Mock Jury Deliberations Research Articles

Juror gender and influence in a domestic violence trial

In two online mock jury deliberation studies (N1 = 326, N2 = 531), I investigate how a juror's gender and emotion expression impacts how influential they are perceived to be and how much influence they actually have in deliberation. Participants perceived a female juror to be less influential than a male juror, but were actually influenced by this juror equally regardless of gender. Neither form of influence was affected by the juror's emotion expression. I argue that because the trial depicted domestic violence, which is culturally associated with female victims, women have more influence in this situation than they typically would. These findings suggest that even when women are influential in interaction, they may not be acknowledged as such. Further, they highlight the importance of task content both theoretically in studies of status and gender and practically in contexts such as jury selection, particularly when that content includes gender-based violence.

The provenance of what is proven: exploring (mock) jury deliberation in Scottish rape trials

AbstractThis article presents findings from the largest research study of the nature of mock jury deliberations in rape cases undertaken in the UK to date – and the first such study to be undertaken in the Scottish context. The study found considerable evidence of the expression of problematic attitudes towards rape complainers. These included the belief that a ‘real’ rape victim would have extensive external and internal injuries and would resist attack by inflicting injuries on her attacker and shouting for help, that even a short delay in reporting a rape is suspicious, and that false allegations of rape are commonly made by women and difficult to refute. There was, however, also evidence that some jurors were willing to challenge these attitudes and that they often relied – explicitly or implicitly – on third‐sector campaigns to do so. The article concludes by drawing out the implications of this research for policy and practice.

What do we know about rape myths and juror decision making?

This paper presents overwhelming evidence that prejudicial and false beliefs held by jurors about rape affect their evaluation of the evidence and their decision making in rape cases. The paper draws together for the first time the available evidence from both quantitative and qualitative studies (most of which are not found in law journals, but rather in scientific outlets, most commonly those focusing on experimental psychology). The quantitative research demonstrates that mock jurors’ scores on so-called ‘rape myth scales’ are significant predictors of their judgments about responsibility, blame and (most importantly) verdict. The qualitative research indicates that jurors frequently express problematic views about how ‘real’ rape victims would behave and what ‘real’ rape looks like during mock jury deliberations and that even those who score relatively low on abstract rape myth scales can express prejudicial beliefs when deliberating in a particular case. The studies vary in terms of their realism, but it is important to note that some of the studies reported here were highly realistic trial reconstructions, involving representative samples of jurors drawn from the community, live trial reconstructions, evidence-in-chief and cross-examination, accurate legal directions and deliberation in groups. The review concludes by examining the evidence on whether juror education—whether in the form of judicial directions or expert evidence—might be effective in addressing problematic attitudes.

Storytelling Rituals in Jury Deliberations

Research on jury deliberation tends to focus on deliberative outcomes, such as verdict decisions. Less attention is paid to the actual process of deliberation. This paper analyzes a video recording of a mock jury deliberation in a simulated criminal trial, focusing on facial expression, gesture, and discourse. Drawing on ethnomethodology and micro-sociological theories of ritual, I examine how jurors make sense of the evidence presented to them and how they work together to collectively produce a coherent narrative of events. I argue that a focus on the ritual dynamics of the deliberation help to understand how such a co-production can occur. La investigación sobre la deliberación del jurado tiende a centrarse en los resultados de esa deliberación, como pueden ser los veredictos. Menos atención genera el proceso mismo de deliberación. Este artículo analiza una grabación de vídeo de la deliberación de un jurado en un simulacro de juicio penal, y se fija especialmente en las expresiones faciales, los gestos y los discursos. Basándome en la etnometodología y en teorías de ritual microsociológicas, examino la forma en que los jurados buscan el sentido de las pruebas que se les presentan y la forma en que trabajan juntos para producir una narración coherente de los hechos. Argumento que poner el énfasis en las dinámicas rituales de la deliberación ayuda a entender cómo se realiza esa producción colectiva.

模擬裁判評議の経験が裁判員制度に対する評価に及ぼす影響 : 集団主義的傾向・社会的勢力認知との関連で

模擬裁判評議の経験が裁判員制度に対する評価に及ぼす影響 : 集団主義的傾向・社会的勢力認知との関連で

One angry woman: Anger expression increases influence for men, but decreases influence for women, during group deliberation.

We investigated whether expressing anger increases social influence for men, but diminishes social influence for women, during group deliberation. In a deception paradigm, participants believed they were engaged in a computer-mediated mock jury deliberation about a murder case. In actuality, the interaction was scripted. The script included 5 other mock jurors who provided verdicts and comments in support of the verdicts; 4 agreed with the participant and 1 was a "holdout" dissenter. Holdouts expressed their opinions with no emotion, anger, or fear and had either male or female names. Holdouts exerted no influence on participants' opinions when they expressed no emotion or fear. Participants' confidence in their own verdict dropped significantly, however, after male holdouts expressed anger. Yet, anger expression undermined female holdouts: Participants became significantly more confident in their original verdicts after female holdouts expressed anger-even though they were expressing the exact same opinion and emotion as the male holdouts. Mediation analyses revealed that participants drew different inferences from male versus female anger, which created a gender gap in influence during group deliberation. The current study has implications for group decisions in general, and jury deliberations in particular, by suggesting that expressing anger might lead men to gain influence, but women to lose influence over others (even when making identical arguments). These diverging consequences might result in women potentially having less influence on societally important decisions than men, such as jury verdicts.

From the shadows into the light: How pretrial publicity and deliberation affect mock jurors' decisions, impressions, and memory.

This 2-part study explored how exposure to negative pretrial publicity (Neg-PTP) influences the jury process, as well as possible mechanisms responsible for its biasing effects on decisions. Study Part A explored how PTP and jury deliberations affect juror/jury verdicts, memory, and impressions of the defendant and attorneys. One week before viewing a criminal trial mock-jurors (N = 320 university students) were exposed to Neg-PTP or unrelated crime stories (No-PTP). Two days later deliberating jurors came to a group decision, whereas nondeliberating jurors completed an unrelated task before making an individual decision. Neg-PTP jurors were more likely to vote guilty, make memory errors, and rate the defendant lower in credibility. Deliberation reduced Neg-PTP jurors' memory accuracy and No-PTP jurors' guilty verdicts (leniency bias). Jurors' memory and ratings of the defendant and prosecuting attorney significantly mediated the effect of PTP on guilt ratings. Study Part B content analyzed 30 mock-jury deliberations and explored how PTP influenced deliberations and ultimately jury decisions. Neg-PTP juries were more likely than No-PTP juries to discuss ambiguous trial evidence in a proprosecution manner and less likely to discuss judicial instructions and lack of evidence. All Neg-PTP juries mentioned PTP, after instructed otherwise, and rarely corrected jury members who mentioned PTP. Discussion of ambiguous trial evidence in a proprosecution manner and lack of evidence significantly mediated the effect of PTP on jury-level guilt ratings. Together the findings suggest that judicial admonishments and deliberations may not be sufficient to reduce PTP bias, because of memory errors, biased impressions, and predecisional distortion.

Simulated jury decision making in online focus groups

PurposeA significant issue in jury research has been the use of individual jurors to analyse jury decision‐making. This paper aimed to examine the applicability of computer‐mediated communication to a mock jury deliberation study.Design/methodology/approachGroups of three to five Australian residents anonymously attended a secure chat room and participated in a semi‐structured discussion about a simulated child sexual assault scenario. Deliberation transcripts were analysed thematically using NVivo. A hermeneutic framework was used to analyse the deliberation transcripts.FindingsFive interrelated themes were revealed, each reflecting the tools online juries used to communicate, create meaning, and arrive at a verdict. Electronic jury deliberation promoted an understanding of how people make sense of child sexual assault cases in Australia today.Originality/valueThis study advanced the understanding of online decision making in a child sexual assault scenario. It demonstrated that knowledge of how juries deliberate and create meaning could improve our understanding of how verdicts are achieved. Electronic mock juries are a valuable adjunct to traditional jury deliberation studies because they are cost effective, time efficient, and offer wider recruitment opportunities.

Behind closed doors: the effect of pretrial publicity on jury deliberations

Content analyses of 30 mock-jury deliberations were performed to explore whether pretrial publicity (PTP) affects the content of jury deliberations. The pattern of results suggests that PTP has a powerful effect on jury verdicts and that PTP exposure can influence the interpretation and discussion of trial evidence during deliberations. Jurors who were exposed to negative PTP (anti-defendant) were significantly more likely than their non-exposed counterparts to discuss ambiguous trial facts in a manner that supported the prosecution's case, but rarely discussed them in a manner that supported the defense's case. This study also found that PTP exposed jurors were either unwilling or unable to adhere to instructions admonishing them not to discuss PTP and rarely corrected jury members who mentioned PTP. Finally, this research provides insight into how PTP imparts its biasing effect on jury decision making.

The influence of prior relationship on perceptions of stalking in mock jury deliberations

Ex-partner stalkers are more persistent and more likely to use violence than stranger or acquaintance stalkers, but are less likely to incur criminal convictions. The current research explores the influence of prior relationship on mock jury deliberations and verdict decisions in relation to a hypothetical case tried under the Protection from Harassment Act (PfHA) 1997. Six mock juries were presented with one of three versions of a hypothetical case summary and were asked to provide unanimous verdicts concerning whether the defendant was guilty of an offence. Both mock juries in the stranger condition reached unanimous guilty verdicts, while neither mock jury in the ex-partner condition was able to agree a unanimous verdict. It was apparent that the differing perceptions of the defendant’s and plaintiff’s behaviour varied as a function of their prior relationship.

Status on Trial: Social Characteristics and Influence in the Jury Room

The American jury is heralded as an institution that is simultaneously representative and egalitarian. However, jury studies conducted 50 years ago found that white, upper-class men dominate jury deliberations, presumably due to their higher status outside of the jury room. Logistic regression analysis of dyadic infl uence inside the jury room updates this research. Results indicate that today upper-class jurors alone - not men, not whites - are regarded as most infl uential in deliberations. Upper-class jurors' infl uence is not simply a product of status deference. Rather, upper-class jurors seem to infl uence deliberations due to generalized expectations of their competence or their possession of skill sets that enhance jury room performance. We conclude that increased statistical representation in the jury pool does not guarantee that diverse views will affect verdicts. Fifty years ago, research from the Chicago Jury Project demonstrated that upper-class men do most of the talking in mock jury deliberations (James 1959; Strodtbeck, James and Hawkins 1957; Strodtbeck and Mann 1956). This research indicated that recognizable, external status characteristics, such as gender and social class, can restructure otherwise undifferentiated small groups. However, women and minorities were severely underrepresented in juries and mock jury studies of the 1950s, and times have changed. The Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 1 mandated that jury pools include all eligible voters, and subsequent jury selection reforms have increased jury diversity. Are the more diverse juries of today actually able to achieve an inclusive and egalitarian interaction, or do jurors from historically privileged status groups still dominate deliberations? From outside its doors, the jury room appears to be one of the most representative and egalitarian spaces in American society. The historical development of the jury was guided by the assumption that diverse groups could set aside external differences to arrive at a shared verdict. In fact, the earliest English mixed juries of the 12th through the 15th centuries decided disputes between persons from two communities by bringing together a mix of jurors, such as foreigners and citizens, Jews and Christians, and local and foreign merchants (Constable 1994). And, in the past several decades, many discriminated groups have argued for and won representation in the jury pool on the grounds that jury composition is integral to the achievement of justice. 2

Breaking boundaries? Sexual consent in the jury room

By introducing legal tests centring upon concepts of freedom, capacity and reasonableness, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 reflects a deliberate legislative attempt both to provide a clearer structure for jury deliberation on sexual consent and to hold defendants to a higher level of accountability in relation to their belief in its existence. While these developments are well intentioned, it is argued that they may ultimately prove to be of limited effect. More specifically, it is suggested that there is an inherent complexity in the concepts of freedom, capacity and reasonableness, at least in the largely undefined form in which they have been introduced, such that the Act may, in practice, simply result in the proliferation of a new set of malleable legal tests and unpredictable legal outcomes.Drawing on a series of mock jury deliberations undertaken by the authors in which participants were asked, having observed a short rape trial reconstruction, to apply the tests set out in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in order to reach a verdict, this paper examines the ways in which the concepts of freedom, capacity and reasonableness were interpreted. Bearing in mind the inevitable constraints of the mock jury methodology (in particular its verisimilitude to real juries), this paper suggests that there may, nonetheless, be some valuable lessons to be gleaned from these deliberations about the future application of the law in actual rape cases.

Judge Nonverbal Communication on Trial: Do Mock Trial Jurors Notice?

This study investigated jurors' reactions to judges' nonverbal communication in mock trials. Participants in 80 mock juries viewed taped segments of direct and cross examination that varied the judges' level of nonverbal involvement. Comments about the judge were solicited in predeliberation questionnaires and unsolicited comments obtained from dialogue that occurred during mock jury deliberations. The investigation found that jurors are aware of nonverbal cues from judges, particularly negative behaviors. Although the high- and low-involved judges solicited roughly the same number of comments, more negative comments were made about the judge displaying low than high nonverbal involvement. The results also revealed that jurors made more negative comments than positive ones. Overall, jurors are most aware of a judge's lack of involvement and apparent bias. Discussion focuses on ways to minimize the influence of judge nonverbal communication on jurors.

DNA Evidence and Jury Comprehension

ABSTRACTThe purpose of this research project was to develop insight into the factors that influence judge and jury interpretations, perceptions and understanding of DNA evidence within the criminal justice system. The research question was addressed using a triangulated data collection methodology involving the following six-step process: three focus groups consisting of mock jurors, defence and prosecution lawyers; semi-structured interviews with Court of Queen's Bench justices; the distribution of 500 surveys to jury eligible community members; a scripted mock murder trial; a videotaped mock jury deliberation on the mock murder case; and an interview with the mock jurors after deliberations. The findings of this research outlines some of the changes lawyers, judges, and members of the general public feel are essential to their process of interpreting, perceiving and understanding DNA evidence. Some of these changes include encouraging jurors to take notes, giving jurors suggestions for conducting deliberations, providing juror notebooks, permitting jurors discussions during the trial, providing jurors with written instructions, and introducing a learning-style survey.

How the need for cognition scale predicts behavior in mock jury deliberations.

The role of Need for Cognition (NC) in mock jury deliberations was examined. Study 1 showed that when groups of 4 (2 high and 2 low in NC) deliberated together, high-NCs spoke significantly longer than low-NCs and were perceived as more active and more persuasive. High-NCs were not, however, viewed as generating arguments that were more valid or more logical. In Study 2, participants deliberated in dyads with a confederate who delivered either strong or weak arguments against the participant's position. Contrary to expectation, low-NCs were more responsive to differences in argument quality. The findings suggest that, in mock jury deliberations, high-NCs are the active participators whereas low-NCs are the quiet contemplators. Implications for legal practice and policy are discussed.

Reply to Vidmar.

the results relating jury verdicts to the content and processes of their deliberations. Based on a detailed analysis of the nature of the mock jury deliberations we found that verdicts depended on how thoroughly the jury dealt with the legally necessary conditions for punitive damages as stated in the judge's instructions. There was a striking negative relationship between the extent to which a jury considered the necessary conditions for punitive damages and the decision to award such damages: 100% of juries which failed to discuss explicitly even one of the legal conditions voted to award punitive damages, while only 44% of juries that explicitly discussed all of the conditions made the same decision. Unfortunately, many of the juries did not thoroughly consider the legal elements for their decision as stated in the judge's instructions. Our finding relating the proportion of Yes, liable verdicts to the reported thoroughness of deliberations was reinforced when we examined jurors' written postdeliberation explanations for their verdicts. The extent to which individual jurors referred to the instructions when justifying their verdicts was strongly, and negatively, correlated with Yes verdicts (r = -.43, p < .001). Furthermore, there was remarkably poor recall of the instructions on punitive damages.

Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: Jurors' bias for leniency.

Investigators have frequently noted a leniency bias in mock jury research, in which deliberation appears to induce greater leniency in criminal mock jurors. One manifestation of this bias, the asymmetry effect, suggests that proacquittal factions are more influential than proconviction factions of comparable size. A meta-analysis indicated that these asymmetry effects are reliable across a variety of experimental contexts. Experiment 1 examined the possibility that the leniency bias is restricted to the typical college-student subject population. The decisions of college-student and community mock jurors in groups beginning deliberation with equal faction sizes (viz., 2:2) were compared. The magnitude of the asymmetry effect did not differ between the two populations. We hypothesized that the asymmetry effect was caused by an asymmetric prodefendant standard of proof--the reasonable-doubt standard. In Experiment 2, subjects received either reasonable-doubt or preponderance-of-evidence instructions. After providing initial verdict preferences, some subjects deliberated in groups composed with an initial 2:2 split, whereas other subjects privately generated arguments for each verdict option. A significant asymmetry was found for groups in the reasonable-doubt condition, but group verdicts were symmetrical under the preponderance-of-evidence instructions. Shifts toward leniency in individual verdict preferences occurred for group members, but not for subjects who performed the argument-generation task. The theoretical and applied significance of these findings is discussed.

Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: jurors' bias for leniency.

Investigators have frequently noted a leniency bias in mock jury research, in which deliberation appears to induce greater leniency in criminal mock jurors. One manifestation of this bias, the asymmetry effect, suggests that proacquittal factions are more influential than proconviction factions of comparable size. A meta-analysis indicated that these asymmetry effects are reliable across a variety of experimental contexts. Experiment 1 examined the possibility that the leniency bias is restricted to the typical college-student subject population. The decisions of college-student and community mock jurors in groups beginning deliberation with equal faction sizes (viz., 2:2) were compared. The magnitude of the asymmetry effect did not differ between the two populations. We hypothesized that the asymmetry effect was caused by an asymmetric prodefendant standard of proof--the reasonable-doubt standard. In Experiment 2, subjects received either reasonable-doubt or preponderance-of-evidence instructions. After providing initial verdict preferences, some subjects deliberated in groups composed with an initial 2:2 split, whereas other subjects privately generated arguments for each verdict option. A significant asymmetry was found for groups in the reasonable-doubt condition, but group verdicts were symmetrical under the preponderance-of-evidence instructions. Shifts toward leniency in individual verdict preferences occurred for group members, but not for subjects who performed the argument-generation task. The theoretical and applied significance of these findings is discussed.

The Impact of Behavioral Style and Status Characteristics on Social Influence: A Test of Two Competing Theories

Two theories of social influence during interaction are compared. A cognitive theory (Status Characteristics and Expectation States) contends that dominance and influence in small groups are caused by cognitions about performance' expectations activated by the status characteristics of members. An alternative argument (Two-Process Theory) contends that it is the observable demeanor of group members that is the cause of dominance and influence. A 3 x 3 x 2 factorial design was used to test the separate effects of status knowledge and demeanor on influence. Each of 324 subjects viewed one of 18 different videotapes of a mock jury deliberation in a personal injury case. Three levels of demeanor (deference-demanding, neutral, and deferential) and three levels of occupational status were manipulated. Influence was measured in terms of changes in amount of the damage award subjects chose. Results showed that social influence was dependent solely upon the demeanor variable. Analysis of a post-decision questionnaire showed that subjects distorted perceptions of the performances of high status participants even though they were influenced through demeanor variation.

Role Playing and the Study of Jury Behavior

Widespread use of simulated trials and mock juries to study jury behavior has stimulated concern for the external validity ofsuch simulations. A study is reported which examined the role-playing nature of mock jury deliberation. Subjects were either given typical role-playing instructions, or were led to believe that they were deciding an actual student discipline case. The two conditions did not differ significantly on their group or individual verdicts, sentence recommendations, deliberation time, or estimated social decision schemes. The significance and limitations of these results for the study of jury behavior are discussed.