The effects of complainant age and expert psychological testimony in a simulated child sexual abuse trial

Mock jurors viewed a videotape of a simulated child sexual abuse trial and then deliberated to a unanimous verdict. The complainant was described as either a 13- or 17-year-old female child. Jurors voted to convict more often when the younger complainant was seen, and the younger complainant was rated as more credible than the older complainant. Female jurors voted the defendant guilty more often and rated the complainant as being more credible than male jurors. Jurors voted to convict more often and rated the defendant as less credible when expert psychological testimony was specific to the case than when they were presented with either general expert testimony or no expert testimony. Jurors who saw a psychological expert testify became less accepting of child sexual abuse misconceptions than those in the no expert control condition. The implications of these findings are discussed.Millbrook Correctional Centre     

The believability of repressed memories

Two experiments investigated how mock jurors react to a case involving a repressed memory of child sexual assault. Subjects read a fictional civil trial (Experiment 1) or criminal trial (Experiment 2) summary involving the sexual assault of a 6-year-old female. The summary was presented in one of three conditions: (a)child condition: the alleged victim reported her memory of the assault in the same year that the assault occurred; (b)repressed condition: the alleged victim reported the assault 20 years later, after remembering it for the first time; or (c)no-repressed condition: the alleged victim reported the assault 20 years later, but the memory of the assault had been present for the 20 years. Although the testimony of the alleged victim was believed to some extent in all conditions, the alleged victim in the child condition was believed at the highest level, and this was associated with more decisions against the defendant. The results are discussed in terms of how delayed reporting of child sexual assault crimes is associated with lower believability of the alleged victim.We would like to thank Christy Kennedy, Paula Brinegar, and Elizabeth Thomas for their assistance in collecting and scoring the data, as well as Michael Nietzel, Monica Kern, Ronald Roesch, and three anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper.     

The Effect of Gender in the Perception of Elder Physical Abuse in Court

Two experiments investigated mock jurors' perceptions of elder abuse (EA) in a physical assault case. In Experiment 1, participants read a fictional criminal trial summary of a physical assault case in which the alleged victim was 66, 76, or 86 years old. In Experiment 2, the age of the alleged victim was 76 years old, but the gender of the alleged victim and the gender of the defendant were crossed. The results of the experiments showed that women believed the alleged victim more and rendered a guilty verdict more often than men. Overall, the alleged victim was believed more than the defendant regardless of the age of the alleged victim, and most verdicts were guilty. These results are discussed in terms of the factors that affect perceptions of alleged victims of EA in court.     

Brief Research Report: Age Factors Affecting the Believability of Repressed Memories of Child Sexual Assault

Two experiments investigated how mock jurors react to testimony involving claims of a repressed memory in a case involving child sexual assault. Participants read a fictional civil trial summary presented in one of three conditions: (a) immediate condition—the alleged victim testified immediately after the incident; (b) repressed condition—the alleged victim reported the assault 1–39 years later, after remembering it for the first time; or (c) not-repressed condition—the alleged victim reported the assault 1–39 years later, but the memory of the assault had been present for those years. When there was any type of delayed reporting, either the age of the alleged victim at the time of the assault was constant and her age at reporting varied (Experiment 1) or the age of the alleged victim at the time of the assault varied and her age at reporting remained constant (Experiment 2). The results showed that (1) a delay in reporting an incident adversely affected believability of the alleged victim and led to fewer rulings in support of the plaintiff compared to reporting it immediately, (2) longer delays in reporting generally led to lower alleged victim believability and fewer decisions in support of the plaintiff than shorter delays, (3) the age of the alleged victim at the time of the incident was a critical variable in determining belief of the alleged victim, and (4) men generally rated believability of the alleged victim lower and ruled in favor of the plaintiff less often than women. The results are discussed in terms of the psychosocial factors affecting the perception of delayed reporting in a child sexual assault trial.     

When Does Quality Count?: Perceptions of Hearsay Testimony About Child Sexual Abuse Interviews

This study assessed how the quality of a sexual abuse investigative interview with a child and the age of the child influence jurors reactions to either the original interview with the child or to testimony by an adult hearsay witness (the interviewer). Participants (N = 360) were randomly assigned to 1 of 12 conditions in a 2 (type of testimony:hearsay testimony vs. child interview) × (interview quality: poor, typical, or good) × (age of the child: 4 years old vs. 10 years old) factorial design. Participants reached individual verdicts, answered a series of questions, and then deliberated in a group with five other participants. As predicted, jurors in the child interview conditions were more likely to find the defendant guilty if they read the good interview than if they read either the poor or the typical interview, but in the hearsay conditions verdicts did not significantly differ by interview quality. These findings suggest that there is a significant loss of information when the testimony of a hearsay witness is used in place of the actual interview with the child, and call into question the appropriateness of admitting hearsay testimony by interviewers.     

The impact of protective shields and videotape testimony on conviction rates in a simulated trial of child sexual abuse

In Experiment 1 mock jurors watched a videotape simulation of a sexual abuse trial that included a 10-year-old child witness testifying in one of three different modalities: (1) The child testified in court while directly confronting the defendant (open court condition). (2) The child testified in court with a protective shield placed between the child and the defendant (shield condition). (3) The child testified outside the courtroom and the child's testimony was presented to the jury and the defendant on a video monitor (video condition). The mock jurors judged the guilt of the defendant after watching the entire trial. The modality of the child's testimony had no impact on conviction rates. In Experiment 2 subjects watched the same trial that was used in Experiment 1. The trial was stopped immediately after the child testified (the child was the first witness to take the stand), and subjects judged the guilt of the defendant. The modality of the child's testimony had a significant impact on conviction rates. Subjects in the open court condition were more likely to convict the defendant than subjects in the shield and videotape conditions. These findings are relevant to Supreme Court decisions regarding the use of protective devices with child witnesses.     

Empathy and Jurors' Decisions in Patricide Trials Involving Child Sexual Assault Allegations

In a mock-trial paradigm, 205 participants considered a patricide trial in which a child defendant claimed the patricide was done in self-defense after years of sexual abuse. Participants in an empathy-induction condition were asked to take the perspective of the defendant and to detail how they would be thinking and feeling if they were the defendant. Control condition participants received no such instructions. Results indicated that, compared to jurors in the control condition, jurors who were asked to take the defendant's perspective had more empathy for the defendant (without feeling more similar to or more sympathy for the defendant), found the defendant less guilty and less responsible for the murder, and were more likely to consider abuse to be a mitigating factor in the killing. Overall, compared to men, women were more likely to believe the defendant's abuse allegations, find the defendant credible, and consider the defendant to be less responsible for the murder. Women in the empathy condition found the defendant less guilty than did all other jurors. Finally, child defendant gender was also varied, but this had few effects on case judgments overall. Jurors, however, were more likely to believe that the girl defendant was sexually abused than the boy defendant. We discuss theoretical implications for understanding the social psychological construct of empathy as well as implications for understanding jurors' decisions in cases involving child sexual assault allegations.     

Hearsay Versus Children's Testimony: Effects of Truthful and Deceptive Statements on Jurors’ Decisions

Researchers and courts are focusing increasing attention on the reliability of children's out-of-court statements, especially in relation to trials of child sexual abuse. The main goal of this study was to investigate the effects of presentation of children's out-of-court statements (e.g., hearsay) on jurors' perceptions of witness credibility and defendant guilt, and on jurors' abilities to reach the truth. Child participants experienced either a mock crime or were coached to say they experienced the crime when in fact they had not. During elaborate mock trials involving community member jurors, children's testimony was presented either: (1) live, (2) on videotape, or (3) via a social worker. Analyses revealed that testimony format directly influenced jurors' perceptions of child and social worker credibility (e.g., children were perceived as less likely to provide false statements if they testified live) as well as jurors' sympathy toward the child, all of which then predicted jurors' confidence in defendant guilt. Jurors had difficulty discerning accurate from deceptive child statements regardless of testimony format. Implications for psychology and the legal system are discussed.     

Crime Victims Serving as Jurors: Is There Bias Present?

This project examined the decisions of 2435 mock jurors of whom 984 reported being a victim of some type of crime and 982 reported knowing a close friend or relative who had been a victim. Participants watched a videotape of a trial of a burglary of a habitation and were asked to give individual verdicts. Results indicated that jurors who identified themselves as victims of the same crime convicted significantly more frequently than those who had not been victims. Victims of violent crimes (a type of crime dissimilar to that for which the defendant was on trial) were not more likely to convict than were non-victims. Implications of this research are discussed.     

Does Ambivalent Sexism Influence Verdicts for Heterosexual and Homosexual Defendants in a Self-Defense Case?

The current research examined the role of defendant and participant sex, presence or absence of expert testimony of the “battered person syndrome”, and sexual orientation of the defendant on perceptions of guilt in a self-defense case. The role of sexism in judgments of culpability was also examined. A sample of 442 participants read a self-defense case scenario and responded to questions pertaining to verdict, defendant culpability, legal element ratings, and sexist attitudes. Results revealed a four-way interaction, showing female participants prescribed the lowest guilt ratings to heterosexual female and homosexual male defendants who received expert testimony of the battered person syndrome. When heterosexual male defendants received expert testimony, ratings of guilt significantly increased. A multiple regression was conducted to determine whether legal and extra-legal factors predicted defendant culpability. Sexist attitudes (benevolent sexism towards men and women) and certain legal elements were predictive of defendant culpability. Limitations and implications are discussed. Study findings were presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society (APLS), Jacksonville, Florida (March, 2008).     

Expert Testimony of the Battered Person Syndrome, Defendant Gender, and Sexual Orientation in a Case of Duress: Evaluating Legal Decisions

The current study examined the utility of expert testimony of the battered person syndrome (BPS) in a case of duress and the extent to which defendant gender, defendant sexual orientation, and participant gender influence mock jury decisions in a case of duress. Participants (N?=?413) read a scenario based on U.S. v. Dixon (2006) and answered questions assessing verdict, guilt, sentence length, duress legal elements, and attributes typically ascribed to victims of abuse. Results showed heterosexual female defendants were assigned the lowest sentences and met more of the legal elements of duress (i.e., were coerced, more likely to be believed, and purchased a gun to prevent harm) and attributes (i.e., experienced severe abuse, learned helplessness) compared to other defendants. When mock jurors received expert testimony, they provided lower rates of guilt and sentencing for defendants. Results also showed the inclusion of BPS expert testimony increased ratings for many of the legal elements of duress and attributes typically associated with intimate partner violence. In addition, results suggested that while heterosexual female defendants are more likely to be believed in a case of duress, expert testimony of BPS is helpful to all defendants. Limitations and future directions for research and practice are discussed.     

The impact of general versus specific expert testimonyand eyewitness confidence upon mock juror judgment

Subjects (n=128) initially viewed an eyewitness of high or low confidence. Subsequently, participants viewed a psychologist who gave either espert testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification, specific expert testimony, or no expert (control) testimony. Subjects viewing expert testimony believed the eyewitness identified the gunman significantly less often, gave the defendant lower guilt ratings, estimated a lower general percentage of correct identifications under similar circumstances, estimated a lower percentage of general accurate eyewitness testimony, and gave significantly lower ratings to the belief that one can generally tell from eyewitness confidence whether an eyewitness is accurate than subjects in control conditions. Significant differences were also obtained between general and specific expert testimony. Participants viewing specific expert testimony estimated lower general percentages of correct identifications under the circumstances of the crime and reported relying more upon the psychologist's testimony than subjects viewing general expert testimony. Additionally, subjects viewing general expert testimony had significantly less confidence in their gunman vs. innocent person decision than subjects in specific testimony or control conditions. Subjects who viewed the high confidence eyewitness decided that the eyewitness correctly identified the gunman more often, gave the defendant higher guilt ratings, and estimated the general percentage of accurate eyewitness testimony to be significantly higher than jurors in low eyewitness confidence groups. The finding that jurors may continue to rely on eyewitness confidence to gauge the accuracy of the witness even after viewing expert testimony is discussed.     

Mock jurors’ expectations regarding the psychological harm experienced by rape victims as a function of rape prototypicality

We examined mock jurors’ judgments in a rape case that was either prototypical (late-night assault by a stranger in a public place) or non-prototypical (daytime assault by an acquaintance in a private home). We also varied the psychological harm experienced by the victim as a result of the rape (mild anxiety or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)). We hypothesized that participants’ expectations regarding the level of harm the victim is likely to experience would mediate the effect of harm level on ratings of the victim’s credibility, and this indirect effect would be contingent on the prototypicality of the case. In a pilot experiment we demonstrated that people expect prototypical rape cases to be more traumatic for victims than non-prototypical cases. In the main experiment, and as predicted, participants in the Prototypical condition expected the victim to develop PTSD more than mild anxiety, but Non-Prototypical condition participants expected the opposite. In addition, a level of harm that was consistent rather than inconsistent with their expectations led participants to rate the victim as more credible; they also rated her as less responsible for what happened, and they thought the defendant was more likely guilty and that he should be incarcerated for a longer period of time.     

Detecting Deception in Children's Testimony: Factfinders' Abilities to Reach the Truth in Open Court and Closed-Circuit Trials

This study examined the influence of closed-circuit television (CCTV) on jurors' abilities to detect deception in children's testimony. Children ages 7–9 individually played games and made a video movie with a male confederate. In the guilty condition, stickers were placed on exposed body parts (i.e., the child's arm, toes, and bellybutton). In the not-guilty and deception conditions, stickers were placed on the child's clothing rather than on bare skin. Approximately 3 weeks later, mock jurors recruited from the community viewed child participants testify either in a traditional courtroom setting or via one-way CCTV. The mock jurors responded to questions about the child witness and the defendant as well as deliberated to reach a verdict. Children in the deception condition were asked to testify as if the stickers had been placed on exposed body parts rather than on their clothing. Predeliberation, jurors were less likely to convict when a child testified in the deception condition as opposed to the guilty condition. These differences disappeared following deliberation. There was no support for the notion that jurors reach the truth better when children testify in open court versus via CCTV. Implications for jurors' abilities to reach the truth are discussed.     

The relationship between verdict, defendant characteristics, and type of crime in sex-related criminal cases

In an earlier study, we unexpectedly found that defendants charged with sex crimes were four times less likely to be convicted than were all other defendants. We now report that failure to convict for rape was associated with failure to come to trial and that minor sex crimes were tried, but often continued without a finding, even when the judge found sufficient facts to make a guilty finding. Whether a minor crime involved a victim and whether the defendant has a criminal record both relate to verdict, but psychiatric history did not. The implications for understanding "acquittal of the guilty" are discussed.     

The Believability of Hearsay Testimony in a Child Sexual Assault Trial

Two experiments investigated how mock jurors react to hearsay testimony in a case involving child sexual assault. Participants read a fictional criminal trial summary involving the sexual assault of a 4-(Experiment 2 only), 6-, or 14-year-old female. The summaries were presented in one of four conditions: (a) child condition—the alleged victim testified; (b) hearsay condition—the alleged victim did not testify, but an adult hearsay witness did testify; (c) multiple condition (Experiment 1 only)—both the alleged victim and the adult hearsay witness testified; and (d) no-witness condition—neither the alleged victim nor the hearsay witness testified. The hearsay testimony was believed to a considerable degree, and this testimony led to an increase in the perceived guilt of the defendant. Moreover, these results were comparable to those of conditions in which the alleged victim testified. The results are discussed in terms of the psychosocial factors affecting the perception of hearsay testimony in a child sexual assault trial.