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.     

Mock Jurors’ Reactions to Selective Presentation of Evidence from Multiple-Opportunity Searches

Prior to trial, litigants sometimes conduct broad investigations in which there are multiple opportunities to find supportive evidence by chance alone. During trial, litigants may selectively present only the most helpful evidence uncovered by their investigations. Two experiments examined whether mock jurors appreciate that the evidence they hear at trial may be a selective and unrepresentative sample of underlying facts. The data suggest that people do understand the significance of multiple-opportunity searches for legal inference. However, they may not consider the possibility that evidence was strategically selected from a larger sample space of facts unless that sample space is identified.     

The effect of ambiguous question wording on jurors’ presumption of innocence

ABSTRACT

Research suggests that jurors misunderstand the presumption of innocence. However, past studies have not asked participants to estimate the defendant’s probability of guilt, setting aside the fact of charge and indictment. We conduct two studies to explore the impact of this question wording on estimates of the probability of guilt/innocence by jury-eligible Mturk workers. In Experiment 1 (N?=?275), question wording (legal, factual and ambiguous) was varied within participants and revealed significantly higher estimates of innocence in response to the legal than the factual or ambiguously worded question. In Experiment 2 (N?=?303), question wording was manipulated between participants both before (prior) and after (posterior) the presentation of evidence. Prior estimates of guilt were significantly lower in the legal than factual or ambiguous conditions. Question wording also predicted posteriors, and these in turn predicted verdicts. These results suggest that imprecise wording may have contributed to concerns about jurors’ understanding of the presumption of innocence, highlighting the need for further research. Link to associated OSF page: [https://osf.io/ywuxr/?view_only=b2148ffd1f674e62b66d31ed6593e586].     

Validity Beliefs and Ideology Can Influence Legal Case Judgments Differently

Jurors sometimes enter a case both with prior beliefs about its likely validity and with more general ideologies that are relevant to the case. Although prior validity beliefs may serve as heuristics, directly biasing decisions when cognitive capacity is low, we hypothesized that ideology may bias systematic thought even when cognitive capacity is high. This experiment studied simulated individual juror decisions in a sex-discrimination case, measuring validity beliefs about such cases as well as feminist ideology, and exposing participants to 1 of 3 case versions under time pressure or no time pressure. Validity beliefs had a direct, heuristic impact on judgment only under time pressure. However, feminist ideology had a mediated influence on judgment via valenced thoughts about the evidence, even under no time pressure. Also, people with initially proplaintiff beliefs judged a woman's sex-discrimination suit more negatively than did prodefendants if the evidence was weak. The results suggest that when jurors can fully process information, validity expectancies might backfire if not supported by case evidence, but ideology can have a more pervasive influence on the decision-making process.     

Strength of Evidence,Extraevidentiary Influence,and the Liberation Hypothesis: Data from the Field

To examine relationships between strength of evidence (SOE) and extraevidentiary variables in the context of Kalven and Zeisel’s (The American Jury, 1966) liberation hypothesis, post-trial questionnaire data were collected from judges, attorneys, and jurors associated with 179 criminal jury trials. SOE ratings were strongly correlated with jury verdicts on the three most serious charges against the defendant, and several extraevidentiary variables (i.e., pretrial publicity, trial complexity, charge severity, and foreperson demographics) were moderately correlated with verdicts. Extraevidentiary-verdict relationships remained significant when SOE was controlled, although extraevidentiary variables yielded only modest improvement in classification accuracy beyond SOE. In partial support of the liberation hypothesis, several case-related extraevidentiary variables were significantly related to jury verdicts only when the prosecution’s evidence was rated as moderately strong.     

“CSI效应”对香港华人群体的科学证据感知评估

电视是向公众传递信息的强大媒介。最近,法庭科学和刑事司法相关题材内容在各种媒体激增,伴随着公众对法庭证据的期望提高,"CSI效应"(犯罪现场调查影视剧效应)应运而生。本研究对CSI效应的探讨有两个方面的贡献。第一,验证了在香港中国人群中是否存在CSI效应。第二,采用模拟陪审团模式,从实证角度出发全面考察CSI效应。研究发现,尽管涉及法庭科学证据的媒体报道数量确实在某种程度上影响了参与者对法庭证据的感知,但这种感知并不影响参与者对法律的判断。法庭科学题材影视剧的观众在控方仅出示法庭证据时不可能判定被告有罪,在仅出示证词时也不可能判定被告有罪。当提交法庭证据时,唯一判定被告有罪的重要预测因素是参与者对科学证据可靠性的评价。本研究的结果表明在香港不存在CSI效应。     

Punitive Damage Decision Making: The Decisions of Citizens and Trial Court Judges

Some states have allocated the authority to determine the amount of punitive damages to judges rather than to juries. This study explored the determination of damages by jury-eligible citizens and trial court judges. The punitive damage awards of both groups were of similar magnitude and variability. The compensatory damages of jurors were marginally lower but, in some conditions, were more variable than the compensatory damage awards of judges. Both groups appropriately utilized information about both the actual and potential severity of the harm to the plaintiff in determining punitive damages and used only the actual severity of the injury in determining compensatory damages. The punitive damage awards of both groups were influenced by the wealth of the defendant, but the compensatory damage awards of judges were marginally more influenced by defendant wealth than those of citizens. The results are discussed in the context of proposals for punitive damages reform.     

The Impact of Prejudice Screening Procedures on Racial Bias in the Courtroom

The current study examines the impact of the challenge for cause procedure and its effectiveness in curbing racial prejudice in trials involving Black defendants. Participants were provided with a trial summary of a defendant charged with either drug trafficking or embezzlement. The race of the defendant was either White or Black, with participants in the Black defendant condition receiving (prior to the trial presentation) either no challenge, a close-ended standard challenge, or a modified reflective pretrial questioning strategy. Overall, the results revealed an anti-Black bias in judgments. While the closed ended challenge did little to reduce this bias, the reflective format demonstrated a reduction in racial bias. Theoretical and applied implications of these findings are discussed.