Life or death: A qualitative examination of mitigating and aggravating evidence presented in capital trials.

The US Supreme Court has required that death penalty procedures narrow the class of persons eligible for a death sentence. Through the selection requirement, juries must use mitigating and aggravating evidence jointly to determine if a defendant is one of the worst of the worst, resulting in a sentence of life without parole or death. This study analyzed capital trial transcripts from the punishment phase to assess the type and amount of mitigating and aggravating evidence presented to jurors in cases resulting in life without parole and death. The main assumption of the research was that cases resulting in life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) would reveal patterns in the types of evidence presented and differing patterns in cases where the jury handed down a sentence of death. The study qualitatively examined the trial transcripts from the punishment phase of 18 capital murders (nine resulting in LWOP and nine in death). The extra-legal factors from each LWOP case were matched to a death case to eliminate sentencing discrepancies based on jurisdiction, race of defendant or victim, aggravator, age etc. The results found no consistent patterns of evidence presented in cases resulting life without parole and some relevant patterns in sentences resulting in death.

The Impact of Victim Demeanor on Jurors' Perceptions of a Sexual Harassment Victim.

Despite the prevalence of sexual harassment in the workplace, little research has investigated the role of victim demeanor in perceptions of sexual harassment cases. The present study varied whether the victim cried while testifying by using drawings of the victim. Participants were presented with a civil trial summary and asked to make trial-related judgments. Overall, factors representing participants' perceptions of victim credibility and victim negative emotions were higher when the victim cried than when she did not. The factor representing victim credibility also mediated the relationship between victim demeanor and trial outcomes. Finally, cognitive networks demonstrated that victim demeanor was important to participants' decision-making. The legal implications of the findings are discussed.

The influence of attorney anger on juror decision making.

We investigated the interactive effect of attorney anger expression and attorney gender on juror decision-making. Jury eligible Amazon MTurk participants (N = 455) were recruited. They listened to an audio recording of a male or female prosecutor delivering a closing statement with varying levels of authenticity (authentic, inauthentic or no anger). Then, they rendered a verdict. After the verdict, participants filled out various measures: guilty verdict confidence, current feelings of anger, and perceptions of prosecutor trust and competence. We found that the prosecutor's authentic displays of anger provoked anger in the participants, which, subsequently, increased the odds of a guilty verdict and guilty verdict confidence. Moreover, authentic displays of anger improved perceptions of the prosecutor's competence, which also increased the odds of a guilty verdict. However, perceptions of the prosecutor's trustworthiness did not vary, and attorney gender did not play a moderating role. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Quality-checking the new normal: trial modality in online jury decision-making research.

Objectives: We sought to examine differences between videotaped and written trial materials on verdicts, perceptions of trial parties, quality check outcomes, perceived salience of racial issues, and emotional states in a trial involving a Black or White defendant. Hypotheses: We predicted that verdicts and ratings of trial parties would be similar for those participants viewing a videotaped trial and those reading a written transcript. However, we suspected that emotional states might be heightened for those watching a video and that those reading transcripts would perform better on quality checks regarding trial content (but worse on those involving trial party characteristics, including defendant race). Method: Participants (N = 139 after removing those who did not meet our threshold for data quality) recruited from Amazon's Mechanical Turk were randomly assigned to watch a video or read a transcript of a trial involving an alleged murder of a police officer. They completed a questionnaire probing their verdict, perceptions of trial parties, perceived salience of racial issues, and emotional state, and responded to a series of quality checks. Results: Participants in the videotape condition performed significantly worse on quality checks than did those in the transcript condition. There were no significant differences between modalities in terms of verdict or perceived salience of racial issues. Some other differences emerged between conditions, however, with more positive perceptions of the pathologist and police officer in the transcript condition, and more negative emotion elicited by the trial involving a White defendant in the videotape condition only. Conclusions: There were no meaningful differences between videotaped and written trial materials in terms of outcome (verdict), but the presence of some trial party rating and emotional state differences stemming from modality epitomizes the internal/ecological validity trade-off in jury research. Our quality check results indicate that written transcripts may work better for obtaining valid data online. Regardless of modality, researchers must be diligent in crafting quality checks to ensure that participants are attending to the stimulus materials, particularly as more research shifts online.

Mock Juror Perceptions of a Male or Female Adult Rape Victim Crying in the Courtroom.

This study investigated the impact of victim crying and gender on perceptions of rape cases. Participants (N = 240, 51.5% male, 48.1% female) completed a 2 (victim crying) × 2 (victim gender) × 2 (participant gender) between-participants design with case judgments (e.g., verdict) as the DVs. Results found that a rape victim crying during testimony increased pro-victim judgments compared to when the victim did not cry, that female mock jurors were more pro-victim than males, but that victim gender was insignificant. Finally, the mediation model found that victim crying increased their credibility, increasing the likelihood of a guilty verdict.

Assessing alibi believability: the alibi story, presence of physical evidence and timing of disclosure.

The content of the alibi story, corroborative physical evidence and timing of the alibi's disclosure may all affect alibi believability. CloudResearch workers (N = 276) read a mock case. The defendant's alibi story was scandalous (or neutral), included a receipt (or no mention), and was disclosed one day (or three weeks) later. Participants rated the alibi's believability, the defendant's character, and rendered a verdict. As expected, alibi believability ratings were higher when the alibi story was neutral versus scandalous (p < .01) Similarly, the defendant was viewed positively on all eight traits when the alibi story was neutral (ps < .05). The defendant was seen as more trustworthy when he did not have a receipt than when he did (p < .05). Alibi timing had little impact on the dependent measures, but participants were more certain in their verdicts when the alibi was early versus late (p < .05).

Jurors use mental state information to assess breach in negligence cases.

To prove guilt, jurors in many countries must find that the criminal defendant acted with a particular mental state. However, this amateur form of mindreading is not supposed to occur in civil negligence trials. Instead, jurors should decide whether the defendant was negligent by looking only at his actions, and whether they were objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Even so, across four pre-registered studies (N = 782), we showed that mock jurors do not focus on actions alone. US mock jurors spontaneously rely on mental state information when evaluating negligence cases. In Study 1, jurors were given three negligence cases to judge, and were asked to evaluate whether a reasonably careful person would have foreseen the risk (foreseeability) and whether the defendant acted unreasonably (negligence). Across conditions, we also varied the extent and content of additional information about defendant's subjective mental state: jurors were provided with evidence that the defendant either thought the risk of a harm was high or was low, or were not provided with such information. Foreseeability and negligence scores increased when mock jurors were told the defendant thought there was a high risk, and negligence scores decreased when the defendant thought there was a low risk, compared to when no background mental state information was provided. In Study 2, we replicated these findings by using mild (as opposed to severe) harm cases. In Study 3, we tested an intervention aimed at reducing jurors' reliance on mental states, which consisted in raising jurors' awareness of potential hindsight bias in their evaluations. The intervention reduced mock juror reliance on mental states when assessing foreseeability when the defendant was described as knowing of a high risk, an effect replicated in Study 4. This research demonstrates that jurors rely on mental states to assess breach, regardless of what the legal doctrine says.

Juror Decision Making and Euthanasia: Exploring the Role of Jury Nullification, Manner of Death, and Defendant-Decedent Relationship.

In cases of euthanasia, determinations of guilt may be influenced by legal and extra-legal factors. This study explores the role that nullification instructions play in juror decision making. A defendant may be viewed as less culpable if the act was done out of mercy and jury nullification may occur as a result. We anticipated that these determinations may be influenced by the manner of death and the relational distance between the defendant and the decedent. It is unknown how euthanasia is viewed when it is performed by a physician compared to a family member or friend. To answer these questions, participants acted as mock jurors in a euthanasia case. The descriptions of the case varied by the presence of nullification instructions, the manner of death, and the defendant's relationship to the decedent. The results revealed significant effects of method of euthanasia and the type of defendant on juror verdicts. Jurors were most likely to acquit in a case that provided nullification instructions and involved a spouse using lethal injection for euthanasia. This finding suggests that different circumstances of a euthanasia case will affect jurors' propensity to focus on personal sympathies and interpretations. Limitations and future directions are discussed.

Forty Years of Rape Myth Acceptance Interventions: A Systematic Review of What Works in Naturalistic Institutional Settings and How this can be Applied to Educational Guidance for Jurors.

A systematic review of research assessing rape myth acceptance (RMA) interventions within institutional settings was conducted. The aim of this review was to inform the development of an educational intervention for jurors in rape trials that addresses rape myths, given previous evidence that RMA can affect decision-making and verdicts (Dinos et al., 2015; Gravelin et al., 2019; Leverick, 2020). 12 databases were searched, filtered to return peer-reviewed journals, published from 1980 to 2020, written in English. After removing duplicates from the 5,093 search results returned, 2,676 studies were screened for inclusion. Research studies were included in the review if they assessed the impact of a naturalistic intervention on RMA within an institutional setting. Studies that did not compare an experimental condition to a control condition or did not randomly allocate participants to conditions were excluded. Studies were also excluded if they used a non-validated, or adapted, RMA measure. 20 Research studies were included within the review and were critically appraised according to an author-created critical appraisal tool. It was concluded that RMA interventions can have a short-term impact upon individuals' RMA. Intervention types that were effective in reducing RMA included those that presented RM information; those that contained an empathy component; and bystander programmes. With regards to duration and format, short interventions led to reductions in RMA, and most successful interventions were presented via videos. Implications for policy and practice, and recommendations for future research, are discussed.

Cognitive and human factors in legal layperson decision making: Sources of bias in juror decision making.

Juries in adversarial courts are tasked with several responsibilities. They are asked to: 1) assess the credibility and reliability of the evidence presented; 2) deliberate; 3) and then reach a decision. Jurors are expected to evaluate said evidence in a rational/impartial manner, thus allowing the defendant their right to a fair trial. However, psychological research has shown that jurors are not rational and can reach inaccurate decisions by being biased by certain factors. The aim of the current review was to explore the potential sources from which biases are introduced into the jury. Three main sources of bias were focussed upon: 1) pre-trial bias; 2) cognitive bias; 3) bias from external legal actors (expert witnesses). Legal scholars commonly cite deliberations as a method of attenuating individual juror bias, this claim is evaluated in the review. The review concludes that bias is a multifaceted phenomenon introduced from many different elements, and that several sources of bias may interact with one another during a jury trial to cause the effects of bias to snowball. Four recommendations are made: 1) juror selection should be utilised to create heterogenous juries that challenge problematic biases from individual jurors; 2) increase the quality of expert testimony through training; 3) procedures such as Linear Sequential Unmasking should be adopted by expert witnesses to filter out some sources of bias; 4) legal professionals and jurors should be educated about the effects that biases may have on decision making; 5) more research into bias in jurors is needed.

Juror characteristics on trial: Investigating how psychopathic traits, rape attitudes, victimization experiences, and juror demographics influence decision-making in an intimate partner rape trial.

Introduction: Trial by jury is a longstanding legal tradition used in common law jurisdictions to try the most serious of criminal cases. Yet, despite hearing the same trial evidence, individual jurors often arrive at different verdict decisions, indicating that they may be impacted by more than the evidence presented at trial. This study therefore sought to investigate the role of jurors' psychopathology, attitudinal, experiential, and demographic characteristics upon individual verdict decisions. Methods: Adopting an improved mock trial paradigm, 108 jury-eligible participants took part in one of nine identical 12-person mock trial simulations depicting a videotaped recreation of an intimate partner rape trial. Pre-trial, mock-jurors completed a psychosocial survey capturing their psychopathic personality traits (affective and cognitive responsiveness, interpersonal manipulation; egocentricity), rape myth beliefs, victimization experiences and demographics. Post-trial, jurors deliberated to reach a collective group decision and individual verdict decisions were recorded pre- and post-deliberation. Results: Binary logistic regression analyses revealed rape myth beliefs and juror ethnicity were significantly related to verdict decisions both pre- and post-deliberation. Post-deliberation, decreased affective responsiveness (empathy) and experience of sexual victimization were also found to be significant predictors of guilty verdict selections. Discussion: These findings indicate for the first time that within an intimate-partner rape trial, certain psychosocial traits, crime-specific attitudes, and experiences of sexual victimization appear to predispose juror judgments and decision-making even after group-deliberation. This study therefore has important implications for understanding how individual differences among jurors may impact rape trial verdict outcomes and the need for targeted juror reforms.

Strength Versus Sensitivity: The Impact of Attorney Gender on Juror Perceptions and Trial Outcomes in a Rape Case.

We examined the impact of attorney gender on perceptions of a criminal rape trial. Community members (N = 208) read a trial summary describing a rape scenario in which the gender of the prosecuting and defense attorney were manipulated. The results revealed indirect effects of prosecuting and defense attorney gender on verdict through perceptions of characteristics related to attorney competency. Qualitative analyses further showed that the terms "strength" and "powerful" were central to juror perceptions of male attorneys, whereas the terms "sensitive" and "sympathy" were central when the attorneys were female.

The "Casting Couch" Scenario: Impact of Perceived Employment Benefit, Reporting Delay, Complainant Gender, and Participant Gender on Juror Decision-Making in Rape Cases.

Recent legal and media reports of contemporary and historical rape and sexual assault cases have focused on the entertainment industry, particularly around the notion of the "casting couch." This scenario, in which a powerful figure obtains sometimes nonconsensual sexual acts from subordinate actors in exchange for employment, was used to explore the influence of rape myths and Sexual Economics Theory on mock-juror decision-making. Participant-jurors (n = 907) viewed video and written testimony of a complainant, accusing a male producer of rape. Complainant gender (male, female), delay before reporting the incident to the police (immediately, 6 months, 10 years), and complainant casting in the production were randomly varied (acting role secured, not secured). The strongest effects were that females (79.7%) were significantly more likely than males (62.7%) to deliver a guilty verdict and to recommend longer prison sentences for the offence. When the complainant did not secure the acting role, and they delayed reporting the incident for six months, there was an interaction between complainant gender and verdict. No interacting complainant gender effects on trial outcomes were found in the other delay conditions, or when the actor secured employment. Defendant guilt attributions to the male and female complainant were also differently influenced by rape myth belief levels and homophobic attitudes, but not beliefs in a just world. The casting couch euphemism, reported worldwide, suggests industry acceptance, and may sanitize the act of demanding sex and even committing rape. However, these results have important implications for any occupational setting in which men in positions of power may sexually exploit junior staff.

Greater Knowledge Enhances Complainant Credibility and Increases Jury Convictions for Child Sexual Assault.

Child sexual assault (CSA) cases reliant on uncorroborated testimony yield low conviction rates. Past research demonstrated a strong relationship between verdict and juror CSA knowledge such as typical delays in reporting by victims, and perceived victim credibility. This trial simulation experiment examined the effectiveness of interventions by an expert witness or an educative judicial direction in reducing jurors' CSA misconceptions. Participants were 885 jurors in New South Wales, Australia. After viewing a professionally acted video trial, half the jurors rendered individual verdicts and half deliberated in groups of 8-12 before completing a post-trial questionnaire. Multilevel structural equation modeling exploring the relationship between CSA knowledge and verdict demonstrated that greater CSA knowledge after the interventions increased the odds ratio to convict by itself, and that the judicial direction predicted a higher level of post-trial CSA knowledge in jurors than other expert interventions. Moreover, greater CSA knowledge was associated with heightened credibility perceptions of the complainant and a corroborating witness. At the conclusion of the trial, the more jurors knew about CSA, the higher the perceived credibility of both the complainant and her grandmother, and the more likely jurors were to convict the accused.

Deception and Lie Detection in the Courtroom: The Effect of Defendants Wearing Medical Face Masks.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, defendants and witnesses (as well as the prosecution and defense counsel) may wear medical face masks to prevent the spread of the virus. Alternatively, courtrooms proceedings may take place virtually. In this article, we discuss how these deviations from normal procedures may affect jurors' lie detection ability and decision-making. Although research addressing this specific question does not exist, we are able to formulate an informed view based on the extensive deception literature. Since nonverbal signs of deception in the face and body are virtually absent, we conclude that medical face mask-wearing or virtual courtroom proceedings will not hamper jurors' lie detection abilities. If jurors can hear the speech well, they may become better at detecting deception if they pay more attention to speech content, which may occur as a result of mask-wearing in the courtroom.

When punishment goals moderate and mediate the effect of clinical reports on the recidivism risk on prison sentences.

This research examined whether an individual's endorsement of punishment goals moderates and mediates the effect of a clinical assessment of recidivism risk on the length of prison sentences. We measured participants' endorsement of punishment goals, both before they read a criminal case (i.e. a priori endorsement), and after they had read it (i.e. case-specific endorsement). As expected, the effect of the clinical report's conclusion on participants' sentencing decisions was moderated by a priori endorsement of incapacitation as a punishment goal. Participants who expressed strong (versus weak) a priori endorsement of this punishment goal were influenced by the report's conclusion on the risk of recidivism. In addition, when the clinical report concluded that the offender had a high risk of recidivating, participants expressed greater case-specific motivation to incapacitate him. Finally, the clinical report's conclusion had an indirect effect on the severity of the sentence through case-specific endorsement of the incapacitation punishment goal.

Jury decision-making: the impact of engagement and perceived threat on verdict decisions.

The present study examined the role of political orientation and task engagement in juror decision-making. The study was conducted as a 2 (mode: laboratory versus online) × 2 (role: juror, observer) × 3 (evidence: admissible, inadmissible, control) between-subjects experiment, with participants (N = 157) recruited from a mid-sized Australian university. Findings supported our predictions that political conservatism is associated with convictions, and that university students endorse a wide range of political orientations. Participants who were more engaged in the study perceived more threat in the defendant, and threat, in turn, led to higher conviction rates; furthermore, the effect of participation mode on verdict decisions was completely mediated by perceptions of the threat posed by the defendant. Findings are discussed in terms of their implications for jury decision-making research and its relevance to actual juror decisions.

Juror appraisals of forensic evidence: Effects of blind proficiency and cross-examination.

Forensic testimony plays a crucial role in many criminal cases, with requests to crime laboratories steadily increasing. As part of efforts to improve the reliability of forensic evidence, scientific and policy groups increasingly recommend routine and blind proficiency tests of practitioners. What is not known is how doing so affects how lay jurors assess testimony by forensic practitioners in court. In Study 1, we recruited 1398 lay participants, recruited online using Qualtrics to create a sample representative of the U.S. population with respect to age, gender, income, race/ethnicity, and geographic region. Each read a mock criminal trial transcript in which a forensic examiner presented the central evidence. The low-proficiency forensic examiner elicited a lower conviction rate and less favorable impressions than the control, an examiner for which no proficiency information was disclosed. However, the high-proficiency examiner did not correspondingly elicit a higher conviction rate or more favorable impressions than the control. In Study 2, 1420 participants, similarly recruited using Qualtrics, received the same testimony, but for some conditions the examiner was cross-examined by a defense attorney. We find cross-examination significantly reduced guilty votes and examiner ratings for low-proficiency examiners. These results suggest that disclosing results of blind proficiency testing can inform jury decision-making, and further, that defense lawyering can make proficiency information particularly salient at a criminal trial.

Error Rates, Likelihood Ratios, and Jury Evaluation of Forensic Evidence.

Forensic examiners regularly testify in criminal cases, informing the jurors whether crime scene evidence likely came from a source. In this study, we examine the impact of providing jurors with testimony further qualified by error rates and likelihood ratios, for expert testimony concerning two forensic disciplines: commonly used fingerprint comparison evidence and a novel technique involving voice comparison. Our method involved surveying mock jurors in Amazon Mechanical Turk (N = 897 laypeople) using written testimony and judicial instructions. Participants were more skeptical of voice analysis and generated fewer "guilty" decisions than for fingerprint analysis (B = 2.00, OR = 7.06, p = <0.000). We found that error rate information most strongly decreased "guilty" votes relative to no qualifying information for participants who heard fingerprint evidence (but not those that heard voice analysis evidence; B = -1.16, OR = 0.32, p = 0.007). We also found that error rates and conclusion types led to a greater decrease on "guilty" votes for fingerprint evidence than voice evidence (B = 1.44, OR = 4.23, p = 0.021). We conclude that these results suggest jurors adjust the weight placed on forensic evidence depending on their prior views about its reliability. Future research should develop testimony and judicial instructions that can better inform jurors of the strengths and limitations of forensic evidence.