) social cognition theories that provide potential explanations for these effects, and (c) neuroscience research aimed at understanding the role of emotion in moral judgments by identifying how brain activity is affected by emotion-eliciting stimuli. We argue that neuroimaging evidence showing that emotional stimuli cause heightened emotion and decreased effortful cognitive processing is relevant in understanding jurors' increased punitiveness after being exposed to emotional evidence, and in turn relevant to debates about the admissibility of emotional evidence in courts of law. Ultimately, we argue for more ecologically valid psychological research to clarify these important issues.

Psychological mediators of the effects of opposing expert testimony on juror decisions.

This study examined the effectiveness of the opposing expert safeguard against unreliable expert testimony and whether beliefs about experts as hired guns and general acceptance mediate the effect of opposing expert testimony on juror decisions. We found strong evidence that the presence, but not the content, of opposing expert testimony affected jurors’ trial judgments and that these effects were mediated by mock jurors’ beliefs about general acceptance. The presence of an opposing expert affected jurors’ ratings of the general acceptance of research investigating sexual harassment in the workplace. Jurors’ beliefs about general acceptance then affected jurors’ ratings of plaintiff expert competence and research, which affected juror ratings of the probability that the plaintiff experienced a hostile work environment.

The effects of labelling, expert testimony, and information processing mode on juror decisions in SVP civil commitment trials

AbstractExpert witnesses offering testimony in sexually violent predator civil commitment trials may use diagnostic labels that are either familiar (e.g. ‘psychopath’) or unfamiliar (e.g. ‘paraphilia’) to jurors. Using predictions based on cognitive experiential self‐theory, we explored the influence of testimony type (clinical versus actuarial) and diagnostic label (psychopath versus paraphilia) on jurors motivated to adopt either an experiential processing mode (PM; in which heuristic cues may be strongly relied upon) or an analytic rational PM. Consistent with previous research, our results indicated that when given a psychopathic diagnostic label, mock jurors motivated to process information experientially were more influenced by clinical testimony, whereas mock jurors induced into a rational mode were more influenced by actuarial testimony. However, experientially oriented jurors given a paraphilia diagnostic label did not show the expected influence of clinical expert testimony, and instead were more persuaded by actuarial testimony. These findings are discussed from a judgement and heuristics cues framework. The implications of several procedural suggestions are examined. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Effects of defendant sexual orientation on jurors' perceptions of child sexual assault.

We examined mock jurors' reactions to a sexual abuse case involving a male teacher and a 10-year-old child. Because gay men are sometimes stereotyped as child molesters, we portrayed defendant sexual orientation as either gay or straight and the victim as either a boy or girl. Jurors made more pro-prosecution decisions in cases involving a gay versus straight defendant, particularly when the victim was a boy. In boy-victim cases, jurors' emotional feelings of moral outrage toward the defendant mediated these effects. On average, women jurors were more pro-prosecution than were men. Results have implications for understanding social perceptions of cross- and same-gender child sexual abuse and juror decision making in child sexual assault cases perpetrated by homosexual and heterosexual men.

The Influence of Gender and Age in Mock Juror Decision-Making

This study examines the influence of demographic variables on mock juror decision-making in a case of psychopathy. The gender of a fictitious criminal defendant who was labeled a psychopath was manipulated in order to examine the potential prejudicial impact on mock juror’s decision-making. Additionally, juror demographics (gender, age, and education level) were used to identify the source of bias. Participants read a fictitious manslaughter scenario followed by a psychologist’s expert testimony. Participants were asked to make a decision regarding the guilt of the defendant, and if applicable, specify the sentence the guilty defendant should receive. Findings from previous research looking at gender bias were not replicated, however, results showed a significant interaction between juror age and verdict/sentencing type. The youngest age group recommended a guilty verdict and a sentence of probation more often than the older age groups. In contrast, the older age groups were more likely than the youngest age group to give a verdict of not guilty, and sentence of incarceration (when a guilty verdict was given). These results raise concerns regarding views of the justice system when a designation of psychopathy is involved, as well as differences in cognitive processing that occur across ages.

Defendant and defense attorney characteristics and their effects on juror decision making and prejudice against Mexican Americans.

Racial bias in legal decision making has been given considerable attention over the past few decades, focusing mainly on African Americans to the exclusion of other minority groups. The purpose of this study was to address the dearth of research examining bias against Mexican American defendants. Two hundred forty-seven participants read through a trial transcript that varied defendant race/ethnicity (Mexican American or European American), defense attorney race/ethnicity (Mexican American or European American), and defendant socioeconomic status (SES; low or high [upper middle class]). Dependent measures included verdict, sentencing, culpability ratings, and trait assessments. Bias against Mexican American defendants occurred most when the Mexican American defendant was of low SES and represented by a Mexican American defense attorney. In addition, attorneys representing low-SES Mexican American defendants were perceived as less competent and rated lower on a number of trait measures. Limitations, applications, and future directions are discussed.

Life Qualification, Automatic Death Penalty Voter Status, and Juror Decision Making in Capital Cases

Voir dire in capital cases requires judges to determine whether prospective jurors would be fair and impartial in the determination of guilt, as well as whether they are willing to consider voting for all available sentencing options should the jury find the defendant guilty. This article looks at the consistency between responses to a general life-qualification question and descriptions of sentencing decisions among former capital jurors. The results suggest that although some jurors are aware and capable of articulating that they would always vote for death upon conviction, others are not. Suggestions for making voir dire more accurate in detecting who would automatically for death upon conviction are offered.

Reducing racial bias in the penalty phase of capital trials

Past research (e.g. Lynch & Haney, 2000) has shown that race plays a significant role in juror decision making in the penalty phase of capital murder trials. This study investigates the possibility of reducing juror bias towards Blacks by altering the content of jury instructions. White and non-White participants received trial information and jury instructions in which the defendant's race (Black or White) and the instruction type (standard or simplified) were manipulated. Participants rendered a sentence recommendation, identified factors they considered to be aggravating or mitigating, and responded to instruction comprehension questions. Bias against the Black defendant was significantly reduced when simplified instructions were used and when the defendant was judged by racially diverse jurors. Simplification also led to better comprehension of sentencing instructions. Implications for capital trials are discussed.

Individual Differences in Attitudes Relevant to Juror Decision Making: Development and Validation of the Pretrial Juror Attitude Questionnaire (PJAQ)1

This study involves scale development using theoretically derived items from previous measures and a lay consensual approach for generating new items. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to validate the emergent constructs assessing individual differences in attitudes of prospective jurors. Using case summaries, the Pretrial Juror Attitude Questionnaire (PJAQ) demonstrates superior predictive validity over commonly employed measures of pretrial bias. The PJAQ confirms the importance of theoretically derived constructs assessed by other scales and introduces new constructs to the jury decision‐making literature. The attitudes assessed by the PJAQ are conviction proneness, system confidence, cynicism toward the defense, racial bias, social justice, and innate criminality. Implications for assessing such attitudes and for better understanding the decision‐making process of jurors are discussed.