What Makes Race Salient? Juror Decision-Making in Same-Race Versus Cross-Race Identification Scenarios and the Influence of Expert Testimony

2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (8) ◽  
pp. 1234-1251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evelyn M. Maeder ◽  
Logan Ewanation
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Juror Decision Making ◽  
Direct Influence ◽  
Mock Jurors ◽  
Race Effect ◽  
Trial Transcript ◽  
The Cross ◽  
Black Defendant ◽  
Race Identification

Research demonstrates that juror race may interact with defendant race to influence decision-making, but little work has investigated interactions with eyewitness race. This study tested whether Black/White jurors would produce different perceptions/decisions when faced with a Black/White defendant identified by a Black/White eyewitness. We also examined the influence of expert testimony regarding the cross-race effect in two floating cells. Mock jurors read a trial transcript, provided a verdict and trial party ratings, and indicated perceived race salience. Black jurors were more likely to convict a White defendant identified by a Black eyewitness than a Black defendant identified by a White eyewitness. Expert testimony was valued more highly when the defendant was Black, but had no direct influence on verdict; however, it raised race salience perceptions (as did presence of Black trial parties). Perceived race salience was associated with lower rates of conviction, suggesting that race and expert testimony have potential courtroom implications.

scholarly journals The Effect of Delayed Reporting on Mock-Juror Decision-Making in the Era of #MeToo

2021 ◽  
pp. 088626052199746
Author(s):  
Bailey M. Fraser ◽  
Emily Pica ◽  
Joanna D. Pozzulo
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Sexual Harassment ◽  
Mock Juror ◽  
Juror Decision Making ◽  
Sexual Offence ◽  
Mock Jurors ◽  
Mock Trial ◽  
Trial Transcript ◽  
Victim Perception

The #MeToo movement has given voice to victims of sexual harassment and assault. In many of these cases, there have been long delays in reporting of the sexual offence (e.g., the Harvey Weinstein case). The purpose of this study was to examine how the type of sexual offence (harassment vs. assault) and the length of delayed reporting (15, 25, 35 years) influenced mock-juror decision-making. Mock-jurors ( N = 319) read a mock trial transcript depicting an alleged sexual offence and were asked to render a dichotomous verdict, continuous guilt rating, and defendant and victim perception ratings. The data indicated an effect of sexual offence type such that mock-jurors held more favorable perceptions of the defendant when the alleged offence was harassment compared with assault. There also was an effect of delayed reporting such that mock-jurors rendered more guilty verdicts when there was a 25-year delay compared with a 15-year delay. Intriguingly, these results suggest that jurors in sexual offence cases may perceive longer delays in reporting as more believable than shorter delays.

The Effects of Victim Gender, Defendant Gender, and Defendant Age on Juror Decision Making

2009 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna D. Pozzulo ◽  
Julie Dempsey ◽  
Evelyn Maeder ◽  
Laura Allen
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Juror Decision Making ◽  
Mock Jurors ◽  
Female Defendant ◽  
Victim Gender

Mock jurors provided credibility ratings for a victim (12 years old) and defendant when victim gender, defendant gender, and defendant age (15 vs. 40 years old) were manipulated. Verdicts and sentence recommendations also were assessed. Higher guilt ratings were found for a male versus female defendant. Juror gender was examined as a covariate in the analyses. Female jurors rated the victim higher on accuracy, truthfulness, and believability than male jurors. Male jurors rated the defendant higher on reliability, credibility, truthfulness, and believability than female jurors. Male jurors perceived the victim to desire and cause the crime to a greater extent than female jurors. Mock jurors rated the victim as more responsible for the crime with an older versus younger defendant. Female jurors ascribed higher responsibility to the defendant compared to male jurors. The younger versus older defendant was perceived to have desired the event but only when the victim was female versus male.

Racial Composition of Couples in Battered Spouse Syndrome Cases: A Look at Juror Perceptions and Decisions

2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (18) ◽  
pp. 2867-2890 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annik Mossière ◽  
Evelyn M. Maeder ◽  
Emily Pica
Keyword(s):  
Partner Violence ◽  
Juror Decision Making ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Responsibility Attributions ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
Juror Perceptions ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Trial Transcript ◽  
History Of ◽  
Black Defendant

This study manipulated the race of the defendant (wife) and the victim (husband)—White/White, White/Black, Black/Black, and Black/White—in a murder case involving a history of intimate partner violence (IPV) to examine the potential prejudicial impact of race on juror decision-making. A total of 244 jury-eligible American community members read a trial transcript of a murder case in which the defendant claimed self-defense using evidence of battered spouse syndrome. Participants provided a verdict, responsibility attributions, and their perceptions of the scenario. Findings revealed that the Black defendant (wife) was more likely to be found not guilty by reason of self-defense, and female jurors were overall more likely to acquit the defendant (wife) than were men. These results contribute to the scarce literature on the influence of race on perceptions of legal proceedings involving IPV.

How Persuasive Is an Eyewitness Who Is Familiar with the Defendant?

2019 ◽  
pp. 101-112
Author(s):  
Joanna Pozzulo
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Exposure Duration ◽  
Juror Decision Making ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Eyewitness Confidence ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter focuses on familiarity in the courtroom. Specifically, this chapter describes how familiarity between an eyewitness and a defendant affects juror decision-making in terms of perceptions of guilt and credibility of both the eyewitness and the defendant. The chapter describes how familiarity has been operationalized in the juror decision-making literature and discusses various definitions of familiarity, such as exposure duration, number of exposures, and the context of the relationship between the eyewitness and defendant. Research examining how familiarity influences jurors’ judgments is summarized. The chapter also discusses the association between familiarity and eyewitness confidence and its impact on jurors. The chapter concludes by describing familiarity within the context of real court cases, the use of expert testimony, and how familiarity may have affected judges’ rulings.

scholarly journals What do we know about rape myths and juror decision making?

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 255-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fiona Leverick
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Quantitative Research ◽  
Rape Myth ◽  
Juror Decision Making ◽  
Rape Victims ◽  
Mock Jurors ◽  
Overwhelming Evidence ◽  
Jury Deliberations ◽  
Mock Jury ◽  
First Time

This paper presents overwhelming evidence that prejudicial and false beliefs held by jurors about rape affect their evaluation of the evidence and their decision making in rape cases. The paper draws together for the first time the available evidence from both quantitative and qualitative studies (most of which are not found in law journals, but rather in scientific outlets, most commonly those focusing on experimental psychology). The quantitative research demonstrates that mock jurors’ scores on so-called ‘rape myth scales’ are significant predictors of their judgments about responsibility, blame and (most importantly) verdict. The qualitative research indicates that jurors frequently express problematic views about how ‘real’ rape victims would behave and what ‘real’ rape looks like during mock jury deliberations and that even those who score relatively low on abstract rape myth scales can express prejudicial beliefs when deliberating in a particular case. The studies vary in terms of their realism, but it is important to note that some of the studies reported here were highly realistic trial reconstructions, involving representative samples of jurors drawn from the community, live trial reconstructions, evidence-in-chief and cross-examination, accurate legal directions and deliberation in groups. The review concludes by examining the evidence on whether juror education—whether in the form of judicial directions or expert evidence—might be effective in addressing problematic attitudes.

scholarly journals Jurors' expectations and decision-making: Revisiting the CSI effect

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chloe Lodge ◽  
Mircea Zloteanu
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Juror Decision Making ◽  
Mock Jurors ◽  
Csi Effect ◽  
Crime Severity ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Technological Means ◽  
Perceptions And Expectations ◽  
Crime Scenarios ◽  
The Impact

It has been argued that the rise in popularity of crime show dramas over the past few years has led to jurors holding unrealistic expectations regarding the type of evidence presented at trial. This has been coined the CSI effect. We investigated the CSI effect and the less well-known Tech effect-assigning more weight to evidence if obtained through technological means-and the impact of crime severity on juror decision-making. However, we argue that as time progresses, such effects will no longer be found to impact juror decision-making processes. We propose that past effects reported in the literature can be explained by considering a novelty bias. Using both frequentist and Bayesian frameworks, we tested this claim. Participants were primed with a newspaper that either contained a forensic, technology, or neutral article. They were then presented with two crime scenarios and asked to provide a verdict and a confidence rating. We find that mock jurors were unaffected by either the priming manipulation or crime severity, finding no evidence for either the CSI or Tech effects. The data suggest jurors are not as easily biased as has been previously argued in the literature, indicating a potential shift in public perceptions and expectations regarding evidence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document