Attempts to Define ‘Terrorism’ in International Law

Netherlands International Law Review -     

Dirty tricks of cross-examination

A mock jury study was conducted to test the hypothesis that perceptions of a witness can be biased by presumptuous cross-examination questions. A total of 105 subjects read a rape trial in which the cross-examiner asked a question that implied something negative about the reputation of either the victim or an expert. Within each condition, the question was met with either a denial, an admission, or an objection from the witness's attorney. Results indicated that although ratings of the victim's credibility were not affected by the presumptuous question, the expert's credibility was significantly diminished—even when the question had elicited a denial or a sustained objection. Conceptual and practical implications of these findings are discussed.This research was supported by funds provided to the first author by the Bronfman Science Center.     

Unanimous decision making on the U.S. Supreme Court: Case stimuli and judicial attitudes

Although behavioral scholars have devoted much time and energy to attempting to explain decision making on the U.S. Supreme Court, they have virtually ignored the unanimous decision. We investigated the Vinson, Warren, and Burger Courts and discovered that the liberal outcome was more successful in the unanimous cases whether those cases involve civil liberties or economic liberalism and whether they were decisions to reverse or decisions to affirm. We also ascertained that the ideological position that tended to win in the unanimous reverse cases was related to the ideological position that tended to win in the nonunanimous reverse cases, but that no such relationship was present in the two kinds of affirm cases. These two findings are in conformity with a psychometric model, which posits that the relative position of judicial attitudes and case stimuli determines the vote on the U.S. Supreme Court.     

“I'm Innocent!”: Effects of Training on Judgments of Truth and Deception in the Interrogation Room

The present research examined the extent to which people can distinguish true and false denials made in a criminal interrogation, and tested the hypothesis that training in the use of verbal and nonverbal cues increases the accuracy of these judgments. In Phase One, 16 participants committed one of four mock crimes (breaking and entering, vandalism, shoplifting, a computer break-in) or a related but innocent act. Given incentives to deny involvement rather than confess, these suspects were then interrogated. In Phase Two, 40 observers were either trained in the analysis of verbal and nonverbal deception cues or not trained before viewing the videotaped interrogations and making their judgments. As in past studies conducted in nonforensic settings, observers were generally unable to distinguish between truthful and deceptive suspects. In addition, those who underwent training were less accurate than naive controls—though they were more confident and cited more reasons for their judgments. The implications of these findings are discussed in light of what is known about police interrogations, false confessions, and the wrongful conviction of innocent suspects.     

Eyewitness Identification Procedures: The Fifth Rule

Law and Human Behavior -     

Effects of the dynamite charge on the deliberations of deadlocked mock juries

When juries report that they are deadlocked, judges often deliver the dynamite charge, a supplemental instruction that urges jurors to rethink their views in an effort to reach a unanimous verdict. The present study evaluated the impact of this procedure on 378 subjects who participated in 63 deadlocked mock juries. Results indicated that the dynamite charge caused jurors in the voting minority to feel coerced and change their votes, reduced the pressure felt by those in the majority, and hastened the deliberation process in juries that favored conviction. These findings raise serious questions concerning the use of this controversial charge.     

Reelection and Legislative Power: Surprising Results from Brazil

A diverse and growing literature ties legislative professionalization and power to career paths. In particular, higher rates of reelection and longer legislative careers should produce more professional, competent, and high‐quality legislatures. Legislators have more incentives to strengthen their own institution when they intend to remain there for a long career. Using data from the most recent constitutional convention in Brazil, we show that legislators with greater prospects for long careers were actually less likely to support strengthening the legislative branch. We explain this as part of a local equilibrium where career legislators’ short‐term need for pork trumped their long‐term interest in a stronger institution.