Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Jurors' Perceptions (juror + perception)
Selected AbstractsJurors' Perception of Witnesses with Intellectual Disabilities and the Influence of Expert EvidenceJOURNAL OF APPLIED RESEARCH IN INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES, Issue 2 2003Georgina 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] Sexual Assault and Defendant/Victim Intoxication: Jurors' Perceptions of Guilt,JOURNAL OF APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 2 2000ANNE-MARIE WALL The present research investigates how defendant and claimant intoxication operates in sexual-assault trials. Participants (N= 323) were provided with a description of a sexualassault trial in which the intoxication level (sober, moderate, extreme) of both parties was systematically varied. While the introduction of alcohol altered participants' perceptions of the case and of the parties involved, a complex interplay between the defendant's and complainant's level of intoxication was apparent. When the complainant was sober, harsher judgments were rendered when the defendant was intoxicated, particularly at the extreme level. In contrast, when the complainant was moderately intoxicated, more guilty verdicts occurred when the defendant was similarly inebriated. Finally, when the complainant was extremely intoxicated, the defendant's beverage consumption did not exert any discemible impact. Evaluations of both parties' abilities to self-regulate their behavior and for the female target to become sexually disinhibited were also influenced by the intoxication manipulation. [source] The Influence of Identification Decision and DNA Evidence on Juror Decision Making,JOURNAL OF APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 9 2009Joanna 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] Does Trial presentation medium matter in jury simulation research?APPLIED COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 5 2010Evaluating the effectiveness of eyewitness expert testimony This study assesses whether mock jurors' perceptions of eyewitness expert testimony vary based on the level of ecological validity,video or transcript trial presentation medium. In Experiment 1, 496 jury-eligible mock jurors were presented a simulated trial. Each served in one condition in a 3 (no expert or eyewitness expert either with or without prosecution rebuttal witness),×,2 (trial presentation medium: Video or transcript) design. Participants were generally less certain of the defendant's guilt after the eyewitness expert testimony, and affective and cognitive ratings of the expert testimony were higher in the transcript than video condition. However, there were no significant interactions of modality with expert conditions, thus reducing concerns that jury simulation research must be conducted with live or video trials to be externally valid. Findings were replicated in Experiment 2 using the testimony of a different eyewitness expert rated to have a more dynamic communication style. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [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 2003Laura 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] | ||||||||||