Judging Bias: Juror Confidence and Judicial Rulings on Challenges for Cause

The judge in a jury trial is charged with excusing prospective jurors who will not be impartial. To assess impartiality, prospective jurors are typically asked whether they can be fair. Using an experimental paradigm, we found that small changes in jurors' self‐reported confidence in their ability to be fair affected judges' decisions about bias but did not affect the judgments of either attorneys or jurors. We suggest why a judge's role and unique relationship with jurors is likely to foster a decision strategy based on reported juror confidence, and we discuss the implications of our analysis for current legal debates over jury selection practices. Unexpected patterns in our results also highlight the ways in which perceptions of impartiality are affected, in part, by the social characteristics of the observer.     

Studying Perceptions of Juror Influence In Vivo: A Social Relations Analysis

Because of legal constraints and statistical limitations there has been little research on social influence in actual juries. We used Kenny's (1994) social relations model to examine jurors' perceptions of social influence in the jury. After rendering a verdict in criminal or civil court cases, jurors rated how influential each member of the jury had been and provided self-reports of their personality traits. Perceptions of influence in the jury were mostly in the eye of the beholder, with jurors high in Conscientiousness and low in Openness being most likely to report that they were personally influenced by other jurors. There were small but statistically significant levels of consensus in the ratings of how influential the jurors were. To the extent that they did agree, jurors rated extraverted, tall men as most influential.     

Mapping the Racial Bias of the White Male Capital Juror: Jury Composition and the “Empathic Divide”

This article examines the nature of racial bias in the death sentencing process. After reviewing the various general explanations for the continued significance of race in capital cases, we report the results of an empirical study in which some aspects of racially biased death sentencing are examined in depth. Specifically, in a simulated capital penalty‐phase trial setting where participants were assigned to small group “juries” and given an opportunity to deliberate, white male jurors were significantly more likely to sentence black defendants to death than were women and nonwhite jurors. This racialized pattern was explained in part by the differential evaluation of the case facts and the perceptions of the defendant that were made by the white male jurors. We discuss these findings in light of social psychological theories of contemporary racism, and we conclude that the demonstrated bias in capital jury settings should be understood as an interaction of several factors, including individual juror characteristics, group‐level demographic composition, and group deliberation processes.     

Life or death decisions

The penalty phase deliberation experiences of capital jurors guided by the “special issues” sentencing instructions were investigated. These instructions ask jurors to consider three specific issues to determine whether a defendant should receive a sentence of life imprisonment or the death penalty: whether the crime was committed deliberately; whether there is a probability that the defendant would pose a continuing threat to society; and whether the conduct of the defendant was unreasonable in light of any provocation on the part of the victim. In-depth interviews with 27 jurors explored the organization of the penalty deliberation, the topics discussed, influential factors in the decision-making process, the impact of sentencing instructions, the importance of the possibility of parole, and the stress associated with capital jury service. Jurors relied heavily on sentencing instructions to guide their deliberations and to determine their responsibilities. Future dangerousness and the possibility of parole were critical considerations in deciding between life and death. Although jurors found the capital trial to be stressful, most believed that the life or death decision should be made by jurors. Findings are discussed in light of constitutional concerns about the administration of the death penalty.     

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.     

Jurors' knowledge of battered women

An increasing number of psychologists with expertise in the area of battered women are participating in the legal system as expert witnesses and occasionally testify on behalf of a battered woman who has injured or killed her partner. Testimony about the battered woman syndrome has been offered to help the jury understand why the defendant reasonably perceived that she was in danger of harm. One of the requirements of expert testimony is that it be beyond the common understanding of the jury. Many commentators assume that jurors are uninformed or misinformed about battered women and, thus, that expert testimony is necessary to educate them. This study evaluated what jurors know about violent relationships. Approximately 300 jurors read scenarios about spousal violence and answered a questionnaire dealing with circumstances surrounding such abuse. Results suggest that on certain dimensions of spousal violence, jurors are aware of empirical research findings. On other dimensions, jurors are less well-informed and could potentially benefit from the testimony of an expert.     

Emotion,Authority, and Death: (Raced) Negotiations in Mock Capital Jury Deliberations

This article explores the role of emotion in the capital penalty‐phase jury deliberations process. It is based on the qualitative analysis of data from ninety video‐recorded four to seven person simulated jury deliberations that examined the influence of race on death sentencing outcomes. The analysis explores when and how emotions are expressed, integrated into the jury's sentencing process, and deployed in penalty‐phase decision making. The findings offer critical new insights into the role that emotion plays in influencing these legal judgments by revealing how jurors strategically and explicitly employ emotion in the course of deliberation, both to support their own positions and neutralize or rebut the opposing positions of others. The findings also shed light on the various ways that white male capital jurors utilize a panoply of powerful emotion‐based tactics to sway others to their position in a manner that often contributes to racially biased outcomes.     

Severity of penalty,seriousness of the charge,and mock jurors' verdicts

It has been suggested that jurors in criminal trials are less likely to convict when the penalty is more severe or the charge is more serious. This was explained by Kerr (1975) in terms of a perceived increase in the cost of a Type I error (convicting an innocent person) that resulted in a criterion shift in the amount of evidence jurors required to vote guilty. The previous research found only weak support for the prediction regarding severity but consistent support for the predicted effect of seriousness. However, in the case materials used in these studies, more evidence was legally required to prove guilt on the more serious charges. This article presents studies in which the amount of evidence needed to prove guilt was equated for all charges. Under these circumstances, there was no effect on verdicts of seriousness of charge or severity of penalty and no evidence of a criterion shift due to either variable. There may still be reason to believe that these factors affect real juries, but this belief is not supported by the systematic evidence from mock jury studies.     

Empathy,distance, and blame: juror perceptions of black male homicide victims in capital cases

The courts have consistently struggled with the discriminatory imposition of the death penalty. This research employs data from the Capital Jury Project which seeks to identify arbitrariness in jurors’ decision-making. Results indicate that Black male victims are perceived to be the most likely to have a problem with drugs/alcohol and come from poor/deprived backgrounds and the least likely to be respected in the community and be perceived as innocent. Black male victims and their families also receive the least empathy from jurors, whom jurors feel the most distance from, and who are most to blame for their victimization. Results suggest the enduring racialization of violent crime and the continuing devaluation of the lives of Black males in American society.     

An analysis of the relationship between jurors' personal attributes and decision making

Using a survey from a jury simulation study, this study examines the relationship between jurors' personal and social attributes and their decision-making behavior. The hypothesis is examined whether personal attributes and socialization of jurors have any significant effect on their decision-making behavior. The analysis suggests that personal and/or social attributes of jurors have little, if any, impact on their decision-making behavior. Instead, jury instruction and information about the matter appear to be major influence contributors. Additionally, evidence presented during the trial and knowledge of law have significant effects upon how jurors decide cases and give verdicts. Author's Note: Suman Kakar, Ph.D., is associate professor at Florida International University, College of Health and Urban Affairs. She conducts research in the areas of juvenile delinquency, child abuse, family dynamics, minorities, and the prevention of violence. She has published two books,Child Abuse and Delinquency (1996) andCriminal Justice Approaches to Domestic Violence (1998).     

The dynamite charge

When juries report they are deadlocked, judges may deliver a supplemental instruction known as thedynamite charge which urges jurors to reexamine their views in an effort to reach a unamimous verdict. To examine the impact of this instruction, 72 mock jurors were led to believe they were participating in a controlled deliberation by voting and passing notes. Subjects were randomly assigned to the majority or minority faction of a 3-to-1 split. After the third round of deliberation, half the subjects received the dynamite charge, half did not. Results provided support for the hypothesis that the dynamite charge causes jurors in the minority to feel coerced and to change their votes and encourages those in the majority to exert increasing amounts of social pressure. These findings are discussed for their practical implications, limitations, and directions for further research.We would like to thank Rebecca Buchanan and Craig Gangi for their role as experimenters in a pilot study.     

Too Real? The Future of Virtual Reality Evidence

Immersive virtual environments (IVEs), or virtual reality, could soon follow other visual technologies from the culture at large to the courtroom. The unprecedented realism of IVEs may be thought to pose peculiar risks of prejudice and confusion that would militate against their use as demonstrative evidence. In particular, some believe that jurors will be unable to distinguish IVEs from reality, and that IVEs are so involving that they will transform jurors from disinterested judges of, into witnesses to, or even participants in, litigated events, impairing their objectivity. This article analyzes these concerns and shows them to be overstated. The article also discusses other judgmental risks and benefits presented by the use of IVEs in court, and concludes that the admissibility of IVE evidence should be determined on a case-by-case basis.     

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.     

Female crime and household control in early modern Frankfurt am Main

This article investigates the way in which informal control by household authorities affected how female crime was prosecuted in early modern Frankfurt am Main. Crime historians have argued that female crime was a particular urban phenomenon during this period. They have attributed this to a relatively high level of independence of women and the existence of many formal social control institutions. This article shows that due to strongly enforced patriarchal ideals concerning household authority in the Holy Roman Empire supposedly ‘rural’ characteristics (low levels of independence and high levels of informal control) could also be found in distinctly urban settings, like Frankfurt am Main. As the household was viewed as the central location for social order, authorities required everyone to reside in an orderly household. Unlike regions in which household control was weaker, the majority of women, including migrants, were therefore incorporated in networks of informal control through their position in the household. This means that strong informal control within the household, which is normally associated with close-knit communities in the countryside, also played a dominant role in the urban community of Frankfurt. The criminal investigation records show that only few domestics were prosecuted formally; rather they were disciplined by their master – leaving a possibly very large dark number of female criminality. Most of the offenders appearing in the criminal investigation records were those that had failed to secure a position within a household. Owing to the reliance on household control, cities like Frankfurt am Main knew a distinct type of urban female offender.     

Religious fundamentalism,religiosity, and priming: effects on attitudes,perceptions, and mock jurors’ decisions in an insanity defense case

Jurors are asked to use their personal knowledge and experience to make verdict decisions; thus, it is no surprise that their religious beliefs might influence their decisions. During legal insanity trials, jurors might also be exposed to religious stimuli (e.g. crucifix, prayer, Bible, etc.), which could evoke (prime) religious beliefs and thus influence decisions. Two studies examined whether dimensions of religiosity and religious beliefs relate to attitudes and decisions concerning mental health defenses, testing social identity theory against Allport and Ross’s religiosity hypothesis. In Study 1 (attitudes survey) and Study 2 (mock juror decision-making paradigm), religious fundamentalist beliefs consistently predicted punitive attitudes and decisions related to mental health defenses and verdicts, and this was moderated by intrinsic religiosity, such that religious fundamentalist beliefs only predicted punitiveness for individuals low in intrinsic religiosity. Also, priming fundamentalist beliefs increased punitiveness in both verdict and sentencing decisions. Combined, these results suggest that religious beliefs play a role in jurors’ verdict decisions in an insanity case, and that priming fundamentalist beliefs increases jurors’ punitiveness. Allport and Ross’s religiosity hypothesis was supported, but social identity theory was not.     

Distress resulting from perceivers' own intimate partner violence experiences predicts culpability attributions toward a battered woman on trial for killing her abuser: a path model

Intimate partner violence (IPV) constitutes the majority of assaults against women in the United States, and greater than one third of female homicide victims are murdered by an intimate partner. In a small percentage of cases, battered women kill their abusers, and evidence of battering and its effects may be used to support a plea of self-defense in these cases. Prior research has shown that culpability attributions toward battered women who have killed their abusers are influenced by perceiver variables, including gender. The present study expands on this research by examining the influence of psychological distress resulting from perceivers' own IPV experiences--and the mechanisms of this influence--on their culpability attributions toward a battered woman defendant. Female undergraduates in the present sample (N = 154) read a vignette, adapted from an actual criminal case about a battered woman who had killed her abuser. Data supported a hypothesized path model, wherein participants reporting greater psychological distress resulting from IPV perpetrated against them perceived themselves more similar to the defendant, in turn empathized with her to a greater extent, and, in turn, attributed less legal culpability to her. Implications for future research are discussed.     

Conduct and its Consequences: Attempts at Debiasing Jury Judgments

Jurors in negligence cases are supposed to judge a defendant by the reasonableness of his or her conduct and not by the consequences of that conduct. But several studies have shown that a cognitive heuristic known as hindsight bias can skew post hoc judgments of some prior behavior. Thus, jurors who must evaluate the actions of a defendant may be influenced inappropriately by the consequences of those actions. A complementary problem arises when jurors must evaluate the injuries incurred by the plaintiff. Here, jurors' knowledge about the defendant's allegedly negligent conduct can proactively influence their assessment of the plaintiff's injuries and determination of damages. The purpose of the present study was to examine the effectiveness of two procedural techniques intended to reduce or eliminate the impact of hindsight bias in negligence cases—multiple admonitions from a judge about the proper use of evidence—and bifurcation (actually withholding irrelevant evidence from jurors). We presented a re-enacted automobile negligence trial to 355 jury-eligible adults drawn from the community, varied the evidence and instructions that they heard, and measured liability judgments and damage awards from individual jurors both before and after deliberating, and from juries. Results showed that admonitions were generally ineffective in guiding jurors to the proper use of evidence but that bifurcation was relatively more effective. Deliberations had no curative effect on jurors' misapplication of evidence.     

Construing Motive in Videotaped Killings: The Role of Jurors' Attitudes Toward the Death Penalty

Death-qualified jurors are generally able to impose the death penalty, whereas excludable jurors are generally either unable or unwilling to do so. A long line of research studies has shown that the former are more likely than the latter to convict criminal defendants. Ellsworth (1993) argues that jurors' attitudes toward the death penalty predict verdicts because they are embedded in a cluster of beliefs and theories about the criminal justice system. Her studies show that jurors interpret ambiguous conduct based on these belief structures. The present study examines the possibility that death penalty attitudes also influence jurors' conceptions of criminal intent. We showed mock jurors the filmed murder of a convenience store clerk and examined the inferences they drew from this evidence. Jurors who favored the death penalty tended to read criminal intent into the defendant's actions and jurors who opposed the death penalty were less likely to do so. These data provide further explanation of the conviction-proneness of death-qualified jurors.