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.     

Understanding juror perceptions of forensic evidence: investigating the impact of case context on perceptions of forensic evidence strength

The most widely accepted model of juror decision making acknowledges the importance of both the case-specific information presented in the courtroom, as well as the prior general knowledge and beliefs held by each juror. The studies presented in this paper investigated whether mock jurors could differentiate between evidence of varying strengths in the absence of case information and then followed on to determine the influence that case context (and therefore the story model) has on judgments made about the strength of forensic DNA evidence. The results illustrated that mock jurors correctly identified various strengths of evidence when it was not presented with case information; however, the perceived strength of evidence was significantly inflated when presented in the context of a criminal case, particularly when the evidence was of a weak or ambiguous standard. These findings are discussed in relation to the story model, and the potential implications for real juries.     

JUST: a measure of jury system trustworthiness

ABSTRACT

Three studies developed and tested a new measure of the perceived trustworthiness of the jury system, the 23-item Jury System Trustworthiness (JUST) scale, and assessed the scale’s convergent and discriminant validity. Study 1 assessed the scale’s factor structure and relation to other relevant constructs. In Studies 2 and 3, the JUST scale was administered to participants in two separate mock juror studies. The results of all three studies supported the hypothesized factor structure of the measure but showed that a simplified, 7-item measure was also effective. Overall, participants’ perceptions of juries were moderately positive, and the JUST scale was related to attitudes toward the police, authoritarianism, belief in a just world, juror bias, preference for a jury (vs. a bench) trial, and intention to respond to a jury summons. It also explained a unique portion of the variance in jury-specific beliefs and behavioral intentions, such as preference for a jury trial and response to a summons, beyond that accounted for by other legal attitudes. The JUST scale was not related to verdict decisions in either mock trial after controlling for authoritarianism. Several individual differences (e.g. age, race/ethnicity) were also related to attitudes toward the jury system.     

Gruesome Evidence and Emotion: Anger, Blame, and Jury Decision-Making

Judges assume that gruesome evidence can influence juror verdicts, but little is known about the manner in which the influence is manifested. In a 2 × 3 study that varied the gruesome content of photographic and verbal evidence, gruesome verbal evidence did not influence mock juror emotional states, and had no impact on the conviction rate. Mock jurors who saw gruesome photographs, compared with those who saw no photographs, reported experiencing significantly more intense emotional responses, including greater anger at the defendant. The conviction rate when visual evidence in the form of gruesome or neutral photographs was included was significantly higher than the conviction rate without photographic evidence. Mean ratings of the inculpatory weight of prosecution evidence by mock jurors presented with gruesome photographs were significantly higher than those by mock jurors who did not view any photographs. Further analyses revealed that mock juror anger toward the defendant mediated the influence of the gruesome photographs in enhancing the weight of inculpatory evidence.     

Considering forensic science: individual differences,opposing expert testimony and juror decision making

Two experimental studies examined the effect of opposing expert testimony on perceptions of the reliability of unvalidated forensic evidence (anthropometric facial comparison). In the first study argument skill and epistemological sophistication were included as measures of individual differences, whereas study two included scores on the Forensic Evidence Evaluation Bias Scale. In both studies participants were assigned to groups who heard: (1) no expert testimony, (2) prosecution expert testimony, or (3) prosecution and opposing expert testimony. Opposing expert testimony affected verdict choice, but this effect was mediated by perceptions of reliability of the initial forensic expert's method. There was no evidence for an effect on verdict or reliability ratings by argument skill or epistemology. In the second experiment, the same mediation effect was found, however scores on one subscale from the FEEBS and age also affected both verdict and methodological reliability. It was concluded that opposing expert testimony may inform jurors, but perceptions of the reliability of forensic evidence affect verdict, and age and bias towards forensic science influence perceptions of forensic evidence. Future research should investigate individual differences that may affect perception or bias towards forensic sciences under varying conditions of scientific reliability.     

Emotion and the Law: A Framework for Inquiry

This paper draws on research in social and cognitive psychology to show how theories of judgment and decision making that incorporate decision makers' affective responses apply to legal contexts. It takes 2 widely used models of decision making, the rational actor and lens models, and illustrates their utility for understanding legal judgments by using them to interpret research findings on juror decision making, people's obedience to the law (e.g., paying taxes), and eyewitness memory. The paper concludes with a discussion of the advantages of modifying existing approaches to information processing to include the influence of affect on how legal actors reach judgments about law and legal process.     

Perceived infallibility of detection dog evidence: implications for juror decision-making

This study focuses on the trust that potential jurors have in unsubstantiated evidence and the implications of such trust for legal decision-making. We examined whether participants’ motivation to think deeply (‘need for cognition,’ NC) and belief in science moderated their trust in potentially fallible detection dog evidence when selecting a verdict in a trial scenario. A detection dog twice indicated the presence of drugs in the scenario, yet no drugs were actually found. Those who chose a guilty verdict without drugs present featured stronger beliefs in detection dog evidence. They were also more confident that a dog alert indicated the presence of drugs, even though the scientific literature actually shows that detection dog evidence is subject to biases and other challenges to reliability. Our findings indicate that an unsubstantiated belief and trust in detection dog evidence may negatively influence juror decision-making, which may, in turn, pose consequences for fairness and justice. Participants believed that detection dogs provide powerful and reliable evidence, and these beliefs were clearly associated with stronger beliefs in science. These findings, therefore, raise serious concerns about jurors’ indiscriminate trust in forensic evidence, be it detection dog evidence or other lines of evidence presented in court.     

Effects of Testimonial Inconsistencies and Eyewitness Confidence on Mock-Juror Judgments

This study examined the interaction between testimonial consistency and eyewitness confidence on mock-jurors' judgments of probability that the defendant committed the crime and verdicts. In a 2 (testimonial consistency) × 2 (confidence) between-groups design, 130 mock-jurors listened to an audio-taped trial of a person charged with armed robbery. Manipulations were contained in the prosecution witness's responses to detailed questioning by prosecution and defense attorneys. Although consistency is considered to be a key marker of accuracy, its impact on judgments was weak and nonsignificant. Witness confidence had a strong influence on judgments, whether testimony was consistent or inconsistent. We suggested that witness confidence may be more likely to emerge as a dominant influence on juror judgments when the testimony is wide ranging rather than relatively brief and concerned only with a specific issue (e.g., identification confidence).     

Empirical assessment of the escabinato jury system

Abstract

There are two practical applications of the jury system: the jury of lay people and the escabinato jury involving joint decision making by legal experts and lay people. Research undertaken in this field has been almost exclusively centered on the former. This work consists of an empirical study of the role of legal suggest that the loss of a jury of peers implies the dominance of the judge's opinion. The causes and consequences of this domination have been assessed.     

Impact of the popular legal participation on forced confessions and wrongful convictions in Japan＇s bureaucratic courtroom： A cross-national analysis in the U.S. and Japan

The interrogation and lengthy detention of the accused by Japan＇s police and prosecutors without access to legal counsel has generated many forced confessions in Japan＇s criminal court. As results, past research estimated that a large number of innocent people have been falsely convicted, and some of them were even executed for crimes they have not committed. Since almost all of indicted cases result in convictions in Japan＇s criminal court, allegations of wrongful convictions have raised serious human rights issues, and the use of forced confessions in criminal proceedings has long been criticized by families of the accused, their attorneys, legal scholars, citizen activists, and international human rights groups. This paper examines whether or not the 2009 introduction of the Saiban-in Saiban （the quasi-jury trial）, where ordinary citizens deliberate together with Japan＇s bureaucratic judges, helps prevent instances of wrongful convictions. As Japan＇s high conviction rate has substantiated that the Japanese court may be another bureaucratic system that is more interested in preserving its own authority and maintaining the status quo, the infusion of non-bureaucratic legal participants into the traditional judicial process may create the potential to alter the nature of trial processes, the quality of deliberations, and thus ultimate outcomes of criminal trials. Based on interviews and survey responses from Japan＇s grand jury （i.e., Kensatsu Shinsa-kai, or prosecutorial review commission （PRC）） participants and American citizens who served in jury trials, the paper explores the ways in which civic participation in criminal processes may affect the quality of legal decision making in Japan＇s criminal court.     

“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。     

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.     

Examining legal authoritarianism in the impact of punishment severity on juror decisions

Recent Supreme Court decisions point to an increased reliance on juries to determine a defendant's sentence. Evidence is mixed on whether jurors are more likely to convict when the potential punishment is mild. The current study examined this issue, as well as the impact of legal authoritarianism (LA) (Kravitz, D. A., Cutler, B. L., & Brock, P. 1993. Reliability and validity of the original and revised legal attitudes questionnaire. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 661–677. doi: 10.1007/BF01044688), on jurors’ decisions. An ethnically diverse sample of participants completed the individual difference measure prior to viewing a videotaped, reenacted criminal trial. We manipulated the severity of the punishment the defendant would receive if convicted. Results indicated LA moderated the effect of punishment severity on verdict. Specifically, at higher levels of punishment severity, civil libertarians convicted less, while legal authoritarians convicted more. That is, the severity-leniency effect held for civil libertarians, but not for legal authoritarians. As juries become more responsible for determining a defendant's sentence, attorneys should be aware of the defendant's potential sentence and use voir dire to identify jurors who are higher on LA.     

论法官的选择——谈学习社会主义法治理念的体会

社会主义法治理念,是我国法官在处理个案时应遵循的指导性原理,这具体表现在辩证处理调解与判决、客观真实与法律真实、严格规则主义与司法能动主义、裁判文书的审美价值与说理价值等各种复杂关系的过程中。这需要强化和提升法官的司法素养、司法能力和司法伦理水平。     

陪审制的分权机制与证据法的发展

针对我国人民陪审员制目前面临的“陪而不审”、“审而不议”之晋遍困境,本文探讨了西方国家陪审制产生和发展的过程,认识到“分权是陪审制成长的基本条件”;详细探讨了我国“陪而不审”、“审而不议”现象的主要形态,指出没有实行分权是造成这种困窘局面的根源;讨论了正在兴起的河南人民陪审圆制度的进步意义与局限性;主张我国应当建立以分权为首要特征的人民陪审员制度,为此需要立法机关制定有关陪审团如何与法官分享裁判权的制度,其中最关键的是制定证据法和陪审团法。     

论刑事鉴定启动权制度

刑事鉴定启动权制度不仅反映了一个国家司法鉴定制度的基本特征，也体现了一国诉讼制度设计的模式，更影响一国权利保障体系的配置结构。我国刑事诉讼法的再修改应当对公诉案件与自诉案件架构不同的鉴定启动机制。公诉案件在保留现存鉴定启动权制度下赋予当事人鉴定的申请权，增加当事人对鉴定机构和鉴定人的选择权，并对职能部门的启动鉴定权进行限制性制约，在完善鉴定结论“告知”制度的同时，建立“立证、留鉴、备鉴”制度；自诉案件实行当事人启动权制度：建立与诉讼制度、证据制度相协调的鉴定启动权制度。     

裁判形成的思维过程

法律裁判并非仅仅通过推理即可形成。法律推理其实是为判决结论提供正当理由的过程,可是推理本身是无法为自身的"前提"提供出处的。这就需要将裁判思维的视野扩大到推理"前提"的获得以及获得之前的心理活动上。如果将前提的获得称为发现,将结论是否合理的证明过程称为证成,那么裁判思维就可以被分成"发现"与"证成"两个脉络。     

Identifying and measuring juror pre-trial bias for forensic evidence: development and validation of the Forensic Evidence Evaluation Bias Scale

Abstract

Previous research has provided support for the impact of juror pre-trial bias on judicial decision making, particularly in cases where the evidence presented at trial is of weak or ambiguous probative value. In an effort to identify whether a pre-trial bias for forensic evidence exists, the Forensic Evidence Evaluation Bias Scale (FEEBS) was developed and tested. The results of a principal components analysis suggested that two distinct constructs were being measured, corresponding to a pro-prosecution and pro-defence bias toward forensic evidence. In a second validation study, scores on these two subscales were compared with other existing juror bias measures (Juror Bias Scale and Belief in a Just World) and in a mock juror decision making task only the pro-prosecution subscale of the FEEBS predicted the perceived strength of forensic evidence. A partial mediation model is presented which explains the relationship between this bias and verdict preferences. The implications of this potential juror bias are discussed in the context of real juries, the CSI Effect (which refers to anecdotal claims that jurors are biased by the popularity of fictional representations of forensic science on television) and peremptory challenges, as well as future research directions.     

On the power of secondary confession evidence

Research on primary confessions has demonstrated that it is a powerful form of evidence. The goal of the current research was to investigate whether secondary confessions – the suspect confesses to another individual who in turn then reports the confession to the police – could be as persuasive. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants read a murder trial containing an eyewitness identification, a secondary confession, and character testimony, and made midtrial assessments of the evidence. Results indicated that the secondary confession was evaluated as the most incriminating. In Experiment 3, participants read summaries of four criminal trials, each of which contained a primary confession, a secondary confession, eyewitness identification, or none of the above. The two confession conditions produced significantly higher conviction rates. Our findings suggest that secondary confessions are another powerful and potentially dangerous form of evidence.