JURY RESEARCH GROUP

Faculty

Maureen O’Connor	The use of scientific information and expert testimony in the legal system		Michael Leippe
Jennifer Groscup	Jurors' use of expert testimony, the potential of legal safeguards to improve jurors' understanding of expert testimony, and the effects of expert characteristics on jurors		Margaret Bull Kovera	How legal decision-makers evaluate scientific evidence, the effects of voir dire and jury selection on jury decisions,
Saul Kassin			Steve Penrod	Pretrial publicity, joinder of defendants, jury misconduct, jury decisionmaking in death penalty cases

Students

Publications 1997-Present

Breheney, C., Groscup, J., & Galietta, M. (2007). Gender matters in the insanity defense. Law & Psychology Review, 31, 93-123.

Collett, M. E., & Kovera, M. B.  (2003). The effects of British and American trial procedures on the quality of juror decision making.  Law and Human Behavior, 27, 403-422.

Copple, R., Torkildson, J., & Kovera, M. B. (in press). Expert psychological testimony: Admissibility standards. In B. L. Cutler (Ed.), The encyclopedia of psychology and law. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Groscup, J. (2004). Judicial decision making in the aftermath of Daubert and Kumho. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 4, 57-66.

Crocker, C., & Kovera, M. B. (in press).  Systematic jury selection.  In  R. L. Wiener and B. H. Bornstein (Eds.), Trial consulting: A psychological handbook. New York: Springer.   

Finkel, N., & Groscup, J. (1997). Crime prototypes, objective versus subjective culpability, and a commonsense balance. Law & Human Behavior, 21, 209-230.

Finkel, N., & Groscup, J. (1997). When mistakes happen: Commonsense rules of culpability. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 3, 65-125.

Giresi, M., & Groscup, J. (March, 2006). Incarcerated transgender people: More research on transgender inmates is needed to help the forensic system. Judicial Notebook, APA Monitor, 37(3), 43.

Greathouse, S. M., Levett, L. M., & Kovera, M. B. (in press).  Sexual harassment: Antecedents, consequences, and juror decisions. In J. Lieberman and D. Krauss (Eds.), Psychology in the courtroom.  Hampshire, UK: Ashgate Publishing. 

Greene, E., Chopra, S., Kovera, M. B., Penrod, S. D., Rose, V. G., Schuller, R., & Studebaker., C.  (2002). Jurors and juries: A review of the field.  In J. Ogloff (Ed.), Taking psychology and law into the 21st century. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. 

Groscup, J, Penrod, S., Huss, M., Studebaker, C., & O'Neil, K. (2002). The effects of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals on the admissibility of expert testimony in state and federal criminal cases. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 8, 339-372.

Groscup, J. (2004). Judicial decision making in the aftermath of Daubert and Kumho. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 4, 57-66.

Groscup, J. (April, 2005). Court considers prisoners’ rights: Do the procedures for transferring inmates’ to super-maximum security prisons protect the inmates’ liberty interests? Judicial Notebook, APA Monitor, 36(4), 78.

Groscup, J. (Fall, 2004). Jury decision making about damages: Research informing legal policy – A comparative book review of Greene & Bornstein, Determining Damages: The Psychology of Jury Damage Awards and Sunstein et. al, Punitive Damages: How Juries Decide.

Groscup, J. (February, 2006). How does hearsay affect a trial? The Supreme Court considers the meaning of “testimony” under the Confrontation Clause. Judicial Notebook, APA Monitor, 37(2), 25.

Groscup, J. (October, 2005). “I bet you want to talk now, huh?”: The Supreme Court considers police interrogations and the right to counsel. Judicial Notebook, APA Monitor, 36(9), 66.

Groscup, J. (September, 2006). Jury instructions in civil cases: The Supreme Court considers contributory negligence. Judicial Notebook, APA Monitor, 37(8), 65.

Groscup, J., & Daftary, T. (in press). Juries and the insanity defense. In B.L. Cutler (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage University Press.
Groscup, J, Penrod, S., Huss, M., Studebaker, C., & O'Neil, K. (2002). The effects of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals on the admissibility of expert testimony in state and federal criminal cases. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 8, 339-372.

Groscup, J., & Penrod, S. (2003).  Experts in criminal cases: Police versus psychologists, Seton Hall Law Review, 33, 1141-1165.

Groscup, J., & Tallon, J. (July/August, 2007). Kindly wrap it up: The potential effects of summary information in trials. Judicial Notebook, APA Monitor, 38(7), 58.

Gutek, B.A., O’Connor, M., Melançon, R., Geer, T., Done, R., & Stockdale, M. (1999). The utility of the reasonable woman legal standard in hostile environment sexual harassment cases: A multimethod, multistudy examination. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 5, 596-629. Article reprinted in: Lefcourt, C.H., & Moriarty, J.C. (Eds.). (2001). Women and the Law, Release #15. St. Paul, MN: West Group.

Kassin, S. M. (2006). Judging eyewitnesses, confessions, informants, and alibis: What is wrong with juries, and can they do better? In A. Heaton-Armstrong, E. Shepherd, G. Gudjonsson, & D. Wolchover, (Eds.), Witness Testimony: Psychological, Investigative and Evidential Perspectives (pp. 639-673). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Leippe, M. R., Eisenstadt, D. E., Rauch, S. M., & Seib, H. (2004) Timing of eyewitness expert testimony, jurors’ need for cognition, and case strength as determinants of trial verdicts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 524-541.

Kassin, S. M., & Studebaker, C. A. (1998). Instructions to disregard and the jury: Curative and paradoxical effects. In J. Golding & C. MacLeod (Eds.), Intentional Forgetting:  Interdisciplinary Approaches (pp. 413-434). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kassin, S.M., & Dunn, M. (1997). Computer-animated displays and the jury: Facilitative and prejudicial effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 269-281.

Kovera, M. B. & Borgida, E. (1998).  Expert scientific testimony on child witnesses in the age of Daubert.  In S. J. Ceci & H. Hembrooke (Eds.), Expert witnesses in child abuse cases: What can and should be said in court (p. 185-215).  Washington, DC:  American Psychological Association.

Kovera, M. B. (2002). The effects of general pretrial publicity on juror decisions: An examination of moderators and mediating mechanisms.  Law and Human Behavior, 26, 43-72. 

Kovera, M. B. (2007).  Implications of automatic and controlled processes in stereotyping for hate crime perpetration and litigation.  In R. L. Wiener, B. Bornstein, R. Schopp, & S. Willborn (Eds.), Social consciousness in legal decision making: Psychological perspecives (pp. 227-246).  New York: Springer. 

Kovera, M. B. (2008).  Applying social psychology to law.  In R. Baumeister and B. Bushman (Eds), Social Psychology and Human Nature (pp. C1-C16).  Belmont, CA:  Wadsworth. 

Kovera, M. B., & Cass, S. A.  (2002). Compelled mental health examinations, liability decisions, and damage awards in sexual harassment cases: Issues for jury research. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 96-114.

Kovera, M. B., & Greathouse, S. M.  (2007).  Pretrial publicity: Effects, remedies and judicial knowledge.  In E. Borgida and S. T. Fiske  (Eds.), Psychological science in court: Beyond common knowledge.  Blackwell Publishers. 

Kovera, M. B., & McAuliff. B. D.  (2000).  The effects of peer review and evidence quality on judge evaluations of psychological science: Are judges effective gatekeepers?  Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 574-586. 

Kovera, M. B., Dickinson, J., & Cutler, B. L.  (2003). Voir dire and jury selection. In A. M. Goldstein (Ed.), Comprehensive Handbook of Psychology, Volume 11:  Forensic Psychology (pp. 161-175). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Kovera, M. B., Gresham, A. W., Borgida, E., Gray, E., & Regan, P. C. (1997).  Does expert testimony inform or influence juror decision-making?  A social cognitive analysis.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 178-191. 

Kovera, M. B., McAuliff, B. D., & Hebert, K. S. (1999).  Reasoning about scientific evidence: Effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 362-375.

Kovera, M. B., Russano, M. B., & McAuliff, B. D. (2002). Assessment of the commonsense psychology underlying Daubert:  Legal decision makers’ abilities to evaluate expert evidence in hostile work environment cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 180-200.

Levett, L. M., & Kovera, M. B. (in press). The effectiveness of educating jurors about unreliable expert evidence using an opposing witness. Law and Human Behavior.

Levett, L. M., Danielsen, E. M, & Kovera, M. B., Cutler, B. L. (2005).  Juror decision making.  In N. Brewer & K. Williams (Eds.), Psychology and law: An empirical perspective (pp. 365-406).  New York: Guilford. 

McAuliff, B. D., & Kovera, M. B. (in press). Juror Need for Cognition and sensitivity to methodological flaws in expert evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.

McAuliff, B. D., & Kovera, M. B.  (in press).  Estimating the effects of misleading information on witness accuracy: Can experts tell jurors something they don’t already know?  Applied Cognitive Psychology.   

McAuliff, B. D., Nemeth, R. J., Bornstein, B. H., Penrod, S.D. (2003). Juror decision-making in the 21st century: confronting science and technology in court. In D. Carson & R. Bull (Eds.), Handbook of psychology in legal contexts (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley

Miller, M., & Groscup, J. (February, 2007). “Friends” getting too friendly: Courts may have to consider the meaning of sexual harassment in sexually charged working environments. Judicial Notebook, APA Monitor, 38(2), 52.

O’Connor, M., Gutek, B.A., Stockdale, M.S., Geer, T., & Melançon, R. (2004). Predictors of sexual harassment judgments: More than sex of the rater. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 69-95.

O'Neil, K.M., Patry, M. W., & Penrod, S. D. (2004). Exploring the effects of attitudes toward the death penalty on capital sentencing verdicts.  Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 10, 443-470.

Penrod, S. & Heuer, L.B. (1997). Tweaking commonsense: Assessing Aids to Jury Decision Making. Psychology, Public Policy & Law, 3, 259-284., 3, 338-361.

Penrod, S. & Heuer, L.B. (1998). Improving group performance: The case of the jury. In R. S. Tindale, L. Heath, J. Edwards, E. J. Posavac, F. B. Bryant, Y. Suarez-Balacazar, E. Henderson-King & J. Meyers, Theory and Research on Small Groups. Plenum: New York.

Robbennolt, J., Groscup, J. & Penrod, S. & Heuer, L. (2006). Evaluating and assisting jury competence in civil and criminal cases. In I. Weiner & A. Hess (ed.), Handbook of Forensic Psychology (3rd Ed.). New York: Wiley.

Robbennolt, J., Penrod, S. & Heuer, L. (1999). Assessing and Aiding Jury Competence. In I. Weiner & A. Hess (ed.), Handbook of Forensic Psychology (2nd Ed.). New York: Wiley.

Stolle, D. P, Robbennolt, J. K, Patry, M. & Penrod, S.D. Fractional Factorial Designs for Legal Psychology. (2002). Behavioral Sciences and Law. 20, 5-17.

Studebaker, C. A & Penrod, S. D. (1997). Pretrial publicity: The media, the law and common sense. Psychology, Public Policy & Law, 3, 428-460.

Studebaker, C. A. & Penrod, S. D. (2005).  Pretrial publicity and its influence on juror decision making.  In N. Brewer & K. D. Williams, Psychology and Law: An Empirical Perspective.  New York: Guilford.

Studebaker, C. A., Robbennolt, J. K., Pathak-Sharma, M. K., & Penrod S. D. (2000). Assessing Pretrial Publicity Effects: Integrating Content Analytic Results. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 317-336.  Reprinted in Hans, V. (2006). The Jury System: Contemporary Research, Ashgate.

Studebaker, C. A., Robbennolt, J. K., Penrod, S. D., Pathak-Sharma, M. K., Groscup, J. L. and Devenport, J. L. (2002). Studying pretrial publicity effects: New methods for improving ecological validity and testing external validity. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 19-41.

Studebaker, C., Devenport, J. & Penrod, S. (1999). Perspectives on Jury Decisionmaking: Cases with Pretrial Publicity and Cases Based on Eyewitness Identifications. In F. T. Durso & R. S. Nickerson (eds.), Handbook of Applied Cognition. New York: Wiley

Studebaker, C.A., Robbennolt, J.K., Penrod, S.D., Pathak-Sharma, M.K., Groscup, J.L., & Devenport, J.L. (2002). Studying pretrial publicity effects: New methods for improving ecological validity and testing external validity. Law & Human Behavior, 26, 19-42.

van Koppen, P.J., & Penrod, S.D. (2002). Adversarial or Inquisitorial: Comparing Systems. In van Koppen, P.J., & Penrod, S.D. (Eds.). Adversarial versus inquisitorial justice: Psychological perspectives on criminal justice systems. New York: Plenum.

van Koppen, P.J., & Penrod, S.D. (2002). The John Wayne and Judge Dee Versions of Justice. In van Koppen, P.J., & Penrod, S.D. (Eds.). Adversarial versus inquisitorial justice: Psychological perspectives on criminal justice systems. New York: Plenum.

van Koppen, P.J., & Penrod, S.D. (Eds.). (2002). Adversarial versus inquisitorial justice: Psychological perspectives on criminal justice systems. New York: Plenum.

Vidmar, N., Lempert, R. O., Diamond, S. S., Hans, V. P., Landsman, S., MacCoun, R., Sanders, J., Hosch, H. M., Kassin, S., Galanter, M., Eisenberg, T., Daniels, S., Greene, E., Martin, J., Penrod , S., Richardson, J., Heuer, L., Horowitz, I. (2000). Amicus brief: Kumho Tire v. Carmichael. Law & Human Behavior. 24, 387-400

Research Grants

Penrod, S. D. National Science Foundation, Field and Lab Studies of the Effects of Pretrial Publicity on Jurors’ Trial Judgments.  ($275,000, 8/1/06-7/31/08).

Penrod, S. D. National Science Foundation, A Continuing Empirical Analysis of the Admissibility of Expert Testimony: Investigating the Effects of Kumho Tire v. Carmichael. ($102,307, 01/15/00 - 09/15/02).

Penrod, S. D. National Science Foundation, A Scientific Examination of the Admissibility of Scientific Expert Testimony Under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. ($78,000, Sept 1997-March 1999).

Penrod, S. D. National Science Foundation, Risk Management and Juries: How Jurors React to Cost-Benefit Analyses. ($260,000, 2/02-2/04). With Kevin O'Neil.

Penrod, S. D. National Science Foundation, The Death Equation: Decisionmaking in Death Penalty Cases ($172,021, Aug 1998-Feb 2001).