Economically disadvantaged juvenile offenders tried in adult court are perceived as less able to understand their actions,but more guilty

We investigated the influence of a juvenile defendant's socioeconomic status (SES) on mock jurors’ perceptions of a juvenile tried in adult court. As predicted, participants convicted the low SES juvenile defendant of felony murder significantly more than the middle or high SES juvenile defendant. Yet, participants also rated the low SES juvenile as less mature than the middle or high SES juvenile – a belief that past research shows predicts leniency in verdicts (i.e., not guilty judgments). Finally, stereotypes about the criminality of low SES juvenile defendants, not a lack of perceived similarity, partially mediated the effect of SES on guilt.     

Mock jurors' perceptions of identifications made by intoxicated eyewitnesses

Abstract

Psychology research has generally neglected intoxicated eyewitnesses. The current study addressed this need by exploring mock jurors' perceptions of intoxicated witnesses. Undergraduate participants read summarized sexual or aggravated battery cases in which either the victim or a bystander identified the defendant under varying intoxication levels. They answered questions about the case and provided verdicts. Participants were sensitive to the effect that intoxication may have on witnesses' cognitive ability, but not to varying degrees of intoxication. Neither the role of the eyewitness nor the type of crime committed had an effect on perceptions of witness impairment. Participants' perceptions of witness impairment informed identification credibility ratings, and credibility assessments affected verdicts. Impairment and credibility ratings fully mediated intoxication's effect on verdicts. Unlike much prior research, our results suggest that mock jurors can consider potentially important witness information when rendering verdicts.     

Juror Sensitivity to the Cross-Race Effect

Black and White mock jurors' sensitivity to the cross-race effect was investigated by varying the race of the eyewitness in a simulated murder trial of a Black defendant. Participants heard an audiotape of a trial after which they rendered a verdict and rated the credibility of the witnesses. White participants found the prosecution witnesses (including the eyewitness) more credible, and the defense witness less credible, than did Black participants; they were also more likely to find the defendant guilty. The Black eyewitness was perceived as more credible than was the White eyewitness, but eyewitness race had no effect on verdict. These results are consistent with the literature indicating that jurors of different races reach different verdicts, and also that jurors are relatively insensitive to factors that affect eyewitness testimony, such as the cross-race effect.     

Juror decision making for juveniles tried as adults: the effects of defendant age,crime type,and crime outcome

This study examined the influences of the crime type (person or property) and the crime outcome (mild or severe) on mock jurors’ verdict and sentencing decisions for adult defendants and juvenile defendants tried as adults. Jurors read a trial summary depicting a defendant charged with aggravated robbery or second-degree burglary. The crimes had either mild or severe damage inflicted on the person or property, and the defendant's age was presented as 14 or 24. Neither the defendant age nor the crime outcome affected jurors’ verdicts; however, jurors were more likely to convict a defendant charged with a crime against a person. Jurors recommended longer sentences for an adult defendant, a defendant charged with a crime against a person, and a defendant charged with a crime with a severe outcome. The discussion explored these outcomes and the role of bias in jurors’ perceptions of defendants.     

The role of neurological and psychological explanations in legal judgments of psychopathic wrongdoers

Although brain imaging has recently taken center stage in criminal legal proceedings, little is known about how neuroscience information differentially affects people’s judgments about criminal behavior. In two studies of community participants (N = 1161), we examined how mock jurors sentence a fictional psychopathic defendant when presented with neurological or psychological research of equal or ambiguous scientific validity. Across two studies, we (a) found that including images of the brain did not alter mock jurors’ sentencing judgments, (b) reported two striking non-replications of previous findings that mock jurors recommend less severe punishments to defendants when a neuroscientific explanations are proffered, and (c) found that participants rated a psychopathic individual as more likely to benefit from treatment and less dangerous when a neurological explanation for his deficits was provided. Overall, these results suggest that neuroscience information provided by psychiatrists in hypothetical criminal situations may not broadly transform mock jurors’ intuitions about a psychopathic defendant’s sentence, but they provide novel evidence that brain-based information may influence people’s judgments about treatability and dangerousness.     

Effects of defendant age and juror bias on judgment of culpability: What happens when a juvenile is tried as an adult?

The current study examined the possibility that trying juveniles as adults was prejudicial. One hundred and fifty three undergraduate mock jurors, classified as either prosecution-biased (PB) or defense-biased (DB), participated in the experiment. The jurors were randomly assigned to read a murder trial summary depicting a 19-year-old adult defendant (AD-19), a 16-year-old juvenile tried as an adult (JA-16), or a 13-year-old juvenile tried as an adult (JA-13). Defendant age interacted with juror bias. In the JA-16 condition, compared with defense-biased jurors, prosecution-biased jurors found the defendant guilty more often, had higher confidence in the defendant’s guilt, and set a lower standard of proof. By all appearances, some jurors might lose neutrality when judging juveniles tried as adults.     

The CSI Effect and the impact of DNA evidence on mock jurors and jury deliberations

ABSTRACT

The present research examined the CSI Effect and the impact of DNA evidence on mock jurors and jury deliberations using a 3 (Crime Drama Viewing: low, moderate, high)?×?3 (Evidence: DNA innocent, DNA guilty, no DNA control) design. A sample of 178 jury-eligible college students read a case of breaking and entering. Pre-deliberation, some support for a CSI Effect was found with high viewers’ extent of guilt ratings significantly lower than moderate and low viewers’ in the no DNA control and the DNA innocent conditions. This effect was not present for verdicts. Contrary to a CSI Effect, crime drama viewing was not related to guilt judgments with incriminating DNA evidence. A content analysis of comments made during deliberations found little support for the CSI Effect entering the jury room. Specifically, CSI Effect predictions were not supported when examining the discussion of DNA evidence, expressing DNA opinions, or mentioning missing evidence. Overall, the limited CSI Effect found for individuals was attenuated during deliberation. The alarm raised over a possible CSI Effect influencing jury decision making may be unwarranted.     

Perceptions of suspect statements: a comparison of exposed lies and confessions

Confrontational interrogation techniques seek to produce a confession, while investigative interviews focus on information gathering and/or catching suspects in lies. Confessions obtained during interrogations are potent for securing a defendant’s conviction. However, the goal of investigative interviews is not to produce a confession, yet it is unknown if their outcome (e.g. exposed lies) is as effective in court as that of an interrogation (i.e. a confession). In two studies, mock jurors read case summaries wherein a defendant was accused of murder and terrorist activities. In both cases, the statement a defendant made during a police interview was manipulated: The defendant either lied or not and either confessed or not. Participants then rendered a verdict and were asked about the probative value of several pieces of supporting evidence. Results were similar across both studies with more convictions when the defendant lied, confessed, or did both relative to when the defendant produced a statement without lies and without a confession. Furthermore, we found that perceptions of supporting evidence mediated the effect of exposed lies on culpability, but this was not the case for confessions. These findings illustrate the positive qualities of presenting exposed lies in court, diminishing the need for a confession.     

Knowing when the camera lies: Judicial instructions mitigate the camera perspective bias

Purpose. Videotaped confession evidence elicits harsher evaluations against a defendant if initially recorded with the camera focused primarily on the suspect, compared with other presentation formats. Unfortunately, most videotaped confession evidence employs this biasing suspect‐focus camera perspective format, leaving defendants with no recourse. The present study examined the utility of judicial instructions in mitigating the effects of the camera perspective bias on individual juror verdicts. Methods. Through random assignment, 156 mock jurors did or did not receive explicit instructions to correct for the camera perspective bias prior to viewing a video recording of an authentic true or false confession. Results. As expected, mock jurors who received instructions to correct for the camera perspective bias reported more lenient judgments of confessor guilt after viewing a suspect‐focus confession recording compared to those who did not receive such instructions. However, this relative leniency emerged only in response to false, and not true, confessions. Conclusions. Results demonstrated that judicial instructions used in the present research mitigated the effect of camera perspective on mock‐juror judgments of suspect guilt.