Jurors

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Kinds of Jurors

  • mock juror
  • prospective juror

  • Terms modified by Jurors

  • juror decision making
  • juror perception

  • Selected Abstracts


    Becoming Deliberative Citizens: The Moral Learning Process of the Citizen Juror

    POLITICAL STUDIES, Issue 4 2010
    Shane Doheny
    This article presents an analysis of qualitative interviews carried out with citizen jurors at least three years after they participated in a jury. Theoretical work on deliberation tends to emphasise the transformative effect of deliberation. Much empirical work has focused on this transformation conceived as the re-prioritisation of preferences, and examines whether and how jurors change their personal and political commitments as a result of their participation on a jury. Another approach to transformation is more discursive, and hypothesises that the concepts and perspectives that jurors use to evaluate norms may also be transformed. This article presents qualitative data that illuminate this latter hypothesis. Specifically, the article analyses the stories ex-jurors told of their participation in citizen juries, in order to chart changes in the concepts and perspectives that jurors use to evaluate norms. By analysing these stories we identify four juror roles , envoy, regulator, advocate and deliberator , and we elaborate these using Habermas' learning theory. Overall our argument is that the citizen juror is given the opportunity to undertake a learning process, and through this process they are furnished with new concepts and perspectives with which to evaluate norms. Moreover, Habermas theorises that this learning process cumulates with the formation of a deliberative citizen who thinks using the characteristics described in discourse ethics. Here we identify discourses that support this claim. [source]


    Juror decision-making in a mock sexually violent predator trial: gender differences in the impact of divergent types of expert testimony,

    BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES & THE LAW, Issue 2 2003
    Laura S. Guy M.A.
    Despite widespread use of mental health testimony in cases where violence risk is at issue, relatively little is known about the impact of such information on juror decision-making. This study addressed the effects of testimony based on three types of risk assessment instrument or method (clinical opinion, actuarial assessment, and ratings of psychopathy) to examine whether they would have differential impact on jurors' perceptions of the defendant. In a mock sexually violent predator civil commitment trial, 172 undergraduates were presented a case summary that included prosecution and defense expert testimony related to violence risk based on one of the three methods noted above. Consistent with earlier research, the hypothesis that a defendant described as a "high risk psychopath" by the prosecution would be judged more severely than a defendant judged as "high risk" based on other evaluation procedures was supported, but only among female jurors. Unlike prior studies, little support was found for the hypothesis that clinical opinion testimony would be more influential than actuarially based testimony for either gender. Mechanisms that may underlie the observed gender differences are discussed, as are the potential implications of these findings for civil commitment proceedings. Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]


    What choices should we be able to make about designer babies?

    HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, Issue 3 2006
    A Citizens' Jury of young people in South Wales
    Abstract Background, Young people will increasingly have the option of using new technologies for reproductive decision making but their voices are rarely heard in debates about acceptable public policy in this area. Capturing the views of young people about potentially esoteric topics, such as genetics, is difficult and methodologically challenging. Design, A Citizens' Jury is a deliberative process that presents a question to a group of ordinary people, allows them to examine evidence given by expert witnesses and personal testimonies and arrive at a verdict. This Citizens' Jury explored designer babies in relation to inherited conditions, saviour siblings and sex selection with young people. Participants, Fourteen young people aged 16,19 in Wales. Results, Acceptance of designer baby technology was purpose-specific; it was perceived by participants to be acceptable for preventing inherited conditions and to create a child to save a sibling, but was not recommended for sex selection. Jurors stated that permission should not depend on parents' age, although some measure of suitability should be assessed. Preventing potential parents from going abroad was considered impractical. These young people felt the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority should have members under 20 and that the term ,designer baby' was not useful. Conclusions, Perspectives on the acceptability of this technology were nuanced, and based on implicit value judgements about the extent of individual benefit derived. Young people have valuable and interesting contributions to make to the debate about genetics and reproductive decision making and a variety of innovative methods must be used to secure their involvement in decision-making processes. [source]


    Juror Beliefs About Police Interrogations, False Confessions, and Expert Testimony

    JOURNAL OF EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUDIES, Issue 2 2010
    Mark Costanzo
    Although there has been a rapid expansion in research on police interrogations and false confessions, little is known about the beliefs of potential jurors as to these issues. In collaboration with a trial research firm, we recruited 461 jury-eligible men and women who matched the demographic characteristics of jury pools in several states. Surrogate jurors responded to questions and statements in five areas: likely rates of false confessions for different crimes, the ability to discern true from false confessions, beliefs about false confessions, beliefs about permissible interrogation tactics, and beliefs about expert testimony on police interrogations. Results indicated that jurors believed that police interrogators are better than ordinary people at identifying lies and that this ability improves with experience. Jurors believed that they would be able to differentiate a true confession from a false confession by watching a videotape, but were less confident about making such a differentiation from an audio recording. A large majority of the sample reported that it would be helpful to hear expert testimony about interrogation techniques and reasons why a defendant might falsely confess to a crime. There were no significant gender differences. Compared to whites, nonwhite jurors had significantly less confidence in the abilities of the police and gave significantly higher estimates of false confession rates. Results are discussed in light of prior research and implications for jury decision making and expert testimony. [source]


    Teen Court: What Jurors Can Tell Us About the Process

    JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JOURNAL, Issue 1 2004
    DEBORAH KIRBY FORGAYS
    ABSTRACT Teen courts are on the increase throughout the United States. These courts provide an opportunity for youth offenders to receive sentences from their adolescent peers rather than from an adult panel or judge. Yet, we know t very little about the teen jurors' perspective or whether their sentences reflect restorative justice principles. In more than 100 youth juror surveys, t teens describe their experiences as they develop sentences consistent with restorative justice tenets. Through their participation, youth jurors gain practical knowledge about and respect for the judicial system. The efficacy of the sentences is validated by high offender sentence completion. [source]


    Jurors'Evaluations of Expert Testimony: Judging the Messenger and the Message

    LAW & SOCIAL INQUIRY, Issue 2 2003
    Sanja Kutnjak Ivkovi
    Jurors are laypersons with no specific expert knowledge, yet they are routinely placed in situations in which they need to critically evaluate complex expert testimony. This paper examines jurors'reactions to experts who testify in civil trials and the factors jurors identify as important to expert credibility. Based on in-depth qualitative analyses of interviews with 55 jurors in 7 civil trials, we develop a comprehensive model of the key factors jurors incorporate into the process of evaluating expert witnesses and their testimony. Contrary to the frequent criticism that jurors primarily evaluate expert evidence in terms of its subjective characteristics, the results of our study indicate that jurors consider both the messenger and the message in the course of evaluating the expert's credibility. [source]


    Effects of false-evidence ploys and expert testimony on jurors' verdicts, recommended sentences, and perceptions of confession evidence,

    BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES & THE LAW, Issue 3 2009
    William Douglas Woody Ph.D.
    During interrogations, police may use false-evidence ploys or fabricated claims to convince suspects to confess. Mock jurors read trial materials containing interrogation transcripts with or without a false-evidence ploy and one of two expert witness conditions (present or absent). We examined jurors' verdicts, recommended sentences, and perceptions of the interrogation. Although factual evidence and the defendant's confession remained constant across conditions, false-evidence ploys led to fewer convictions and shorter sentences. Jurors also perceived interrogations with ploys as more deceptive and coercive. Expert testimony reduced convictions and increased interrogation deception and coercion ratings. Across ploy types, participants rated demeanor ploys as less deceptive and recommended longer sentences for confessors. Outcomes reveal important, previously unrecognized consequences of false-evidence ploys. Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]


    The effects of defendant race, victim race, and juror gender on evidence processing in a murder trial

    BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES & THE LAW, Issue 2 2006
    Robert ForsterLee Ph.D.
    The effects of defendant race, victim race, and juror gender on sentencing and information processing were examined within the context of a murder trial. A sample consisting of 96, jury eligible White Australians read one of four versions of a real trial transcript, in which the race of a male defendant and female victim were varied. The participants imposed the severest sentences on the Indigenous (Black) defendant. Jurors were most lenient with White defendants who killed a White victim. Female jurors were more punitive than the males toward the Indigenous defendant. Jurors processed evidence systematically in same-race trials, but used both systematic and heuristic processing in mixed-race trials. In these instances, female jurors employed significantly more emotive responses, especially when the victim was Black. The effects of subtle racism and the black processing effect when the victim was non-White are considered. Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]


    English Law's Epistemology of Expert Testimony

    JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIETY, Issue 4 2006
    Tony Ward
    The decision whether to believe an expert witness raises difficult epistemological and ethical questions for a lay juror or judge. This article examines the English courts' approach to these questions in the light of a series of cases which endorse the test of admissibility formulated in the Australian case o/R v. Bonython. It argues that, if interpreted more rigorously than it generally has been to date, Bonython could provide the framework for an approach which avoids the pitfalls of either a ,scientistic' or a ,constructivist' epistemology of expert testimony. Such an approach needs to distinguish between different types of expertise and the differing degrees of deference that they call for on the part of a lay fact-finder. [source]


    Becoming Deliberative Citizens: The Moral Learning Process of the Citizen Juror

    POLITICAL STUDIES, Issue 4 2010
    Shane Doheny
    This article presents an analysis of qualitative interviews carried out with citizen jurors at least three years after they participated in a jury. Theoretical work on deliberation tends to emphasise the transformative effect of deliberation. Much empirical work has focused on this transformation conceived as the re-prioritisation of preferences, and examines whether and how jurors change their personal and political commitments as a result of their participation on a jury. Another approach to transformation is more discursive, and hypothesises that the concepts and perspectives that jurors use to evaluate norms may also be transformed. This article presents qualitative data that illuminate this latter hypothesis. Specifically, the article analyses the stories ex-jurors told of their participation in citizen juries, in order to chart changes in the concepts and perspectives that jurors use to evaluate norms. By analysing these stories we identify four juror roles , envoy, regulator, advocate and deliberator , and we elaborate these using Habermas' learning theory. Overall our argument is that the citizen juror is given the opportunity to undertake a learning process, and through this process they are furnished with new concepts and perspectives with which to evaluate norms. Moreover, Habermas theorises that this learning process cumulates with the formation of a deliberative citizen who thinks using the characteristics described in discourse ethics. Here we identify discourses that support this claim. [source]


    Beliefs about factors affecting the Reliability of eyewitness testimony: A Comparison of judges, jurors and the general public

    APPLIED COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 1 2010
    Svein Magnussen
    We surveyed 164 members of the juror pool of the Court of Appeal and a representative sample of 1000 adult Norwegians without juror experience, about their knowledge and beliefs about eyewitness testimony, and compared their answers to a prior survey of Norwegian judges. Although the judges were somewhat more knowledgeable than jurors and the general public, all groups had limited knowledge of eyewitness testimony. Juror experience, in terms of number of times serving as juror, did not correlate with eyewitness knowledge. Consistent with this finding, the knowledge scores of the jurors were similar to the scores of the general public, tested with an abridged seven-item version of the questionnaire. Comparisons with the results of surveys conducted in the US, indicate similar levels of knowledge among law professionals and jurors in the two countries. Increasing the knowledge of eyewitness testimony among the principal participants in the judiciary system may be an important component of the solution to eyewitness error. Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]


    Improving Jurors' Evaluations of Auditors in Negligence Cases,

    CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNTING RESEARCH, Issue 3 2001
    Kathryn Kadous
    Abstract Prior research indicates that individuals acting as jurors experience outcome effects in audit negligence litigation. That is, jurors evaluate auditors more harshly in light of negative outcomes, even when audit quality is constant. I posit that outcome effects in this setting are caused by jurors using their negative affect (i.e., feelings) resulting from learning about negative audit outcomes as information relevant to auditor blameworthiness. I tested this hypothesis in an experiment in which I manipulated audit quality, outcome information, and provision of an attribution instruction. The attribution instruction was designed to discredit negative affect as a cue to auditor blameworthiness. Consistent with expectations, attribution participants' evaluations of auditors exhibited less reliance on outcome information and more reliance on audit quality information than did evaluations made by control participants. In fact, outcome effects were eliminated for attribution participants. Courts may be able to improve the quality of jurors' decisions in such cases by employing an attribution instruction. [source]


    Effects of Perceived Emotional Intensity on Mock Jurors' Murder/Manslaughter Distinctions

    JOURNAL OF APPLIED BIOBEHAVIORAL RESEARCH, Issue 2 2002
    Matthew P. Spackman
    Anglo-American law instructs jurors that defendants' emotions might constitute mitigating circumstances in murder/manslaughter cases. The present study examined which aspects of defendants' emotions mock jurors take into consideration when determining their murder/manslaughter verdicts. Four factors found to be predictive of perceptions of emotional intensity in previous research were shown to be predictive of murder/manslaughter convictions. These factors included whether the defendant had a history of violence with the victim, the particular emotion experienced, whether the defendant dwelt upon the feelings associated with his or her emotion, and whether the defendant intended the actions associated with his or her emotion. These findings are compared with two approaches that the law has taken to evaluate defendants' emotions: objective standards and subjective standards. Ramifications of these findings for jury instructions as well as for the law's conception of emotion are discussed. [source]


    Jurors' Perception of Witnesses with Intellectual Disabilities and the Influence of Expert Evidence

    JOURNAL OF APPLIED RESEARCH IN INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES, Issue 2 2003
    Georgina Stobbs
    Purpose, The aim of this study was to assess mock-jurors' perceptions of the evidence of witnesses with intellectual disabilities either with or without expert evidence and in comparison with witnesses from the general population. Method, Sixty participants read transcripts of a mock trial focusing on the testimony of an eyewitness. Participants were assigned to one of three groups. The first was told that the witness was a person from the general population. The second was told that the witness had mild learning disabilities. The third group was told that the witness had mild learning disabilities and was given expert evidence concerning his abilities. Results, While mock-jurors perceive witnesses with learning disabilities to be fundamentally honest, they are reluctant to rely on the evidence provided by witnesses with learning disabilities. Expert evidence can go some way to ameliorating the negative perceptions of the reliability of witnesses with learning disabilities. Conclusions, Expert evidence can provide jurors with a certain degree of insight and understanding of an individual witness with intellectual disabilities that potentially increases the likelihood of achieving justice. [source]


    When Cross-Examination Offends: How Men and Women Assess Intrusive Questioning of Male and Female Expert Witnesses

    JOURNAL OF APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 4 2010
    Bridget A. Larson
    Personally intrusive questioning during cross-examination has become commonplace. The differential impact of this questioning on female vs. male experts was the focus in this study, thus these questions are referred to as gender-intrusive questions. The results demonstrated that the female expert was rated as less confident, trustworthy, likable, believable, and credible than the male expert. The male and female experts were both rated as more credible, trustworthy, and believable when subjected to gender-intrusive questions. Furthermore, the use of these questions left the jurors with a negative impression of the prosecuting attorney and his case. Jury members were more likely to believe that the evidence exhibited the most support for the defense's case when the witness was subjected to gender-intrusive questioning. [source]


    The Influence of Identification Decision and DNA Evidence on Juror Decision Making,

    JOURNAL OF APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 9 2009
    Joanna D. Pozzulo
    This study examined the influence of identification decision type and DNA evidence on mock jurors' ratings of evidence reliability, witness credibility, and verdict decisions. Type of identification decision was found to influence jurors' perceptions of the reliability of eyewitnesses' descriptions of various details related to the crime. Specifically, positive identifications resulted in the highest reliability ratings. Type of DNA evidence presented was found to impact on ratings of expert witness reliability. Overall, inconsistent DNA evidence that was statistical in nature resulted in the lowest reliability ratings. DNA-consistent evidence led to more convictions than did DNA-inconsistent evidence. Furthermore, jurors rendered more guilty verdicts when witnesses made a non-identification or a positive identification, as compared to a foil identification. [source]


    Individual Differences in Attitudes Relevant to Juror Decision Making: Development and Validation of the Pretrial Juror Attitude Questionnaire (PJAQ),

    JOURNAL OF APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 8 2008
    Len Lecci
    This study involves scale development using theoretically derived items from previous measures and a lay consensual approach for generating new items. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to validate the emergent constructs assessing individual differences in attitudes of prospective jurors. Using case summaries, the Pretrial Juror Attitude Questionnaire (PJAQ) demonstrates superior predictive validity over commonly employed measures of pretrial bias. The PJAQ confirms the importance of theoretically derived constructs assessed by other scales and introduces new constructs to the jury decision-making literature. The attitudes assessed by the PJAQ are conviction proneness, system confidence, cynicism toward the defense, racial bias, social justice, and innate criminality. Implications for assessing such attitudes and for better understanding the decision-making process of jurors are discussed. [source]


    Effects of Interview Style and Witness Age on Perceptions of Children's Credibility in Sexual Abuse Cases

    JOURNAL OF APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 2 2005
    Paola Castelli
    The present study concerned effects of interview style and victim age on perceptions of child victim/witnesses and defendant guilt. In 2 experiments, participants read written scenarios of child sexual abuse trials. The scenarios included a transcript of the child victim/ witness's forensic interview, in which questioning varied from less leading to highly leading. In Experiment 1, child age (4 years vs. 7 years) did not significantly influence guilt ratings, but mock jurors were less likely to convict the alleged perpetrator and less likely to rate the child as credible and reliable when testimony was elicited through a highly leading vs. an intermediately or less leading interview. The effect of interview style on guilt ratings replicated in Experiment 2 for a 4-year-old victim/witness but not a 7-year-old victim/witness. In both studies, women compared to men were more likely to convict the defendant and to believe the child. Implications for understanding jurors' reactions to child victim/witness testimony are discussed. [source]


    An Aiibi Witness' Influence on Mock Jurors' Verdicts,

    JOURNAL OF APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 8 2004
    Scott E. Culhane
    The impact of alibi testimony on juror decision making is not yet clear because it has been examined empirically infrequently. This study was designed to determine the impact of alibi witness' testimony, the impact of an alibi witness with a relationship in comparison to one without a relationship to the defendant, and the impact of an eyewitness' confidence on juror decision making. Results indicated that mock jurors acquit a defendant more often when an alibi witness with no relationship to the defendant testified on his behalf. Participants did not believe an alibi witness who had a relationship with the defendant even though the witness was not a family member. Implications for these results are discussed. [source]


    Belief in a Just World and Jury Decisions in a Civil Rape Trial

    JOURNAL OF APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 5 2000
    Linda A. Foley
    When people's belief in a just world (BJW) is challenged, it can be restored by attributing blame to the victim or alleviating the victim's suffering. In criminal cases, jurors can attribute responsibility to victims, but cannot alleviate suffering. Participants (n= 106) heard a taped civil rape case. The effect of age of plaintiff, gender of participant, and type of participant on mock jurors' reactions to a plaintiff were examined. Participants evaluated responsibility of plaintiff and awarded monetary damages. It was hypothesized that, given this opportunity to compensate the victim, jurors would be less likely to derogate the victim. As hypothesized, women with high and low BJW attributed the same level of responsibility to the plaintiff but those with a high BJW awarded more monetaly damages. Men with high BJW awarded much less in damages than did men with low BJW. The just-world theory appears to explain many of the decisions made by mock jurors. [source]


    Bias in jury selection: justifying prohibited peremptory challenges

    JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL DECISION MAKING, Issue 5 2007
    Michael I. Norton
    Abstract The United States Supreme Court has restricted attorneys from considering the gender and race of potential jurors in their use of peremptory challenges,the practice by which jurors may be removed from a jury without explanation or evidence of potential bias. We propose that forbidding peremptories based on social category information not only fails to decrease biased jury selection, but also encourages attorneys to search,successfully,for neutral justifications for their biased decisions. In Study 1, participants who acted as prosecutors in a jury selection paradigm eliminated female jurors more often than male jurors, but then justified these biased choices by citing gender-neutral information. Troublingly, Study 2 showed that explicit instructions against the use of gender failed to eliminate selection bias, and in fact resulted in even more elaborate justifications. Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]


    Juror Beliefs About Police Interrogations, False Confessions, and Expert Testimony

    JOURNAL OF EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUDIES, Issue 2 2010
    Mark Costanzo
    Although there has been a rapid expansion in research on police interrogations and false confessions, little is known about the beliefs of potential jurors as to these issues. In collaboration with a trial research firm, we recruited 461 jury-eligible men and women who matched the demographic characteristics of jury pools in several states. Surrogate jurors responded to questions and statements in five areas: likely rates of false confessions for different crimes, the ability to discern true from false confessions, beliefs about false confessions, beliefs about permissible interrogation tactics, and beliefs about expert testimony on police interrogations. Results indicated that jurors believed that police interrogators are better than ordinary people at identifying lies and that this ability improves with experience. Jurors believed that they would be able to differentiate a true confession from a false confession by watching a videotape, but were less confident about making such a differentiation from an audio recording. A large majority of the sample reported that it would be helpful to hear expert testimony about interrogation techniques and reasons why a defendant might falsely confess to a crime. There were no significant gender differences. Compared to whites, nonwhite jurors had significantly less confidence in the abilities of the police and gave significantly higher estimates of false confession rates. Results are discussed in light of prior research and implications for jury decision making and expert testimony. [source]


    Deliberation Quality: A Preliminary Examination in Criminal Juries

    JOURNAL OF EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUDIES, Issue 2 2007
    Dennis J. Devine
    Large-scale studies of the deliberation process in actual juries have been surprisingly rare, and relatively little attention has been devoted to how well juries deliberate. This study identified a set of process-related criteria relevant to the quality of criminal jury deliberations and examined empirical relationships between indicators of these criteria and jury verdicts. Data were obtained via posttrial surveys from jurors and legal professionals associated with 179 criminal jury trials in Indiana. The quality of deliberations varied across the process criteria, with juries reportedly doing fairly well in terms of understanding their instructions and reviewing the evidence, but not as well with regard to systematically gathering input from their members, adopting an evidence-driven deliberation style, and avoiding factionalism. Several deliberation variables were also strongly related to jury verdicts, particularly the foreperson's initial verdict stance and the emergence of an identifiable pro-acquittal faction leader. Discussion of reasonable doubt and thoroughness of evidence review also tended to be negatively correlated with conviction even when strength of evidence was controlled. This study calls attention to the importance of deliberation quality. [source]


    The influence of lawyers' questions on witness accuracy, confidence, and reaction times and on mock jurors' interpretation of witness accuracy

    JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE PSYCHOLOGY AND OFFENDER PROFILING, Issue 3 2010
    Mark R. Kebbell
    Abstract Two studies demonstrate the influence of lawyers' complex questions on mock-witness accuracy, confidence, and reaction times and on the interpretation of witness accuracy by mock jurors. In study one, 32 mock witnesses were shown a short film and then questioned either with lawyers' complex questions or simple alternatives. In Study 2, 20 mock jurors viewed video footage of the mock witnesses assigned to each of the two previous conditions and were asked to rate their confidence in the witnesses' answers. The findings of the two studies indicated that lawyers' use of confusing questions reduce not only accuracy but also speed of response and both witnesses' and jurors' ability to determine accuracy. The implication of these findings is straightforward, lawyers should ask simple questions wherever possible. Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]


    A qualitative analysis of mock jurors' deliberations of linkage analysis evidence

    JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE PSYCHOLOGY AND OFFENDER PROFILING, Issue 2 2010
    Angelina Charron
    Abstract Evidence about a suspect's behavioural similarity across a series of crimes has been presented in legal proceedings in at least three different countries. Its admission as expert evidence, whilst still rare, is becoming more common thus it is important for us to understand how such evidence is received by jurors and legal professionals. This article reports on a qualitative analysis of mock jurors' deliberations about expert linkage analysis evidence. Three groups of mock jurors (N = 20) were presented with the prosecution's linkage analysis evidence from the USA State v. Fortin I murder trial and expert evidence for the defence constructed for the purposes of the study. Each group was asked to deliberate and reach a verdict. Deliberations were video-recorded and subject to thematic content analysis. The themes that emerged were varied. Analysis suggested that the mock jurors were cautious of the expert evidence of behavioural similarity. In some cases they were sceptical of the expert. They articulated a preference that expert opinion be supported using statistics. Additional themes included jurors having misconceptions concerning what is typical offender behaviour during rape which suggests there is a need for expert linkage analysis evidence regarding behavioural similarities and the relative frequencies of crime scene behaviours. Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]


    The effects of labelling, expert testimony, and information processing mode on juror decisions in SVP civil commitment trials

    JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE PSYCHOLOGY AND OFFENDER PROFILING, Issue 1 2009
    Joel D. Lieberman
    Abstract Expert witnesses offering testimony in sexually violent predator civil commitment trials may use diagnostic labels that are either familiar (e.g. ,psychopath') or unfamiliar (e.g. ,paraphilia') to jurors. Using predictions based on cognitive experiential self-theory, we explored the influence of testimony type (clinical versus actuarial) and diagnostic label (psychopath versus paraphilia) on jurors motivated to adopt either an experiential processing mode (PM; in which heuristic cues may be strongly relied upon) or an analytic rational PM. Consistent with previous research, our results indicated that when given a psychopathic diagnostic label, mock jurors motivated to process information experientially were more influenced by clinical testimony, whereas mock jurors induced into a rational mode were more influenced by actuarial testimony. However, experientially oriented jurors given a paraphilia diagnostic label did not show the expected influence of clinical expert testimony, and instead were more persuaded by actuarial testimony. These findings are discussed from a judgement and heuristics cues framework. The implications of several procedural suggestions are examined. Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]


    Teen Court: What Jurors Can Tell Us About the Process

    JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JOURNAL, Issue 1 2004
    DEBORAH KIRBY FORGAYS
    ABSTRACT Teen courts are on the increase throughout the United States. These courts provide an opportunity for youth offenders to receive sentences from their adolescent peers rather than from an adult panel or judge. Yet, we know t very little about the teen jurors' perspective or whether their sentences reflect restorative justice principles. In more than 100 youth juror surveys, t teens describe their experiences as they develop sentences consistent with restorative justice tenets. Through their participation, youth jurors gain practical knowledge about and respect for the judicial system. The efficacy of the sentences is validated by high offender sentence completion. [source]


    A Norms Approach to Jury "Nullification:" Interests, Values, and Scripts

    LAW & POLICY, Issue 1 2008
    JOSEPH SANDERS
    Juries and other lay tribunals are often justified because they leaven the law with community norms. Unfortunately, we do not have a particularly good theory of when and how juries substitute their normative judgments for the law. A first step in developing such a theory is to examine the nature of norms and the way jurors bring normative judgments to their task. In this article I compare and contrast different understandings of norms that currently are in vogue in the social sciences and then use these approaches to develop a more systematic understanding of when juries do and when they do not substitute their normative judgment for that of the law. [source]


    Jurors'Evaluations of Expert Testimony: Judging the Messenger and the Message

    LAW & SOCIAL INQUIRY, Issue 2 2003
    Sanja Kutnjak Ivkovi
    Jurors are laypersons with no specific expert knowledge, yet they are routinely placed in situations in which they need to critically evaluate complex expert testimony. This paper examines jurors'reactions to experts who testify in civil trials and the factors jurors identify as important to expert credibility. Based on in-depth qualitative analyses of interviews with 55 jurors in 7 civil trials, we develop a comprehensive model of the key factors jurors incorporate into the process of evaluating expert witnesses and their testimony. Contrary to the frequent criticism that jurors primarily evaluate expert evidence in terms of its subjective characteristics, the results of our study indicate that jurors consider both the messenger and the message in the course of evaluating the expert's credibility. [source]


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

    LAW & SOCIETY REVIEW, Issue 3 2008
    Mary R. Rose
    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. [source]