Strength of Evidence,Extraevidentiary Influence,and the Liberation Hypothesis: Data from the Field

To examine relationships between strength of evidence (SOE) and extraevidentiary variables in the context of Kalven and Zeisel’s (The American Jury, 1966) liberation hypothesis, post-trial questionnaire data were collected from judges, attorneys, and jurors associated with 179 criminal jury trials. SOE ratings were strongly correlated with jury verdicts on the three most serious charges against the defendant, and several extraevidentiary variables (i.e., pretrial publicity, trial complexity, charge severity, and foreperson demographics) were moderately correlated with verdicts. Extraevidentiary-verdict relationships remained significant when SOE was controlled, although extraevidentiary variables yielded only modest improvement in classification accuracy beyond SOE. In partial support of the liberation hypothesis, several case-related extraevidentiary variables were significantly related to jury verdicts only when the prosecution’s evidence was rated as moderately strong.     

The social construction of criminal responsibility and insanity

This study examines the effects of judicial instructions (traditional American Law Institute [ALI] not guilty by reason of insanity [NGRI] instructions contrasted with ALI instructions supplemented with the guilty but mentally ill [GBMI] alternative) and case information cues (delusional content and planfulness) on student and community subjects' attributions of responsibility. GBMI instructions substantially reduced the probability of NGRI and guilty verdicts in response to vignettes portraying highly psychotic defendants and altered the pattern of variability in responsibility construal ratings. Variation in delusional content cues (self-defense versus non-self-defense) influenced ratings of criminal appreciation but did not affect the verdict distributions. Less planfully commited crimes resulted in higher proportions of insanity verdicts. However, individual differences in responsibility construals of the defendant and in attitudes toward the insanity defense were stronger predictors of verdicts than the design variables, suggesting that individual differences in social-moral cognition are at least as relevant to the attribution of responsibility as are case cues or legal frames of reference. Contrary to previous studies,Witherspoon death penalty attitudes were not related to verdicts, but people without conscientious scruples toward the death penalty were more likely to render guilty verdicts.     

Pretrial publicity,judicial remedies,and jury bias

Although past research has established pretrial publicity's potential to bias juror judgment, there has been less attention given to the effectiveness of judicial remedies for combatting such biases. The present study examined the effectiveness of three remedies (judicial instructions, deliberation, and continuance) in combatting the negative impact of different types of pretrial publicity. Two different types of pretrial publicity were examined: (a) factual publicity (which contained incriminating information about the defendant) and (b) emotional publicity (which contained no explicitly incriminating information, but did contain information likely to arouse negative emotions). Neither instructions nor deliberation reduced the impact of either form of publicity; in fact, deliberation strengthened publicity biases. Both social decision scheme analysis and a content analysis of deliberation suggested that prejudicial publicity increases the persuasiveness and/or lessens the persuasibility of advocates of conviction relative to advocates of acquittal. Acontinuance of several days between exposure to the publicity and viewing the trial served as an effective remedy for the factual publicity, but not for the emotional publicity. The article concludes by discussing the potential roles of affect and memory in juror judgment and evaluating the available remedies for pretrial publicity.     

A journey into the unknown: Pretrial publicity and capital cases

This article examines issues related to pretrial publicity's role in the free press‐fair trial debate. First, the article provides a comprehensive review of existing research examining the effects of pretrial publicity on case outcomes. Second, it examines the presentation of prejudicial publicity items in a sample of newspaper stories on capital cases, identifying the types of factual and emotional publicity presented and suggesting areas that need to be more closely scrutinized in future research. The article concludes that cases that ultimately result in sentences of death receive both more and different types of pretrial publicity than cases that result in lesser sentences. The current state of empirical pretrial publicity knowledge, and the presentation of death cases, are discussed as they relate to the balancing of First and Sixth amendment rights.     

Predicting verdicts,adherence to judge's instructions,and assumptions about the disposition of the defendant in a case involving the insanity defense

Abstract

296 college students and jury eligible adults completed attitudinal measures and read a case summary of a murder trial involving the insanity defense. The case summary included opening and closing arguments, testimony from expert witnesses, and judge's instructions. Although broader legal attitudes (the PJAQ) predicted verdicts, the Insanity Defense Attitudes-Revised scale provided incremental predictive validity. Attitudes related to the insanity defense also predicted adherence to judge's instructions, whereas more general legal biases predicted a juror's willingness to change their verdict after being provided with accurate information about the defendant's disposition following the verdict. Importantly, misconceptions concerning the insanity defense impacted verdicts and many jurors made decisions that failed to adhere to the judge's instructions, though the nullification tendency does appear to vary as a function of pretrial juror attitudes. Implications for instructing jurors in insanity defense cases will be discussed.     

Estimating Juror Accuracy,Juror Ability,and the Relationship Between Them

This article advances a method based on standard test theories and measurement models to determine correct verdicts for jury trials, and to estimate juror accuracy, juror ability, and trial difficulty (and the relationships among them). With five vignette cases and 1,318 juror eligible adults as the subjects, the model consistently identified verdicts that accorded with the judge’s instructions on the law as correct. With the correct verdicts, the strength of the relationship between juror accuracy and juror ability was found to be substantial. These findings suggest that the assumption of equivalent accuracy of jurors underlying the Condorcet’s jury theorem (Condorcet, Essai sur l’Application de l’Analyse a la Probabilite des Decisions Rendues a la Pluralite des Voix, Paris, 1785) may be untenable for general cases where jurors of diverse dispositions and abilities serve together; and that the role of juror ability in determining the accuracy of legal decisions could be more significant than that of attitudes and values because, unlike attitudes and values, ability could affect juror’s legal decisions regardless of the type of the case.     

The biasing impact of pretrial publicity on juror judgments

This study examines three previously unexplored aspects of the biasing impact of pretrial publicity. First, this study tests the differential effects of several different types of pretrial publicity on juror decision making. Second, this study explores the impact the presentation of trial evidence has on biases created by pretrial publicity. Finally, the study explores the psychological processes by which pretrial publicity effects may operate. Results indicate that pretrial publicity, particularly negative information about the defendant's character, can influence subjects' initial judgments about a defendant's guilt. This bias is weakened, but not eliminated by the presentation of trial evidence. Character pretrial publicity, and both weak and strong inadmissible statements appear to operate by changing subjects' initial judgments of the defendant's guilt. This initial judgment then affects the way subjects assess the evidence presented in the trial and the attributions they make about the defendant. Prior record pretrial publicity appears to have its effects by influencing subjects' inferences about the criminality of the defendant and this is related to posttrial judgments.     

The insanity defense

Changing thelegal test definition of insanity remains the remedy of choice when insanity outcomes appear problematic, despite empirical studies showing no significant differences among tests. An alternative strategy suggests changing theverdict schema, although critics contend that jurors will reach compromise verdicts that are unconscionable and incoherent. Undergraduate subjects (N=179) rendered insanity verdicts and ratings for four insanity cases using one of four different verdict schemas: a traditional two-choice schema, a three-choice schema (DR) without instructions, a threechoice schema (GBMI) with instructions, and a sequential schema proposed by Finkel (1988) that separately assesses different types of culpability. When internal consistency measures between verdicts and broad ratings and specific construct ratings of the defendant were examined, the sequential schema produced the highest internal consistency, reducing the most error variance and yielding the highest prediction criterion of any of the schemas.     

The Effects of General Pretrial Publicity on Juror Decisions: An Examination of Moderators and Mediating Mechanisms

Two studies examined three moderators (gender, attitudes, and media slant) and four mediators (accessibility, evidence importance, evidence plausibility, and standards of guilt) of general pretrial publicity's influence on juror decisions. In Study 1, participants who watched a prodefense rape story were more likely to report that they would need more inculpatory evidence to convict a defendant of rape than were participants who watched a proprosecution rape story. In Study 2, participants watched news stories, one of which was a proprosecution rape story, a prodefense rape story, or a nonrape story. In an ostensibly unrelated study, participants indicated their attitudes toward rape, watched a rape trial, and provided trial and witness ratings. Accessibility did not mediate the media effects on participants' judgments of rape importance; however, attitudes moderated media effects. Rape news influenced juror ratings of the importance of evidence about the complainant's behavior. Finally, media altered the standards participants used to determine defendant guilt. Implications for understanding the mechanisms responsible for pretrial publicity effects are discussed.     

Factors predicting verdicts in cases where battered women kill their husbands

This study tested factors influencing verdicts in legal cases involving battered women who kill their husbands. A total of 388 college students (213 females and 175 males) read a fictitious but prototypical legal case. Subjects received one of three stories varying the level of force used by the husband against the wife before she killed him. Half of the subjects received courtroom testimony regarding the Battered Woman Syndrome. One-half received judge's instructions ofnot guilty by reason of selfdefense (NGRSD), and the other half receivednot guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) instructions. Subjects decided on a verdict and completed a questionnaire including demographics, reasons for their verdicts, and relevant attitudinal measures. Judge's instructions were most predictive of verdicts, with NGRSD being more likely to produce not guilty verdicts. Verdicts were also influenced by the subject's view of the severity of the past beatings, the testimony of the expert witness, the subject's feelings about the woman using a weapon, race of the subject, the subject's own history of abuse, attitudes toward abuse in relationships, and the subject's belief that people are responsible even if provoked. The preference the subjects showed for NGRSD belies the commonly held belief that impaired mental defenses in these cases would be more likely to yield not guilty verdicts. Situational aspects of the case rather than long-standing attitudes of subjects appeared to be better predictors of verdicts.     

The Effects of Pretrial Publicity on Juror Verdicts: A Meta-Analytic Review

The effect of pretrial publicity (PTP) on juror verdicts was examined through a meta-analysis of 44 empirical tests representing 5,755 subjects. In support of the hypothesis, subjects exposed to negative PTP were significantly more likely to judge the defendant guilty compared to subjects exposed to less or no negative PTP. Greater effect sizes were produced in studies which included a pretrial verdict assessment, use of the potential juror pool as subjects, multiple points of negative information included in the PTP, real PTP, crimes of murder, sexual abuse, or drugs, and greater length of time between PTP exposure and judgment. The effect was attenuated with student subjects, use of general rather than specific PTP information, certain types of PTP content, a post-trial predeliberation verdict, and specific types of crimes. Implications of these results are discussed, along with possible mechanisms that underlie the PTP effect.     

Jurors' Use of Hearsay Evidence: The Effects of Type and Timing of Instructions

To examine the effects of curative judicial instructions on jurors' perceptions of hearsay testimony, mock jurors (N = 180) were exposed to one of six versions of a trial that included proprosecution hearsay evidence accompanied by either disregard or limiting instructions, presented either immediately after the hearsay, at the end of the trial, or at both of these times. Also included were control conditions in which (1) the information was presented as nonhearsay (first-hand), (2) no hearsay was presented, or (3) the hearsay was presented without instructions. Results indicated that neither the hearsay nor the instructions, regardless of their form or timing, affected verdicts. In fact, findings revealed that participants may have disregarded the hearsay regardless of instructions heard. There was some evidence to suggest, however, that evaluations of other admissible evidence presented by the hearsay witness were negatively affected.     

Assessing Pretrial Publicity Effects: Integrating Content Analytic Results

When a case has received pretrial publicity which has the capacity to bias potential jurors in the trial venue, a change of venue is one means of attempting to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial. Content analysis of the pretrial publicity surrounding a case can provide the court with important information to consider when determining whether prejudice in the relevant community is too great for the defendant to receive a fair trial. This paper presents an approach to content analysis of pretrial publicity that draws upon both legal commentary and past empirical social science research. It is a systematic approach that could be employed by both the prosecution and defense when presenting arguments to the court about whether a change of venue should be granted. Information gleaned from content analysis of the publicity surrounding a specific case fills the gap between information provided by experimental research which has examined pretrial publicity effects and public opinion polls concerning the public's perception of the defendant in a particular case. Results from a content analysis can serve to validate public opinion survey data gathered from the same locales. To exemplify this content analytic approach, a content analysis conducted by the authors in preparation for the change of venue hearing in the case of Timothy McVeigh is presented.     

Mock jurors' perceptions of identifications made by intoxicated eyewitnesses

Abstract

Psychology research has generally neglected intoxicated eyewitnesses. The current study addressed this need by exploring mock jurors' perceptions of intoxicated witnesses. Undergraduate participants read summarized sexual or aggravated battery cases in which either the victim or a bystander identified the defendant under varying intoxication levels. They answered questions about the case and provided verdicts. Participants were sensitive to the effect that intoxication may have on witnesses' cognitive ability, but not to varying degrees of intoxication. Neither the role of the eyewitness nor the type of crime committed had an effect on perceptions of witness impairment. Participants' perceptions of witness impairment informed identification credibility ratings, and credibility assessments affected verdicts. Impairment and credibility ratings fully mediated intoxication's effect on verdicts. Unlike much prior research, our results suggest that mock jurors can consider potentially important witness information when rendering verdicts.     

Generic Prejudice and the Presumption of Guilt in Sex Abuse Trials

In 25 Canadian criminal trials involving charges of sexual abuse, 849 prospective jurors were asked under oath whether they could hear the evidence, follow the judge's instructions on the Jaw, and decide the case with a fair and impartial mind. Knowing only the nature of the charges against the accused, on average 36% of the jurors stated that they could not be impartial Some jurors explained that they themselves had been victims of abuse, others expressed fears for children, while others stated simply that they could not set aside a presumption of guilt. These findings from real trials are consistent with a body of social science literature about attitudes toward sexual abuse and sexual assault charges. The article distinguishes between prejudices arising from specific pretrial publicity and generic prejudices that cause prejudgments of the case of any defendant perceived as belonging to a general class of defendants who likely are guilty of the crime(s) charged.     

Psychological factors in eyewitness identifications

It has been suggested that incorrect eyewitness identifications have led to more miscarriages of justice than all other factors combined. Several issues which are likely to affect the accuracy of eyewitness identifications are discussed. Research on the impact of race on identifications has illustrated an “own-race bias” in identification accuracy, but it is not yet clear to what extent this bias is related to racial prejudice or amount of cross-racial experience. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has suggested that eyewitnesses who are more certain of their identifications are more likely to be correct, research on this issue has yielded mixed results. Because of its fallible nature, some writers have argued that eyewitness evidence should be used sparingly or not at all in the judicial process. Other suggestions highlight procedures for minimizing bias and providing legal safeguards for the suspect during the identification process, or educating jurors about the potential fallibility of eyewitness evidence by means of judge's cautionary jury instructions or by the use of researchers as expert witnesses. Controversial issues concerning researchers as expert witnesses are discussed.     

Laboratory simulation and bias in the study of juror behavior

Theoretical speculation and meta-analysis suggest that the strength of treatment effects (e.g., defendant attractiveness) may become weaker as the experimental simulation becomes more realistic and complex. In order to test this hypothesis, various levels of biasing pretrial publicity were combined with both a short and a long trial. Results provided no support for the contention that treatment effects act differently as a function of the length of the stimulus trial in which they are embedded. Rather, it is suggested that treatments used in simplified jury simulations may often show similar effects when examined in more realistic, complex settingsif the treatments are comparable.This research was supported by NSF Research grant No. SES 8419944 to the second author, John Carroll, and James Alfini. Portions were presented at the Midwestern Psychological Association Convention, Chicago, May 7–9, 1987.     

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.     

Factors that influence jury decision making

Investigated whether information regarding the disposition of insanity acquittees and the defendant's mental state at the time of the trial, had a significant effect on mock jurors' verdicts. Two trials were used to assess whether results generalize across cases. participants read excerpts from a trial in which the accused's mental state at the time of the trial (symptom free, neurotic symptoms, or psychotic symptoms) and the disposition instructions (no instructions, indeterminate disposition, and capped disposition) were varied. Participants then rendered a verdict of guilty, not guilty, or not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD). Participants who thought the accused was psychotic at the time of the trial were more likely to render a verdict of NCRMD than guilty, and they were more likely to render a verdict of NCRMD than those who thought the accused was normal. No significant differences were found for disposition. Finally, a significant difference for verdicts was found between trials.