Jurors' Perceptions of Adolescent Sexual Assault Victims Who Have Intellectual Disabilities

Children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities are especially likely to be sexually abused. Even so, their claims are not likely to be heard in court, possibly because people assume that jurors will not believe them. We tested this assumption in a mock-trial study in which 160 men and women watched videotaped excerpts from an actual trial. As predicted, when the 16-year-old sexual assault victim was portrayed as mildly mentally retarded instead of as having average intelligence, jurors were more likely to vote guilty and had more confidence in the defendant's guilt; considered the victim to be more credible and the defendant to be less credible as witnesses; and rated the victim as more honest, less capable of fabricating the sexual abuse accusation, and less likely to have fabricated the sexual abuse accusation. Men and women were affected similarly by the disability manipulation, but women were generally more pro-prosecution in their case judgments and perceptions than were men. Finally, jurors who had more liberal views toward persons with disabilities were more likely than other jurors to make pro-prosecution judgments on measures of guilt. Implications for psychological theory and the law are discussed.     

Linguistic and socioemotional influences on the accuracy of children's reports

A basic but largely neglected issue in research on the reliability of children's testimony is the impact of certain questioning tactics (e.g., use of legalese and socioemotional intimidation) on the accuracy of children's reports. In the present study, 5- to 7-year-old children were interviewed about a standardized play event with free-recall cues and detailed questions that were specific or misleading. Linguistic complexity of questions (complex or simple) and socioemotional context of interview (supportive or intimidating) were varied between subjects. Results indicated that children were significantly less accurate in reporting the event when questioned with complex, developmentally inappropriate questions rather than simple questions, yet children rarely voiced their comprehension failures. In addition, children interviewed by a warm, supportive interviewer were more resistant to misleading questions about the event than were children interviewed in an intimidating manner. Theoretical interpretations and implications for investigative interviewing and policy are discussed.     

Effects of jurors’ gender and attitudes toward intellectual disability on judgments in cases involving disabled juvenile defendants

Because many juvenile offenders are intellectually disabled and have their cases tried by jurors in adult criminal court, it is important to understand factors that influence jurors’ judgments in such cases. Using a mock trial methodology, we explored the relations among jurors’ gender, attitudes toward intellectual disability, and judgments in a criminal case involving an intellectually disabled 15-year-old girl accused of murder. Men mock jurors’ judgments were not influenced by their preexisting biases, but women's were: the more women favored special treatment for disabled offenders, the less likely they were to suspect the disabled juvenile was guilty and the less likely they were to convict her. Implications for actual cases involving disabled juvenile defendants are discussed.