Admitting evidence of a defendant's previous conviction (PCE) and its impact on juror deliberation in relation to both juror‐processing style and juror concerns over the fairness of introducing PCE

Purpose. To examine the impact of admitting previous conviction evidence (PCE) on juror and jury deliberation. Major questions are: (1) Is there is an association between the inclusion of PCE and confidence in a defendant's guilt using a relatively rich trial simulation? (2) Does PCE invoke jurors’ considerations of fairness to the defendant? (3) Is heuristic processing (HP) associated with a prejudicial interpretation of evidence? Methods. In experiment 1 (n= 82), individual jurors were asked to recall evidence, express opinion, and justify verdicts on the two counts of Affray and Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH). In experiment 2 (new n= 121), PCE information was emphasized and a jury deliberation condition was included. Results. There was no simple association between admitting PCE and judgements of guilt. However, both interviews and jury deliberations indicated careful consideration of evidence. In particular, juror arguments showed that some were troubled by PCE, which they saw as unwarranted and therefore unfair to the defendant. Finally, HP was associated with both a prejudicial focus on the defendant's character and a higher confidence in guilt. Conclusions. A simple link between PCE and judgements of guilt may only hold in relatively circumscribed experimental simulations. Results also indicate that the introduction of PCE is unlikely to aid evidence‐based deliberation without careful testing of different forms of judges’ explanation concerning PCE.     

Severity of penalty,seriousness of the charge,and mock jurors' verdicts

It has been suggested that jurors in criminal trials are less likely to convict when the penalty is more severe or the charge is more serious. This was explained by Kerr (1975) in terms of a perceived increase in the cost of a Type I error (convicting an innocent person) that resulted in a criterion shift in the amount of evidence jurors required to vote guilty. The previous research found only weak support for the prediction regarding severity but consistent support for the predicted effect of seriousness. However, in the case materials used in these studies, more evidence was legally required to prove guilt on the more serious charges. This article presents studies in which the amount of evidence needed to prove guilt was equated for all charges. Under these circumstances, there was no effect on verdicts of seriousness of charge or severity of penalty and no evidence of a criterion shift due to either variable. There may still be reason to believe that these factors affect real juries, but this belief is not supported by the systematic evidence from mock jury studies.     

The CSI effect and the Canadian and the Australian Jury

Television shows, such as CBS's CSI and its spin-offs CSI: Miami; CSI: Las Vegas; and CSI: New York, have sparked the imagination of thousands of viewers who want to become forensic scientists. The shows' fictional portrayals of crime scene investigations have prompted fears that jurors will demand DNA and other forensic evidence before they will convict, and have unrealistic expectations of that evidence. This has been dubbed the "CSI effect." This phenomenon was explored using results from a Canadian study based on 605 surveys of Canadian college students who would be considered jury-eligible and Australian quantitative and qualitative findings from a study that surveyed and interviewed real posttrial jurors. Information about the way jurors deal with forensic evidence in the context of other evidence and feedback about the way in which understanding such evidence could be increased were gained from both these studies. The comparison provides insights into the knowledge base of jurors, permitting adaptation of methods of presenting forensic information by lawyers and experts in court, based on evidence rather than folklore. While the Canadian juror data showed statistically significant findings that jurors are clearly influenced in their treatment of some forensic evidence by their television-viewing habits, reassuringly, no support was found in either study for the operation of a detrimental CSI effect as defined above. In the Australian study, in fact, support was found for the proposition that jurors assess forensic evidence in a balanced and thoughtful manner.     

Instructing jurors

This field experiment examines the advantages and disadvantages of two jury instruction procedures: instructing the jury prior to the evidence portion of the trial and providing the jury with a written copy of the judge's instructions to take with them to their deliberations. The presence or absence of both procedures was randomly assigned to 34 civil and 33 criminal trials in Wisconsin circuit courts. Following the trials, questionnaires were administered to judges, lawyers, and jurors. Overall, the findings do not provide any support for the hypotheses that written instructions would help the jurors to recall the judge's instructions, that they would increase the jurors' satisfaction with the trial, or that they would shorten the trial. The written copy did appear to reduce disputes among jurors about the judge's instructions. No evidence was found to support the notion that written instructions would reduce the amount of time that juries devoted to the evidence, that they would lengthen deliberations, or that they would place excessive demands on the resources of the court. The findings also did not support the hypotheses that preliminary instructions would assist the jurors with recall of the judge's instructions or the evidence, or that they would reduce juror confusion about the trial procedure, but did support the hypotheses that preliminary instructions would assist the jurors with following legal guidelines in their decision making and would increase the jurors' satisfaction with the trial process. No evidence was found to support the hypotheses that preliminary instructions would be an impractical procedure or that they would place excessive demands on the judge.Northwestern University     

Community Members’ Perceptions of the CSI Effect

The CSI Effect is the notion that crime show viewing influences jurors to have unrealistic expectations of forensic evidence, which then affects their trial decisions. Analyses of popular media shows that the media portrays the effect as a real problem, and research surveying the legal community indicates that they believe the CSI Effect exists and may change their investigation and trial strategies accordingly. The present study expanded on this research by surveying community members regarding their perceptions of the CSI Effect. Community members reported their general television and crime show viewing behaviors, and we examined this in relation to their knowledge construction of the CSI Effect. Findings indicate that overall, the majority of community members did not have knowledge of the CSI effect, but those who did perceive it as an unrealistic expectation of evidence. When provided with a definition of the CSI Effect, people generally believed it exists. Additionally, crime show viewing and participant’s race influenced people’s perceptions of the CSI effect. Limitations of this study and directions for future research are also discussed.     

电子证据的相关问题

在美国，使用电子证据已经成为法庭上非常普遍的现象。陪审团审案时，试图使用电子证据的检察官要想使得初审法官采纳该电子证据必须克服一些阻碍。一些证据标准被设计来限制陪审团的事实发现过程。检察官可要求法院启动庭前审理程序来决定电子证据是否可以被采纳。建立一个电子证据保管链和专门处理电子证据的既定机构程序是检方工作的关键环节，这样能确保法庭调查中获得陪审团的信任。挑选能认同电子证据重要性的人员担任陪审团成员非常重要，同时还要避免选择那些想要根据自己专业知识来主导陪审团决议的人员。     

“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。     

Limitations on the ability to negotiate justice: attorney perspectives on guilt,innocence, and legal advice in the current plea system

In the American criminal justice system the vast majority of criminal convictions occur as the result of guilty pleas, often made as a result of plea bargains, rather than jury trials. The incentives offered in exchange for guilty pleas mean that both innocent and guilty defendants plead guilty. We investigate the role of attorneys in this context, through interviews with criminal defense attorneys. We examine defense attorney perspectives on the extent to which innocent defendants are (and should be) pleading guilty in the current legal framework and investigate their views of their own role in this complex system. We also use a hypothetical case to probe the ways in which defense attorneys consider guilt or innocence when providing advice on pleas. Results indicate that attorney advice is influenced by guilt or innocence, but also that attorneys are limited in the extent to which they can negotiate justice for their clients in a system in which uncertainty and large discrepancies between outcomes of guilty pleas and conviction at trial can make it a sensible option to plead guilty even when innocent. Results also suggest conflicting opinions over the role of the attorney in the plea-bargaining process.     

The role of confirmation bias in suspect interviews: A systematic evaluation

Purpose. The three studies presented in this paper systematically examined the effect of expectations of guilt on interviewer questioning style, confession, denial rates, and suspects' verbal behaviour during interview. Method. Undergraduate students were recruited to participate in the three studies. In Study 1, 61 participants formulated questions that they wanted to ask a suspect to determine whether or not they cheated on a task. Prior to formulating their questions, participants were led to believe that the suspect was likely to be guilty or innocent. In Study 2, 45 ‘innocent’ and ‘guilty’ participants were accused of cheating on a task and were interviewed with either guilt‐presumptive questions or neutral questions. In the final study, 58 participants listened to a selection of audiotaped interviews from Study 2. They then rated various aspects of the suspects' verbal behaviour. Results. As hypothesized expectations of guilt resulted in the formulation of more guilt‐presumptive questions even when participants were free to generate their own questions (Study 1). A significant association was found between suspect guilt/innocence and whether they confessed or denied, although there was no association between questioning style and confession or denial rates (Study 2). However, as expected, ratings of independent observers who listened to tape recordings of the suspect interviews indicated an influence of questioning style on the suspects' verbal behaviour whereby a self‐fulfilling prophecy effect occurred (Study 3). Conclusions. These results indicate that expectations of guilt can indeed have an effect on questioning style and that this in‐turn can lead to a self‐fulfilling prophecy effect.     

Trial by media?: Media reliance,knowledge of crime and perception of criminal defendants

Previous research has linked extensive news media coverage of crimes and the criminal process to pretrial jury bias against defendants. Most research, however, has tested the effects of reading fabricated crime stories on mock jury decisions or general perceptions of crime. Using telephone interviews, this study examines whether perceptions of the defendant in an actual double homicide were related to reliance on local news media for news and information. The results provide clear evidence that potential jurors who are exposed to media coverage of crimes form biases against criminal defendants. Newspaper and television reliance were found to be positively related to perceptions of guilt. The results also show that newspaper reliant individuals knew significantly more facts about the case. Television reliant individuals judged the defendant's character as significantly more negative.     

Permitting Jury Discussions During Trial: Impact of the Arizona Reform

A field experiment tested the effect of an Arizona civil jury reform that allows jurors to discuss evidence among themselves during the trial. Judges, jurors, attorneys, and litigants completed questionnaires in trials randomly assigned to either a Trial Discussions condition, in which jurors were permitted to discuss the evidence during trial, or a No Discussions condition, in which jurors were prohibited from discussing the evidence during trial according to traditional admonitions. Judicial agreement with jury verdicts did not differ between conditions. Permitting jurors to discuss the evidence did affect the degree of certainty that jurors reported about their preferences at the start of jury deliberations, the level of conflict on the jury, and the likelihood of reaching unanimity.     

Taking the bait: interrogation questions about hypothetical evidence may inflate perceptions of guilt

ABSTRACT

During suspect interviews, police will sometimes ask about hypothetical incriminating evidence to evoke a cue to deception – a technique known as a bait question. Previous research has demonstrated such questions can distort peoples’ memory for what evidence exists in a case. Here, we investigate whether such memory distortion can also cause people to see the suspect as more likely to be guilty. Across three experiments, we find exposure to bait questions led to participants hold inflated views of a suspect’s guilt. Further, we demonstrate bait questions cause reliable, robust memory distortion, leading participants to believe non-existent, incriminating evidence exists. However, we found no evidence to support the speculated mechanisms for this inflation – namely, (1) that source monitoring errors could lead people to misremember false evidence as real evidence and (2) that bait questions provide ‘key evidence’ to fill in the gaps of an incomplete theory of a case. In sum, bait questions have the problematic potential to shift jurors towards guilty verdicts. We suggest future research directions on bait questions, including the need for different designs to clarify why bait questions inflate guilt, and recommend practitioners avoid the use of bait questions.     

The use of DNA statistics in criminal trials

In a number of recent cases in the UK, convictions have been quashed by the Court of Appeal on the grounds that the jury had been misdirected as to the factual significance of random occurrence statistics. The mathematical basis on which those statistics are calculated was reviewed and recent appeal cases involving DNA evidence in the UK and the US were examined. It was found that a widespread misconception exists regarding the random occurrence ratio and its relationship with probability of guilt. It is in fact impossible to relate the two with any degree of accuracy without consideration of social and demographic factors particular to a case as well as any non-DNA evidence obtained.     

Guilty and innocent suspects’ strategies during police interrogations

Abstract

Deception detection has largely failed to investigate guilty and innocent suspects’ strategies. In this study, mock suspects (n=82) were interrogated by police trainees (n=82) who either were or were not trained in the technique to strategically use the evidence (the SUE technique). Analyses revealed that guilty suspects to a higher degree than innocent suspects applied strategies in order to appear truthful. Guilty suspects reported diverse strategies, while innocent suspects reported the strategy to tell the truth like it had happened, indicating a belief in the visibility of innocence. The realism in the suspects’ expectation about how their veracity was judged was largely dependent on the way in which they had been interrogated. The truth-telling suspects who were interrogated according to the SUE technique were optimistic about being judged as truthful; this optimism was warranted as the vast majority of them were classified as truthful. The SUE technique seems to help (a) spotting guilty suspects without them being aware of it and (b) spotting innocent suspects, and they become aware of it. That innocent (but not guilty) suspects can read how the interrogator views them is advantageous for the investigative process.     

Guilt Shall Not Escape or Innocence Suffer? The Limits of Plea Bargaining When Defendant Guilt is Uncertain

This article examines optimal prosecutor behavior with respectto plea bargaining when defendant guilt is uncertain. I showthat when jury beliefs and behavior are determined endogenouslyin equilibrium along with defendant and prosecutor behavior,plea bargaining can play only a limited role in managing society'sconflicting desires to maximize punishment of the guilty andminimize punishment of the falsely accused. In particular, whileit can be optimal for prosecutors to use plea bargaining toinduce a large fraction of guilty defendants to voluntarilysort themselves from the innocent, such sorting must come atthe cost of imposing relatively short sentences on such guiltydefendants who accept plea bargains.     

Do Juries Meet Our Expectations?

Surveys of public opinion indicate that people have high expectations for juries. When it comes to serious crimes, most people want errors of convicting the innocent (false positives) or acquitting the guilty (false negatives) to fall well below 10%. Using expected utility theory, Bayes' Theorem, signal detection theory, and empirical evidence from detection studies of medical decision making, eyewitness testimony, and weather forecasting, we argue that the frequency of mistakes probably far exceeds these tolerable levels. We are not arguing against the use of juries. Rather, we point out that a closer look at jury decisions reveals a serious gap between what we expect from juries and what probably occurs. When deciding issues of guilt and/or punishing convicted criminals, we as a society should recognize and acknowledge the abundance of error.     

Effects of pretrial juror bias,strength of evidence and deliberation process on juror decisions: new validity evidence of the Juror Bias Scale scores

This study examines the validity of the Juror Bias Scale scores in relation to the mock juror decisions reached in two real life homicide cases before and after the deliberation process. The judicial cases used varied in terms of the ambiguity of the evidence presented at both trials. The WLS methodology for statistical modelling of categorical data was used to analyse data. The findings indicated that the Juror Bias Scale scores successfully predict the verdicts and other related questions before and after deliberations in the case with ambiguous evidence. Furthermore, deliberations caused a generalisation effect on the pretrial juror bias in such a case, and enhanced the differences between defense-biased and prosecution-biased jurors in the verdicts delivered after deliberations. The implications of these findings are discussed in relation to the use of pretrial juror bias questionnaires in jury selection.     

Race and the decision making of juries

The relationship between race and jury decision making is a controversial topic that has received increased attention in recent years. While public and media discourse has focused on anecdotal evidence in the form of high‐profile cases, legal researchers have considered a wide range of empirical questions including: To what extent does the race of a defendant affect the verdict tendencies of juries? Is this influence of race comparable for jurors of different races? In what ways does a jury's racial composition affect its verdict and deliberations? The present review examines both experimental and archival investigations of these issues. Though the extant literature is not always consistent and has devoted too little attention to the psychological mechanisms underlying the influence of race, this body of research clearly demonstrates that race has the potential to impact trial outcomes. This is a conclusion with important practical as well as theoretical implications when it comes to ongoing debates regarding jury representativeness, how to optimize jury performance, jury nullification and racial disparities in the administration of capital punishment.     

Emotion,Authority, and Death: (Raced) Negotiations in Mock Capital Jury Deliberations

This article explores the role of emotion in the capital penalty‐phase jury deliberations process. It is based on the qualitative analysis of data from ninety video‐recorded four to seven person simulated jury deliberations that examined the influence of race on death sentencing outcomes. The analysis explores when and how emotions are expressed, integrated into the jury's sentencing process, and deployed in penalty‐phase decision making. The findings offer critical new insights into the role that emotion plays in influencing these legal judgments by revealing how jurors strategically and explicitly employ emotion in the course of deliberation, both to support their own positions and neutralize or rebut the opposing positions of others. The findings also shed light on the various ways that white male capital jurors utilize a panoply of powerful emotion‐based tactics to sway others to their position in a manner that often contributes to racially biased outcomes.