JURY RESEARCH GROUP
Faculty
|
|
The use of scientific information and expert testimony in the legal system |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pretrial publicity, joinder of defendants, jury misconduct, jury decisionmaking in death penalty cases |
|
|
How legal decision-makers evaluate scientific evidence, the effects of voir dire and jury selection on jury decisions, |
Students
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Caroline Crocker |
Tarika Daftary |
|
Jason Mandelbaum |
Jennifer Tallon |
David Zimmerman |
Publications
1997-Present
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.
Crocker, C., & Kovera, M. B. (in press). Systematic jury selection. In
R. L. Wiener and B. H. Bornstein (Eds.), Trial consulting: A
psychological handbook.
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.
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.
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., & Daftary, T. (in press). Juries and
the insanity defense. In B.L. Cutler (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of Psychology and Law.
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.
Hasel, Lisa E.; Kassin, Saul M. (2009). On the Presumption of
Evidentiary
Heuer, L., Penrod, S., & Kattan, A. (2007). The
role of societal benefits and fairness concerns among decision makers and
decision recipients. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 573-610.
Kassin, Saul
M. (2008). Confession evidence:
Commonsense myths and misconceptions.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1309-1322.
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).
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).
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).
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).
Kovera, M. B. (2008). Applying social psychology to law. In
R. Baumeister and B. Bushman (Eds),
Social Psychology and Human Nature (pp. C1-C16).
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).
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.
(2008). The effectiveness of opposing expert witnesses for educating jurors
about unreliable expert evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 363-374.
Levett, Lora M.; Kovera, Margaret
Bull; (2009). Psychological mediators of the effects of
opposing expert testimony on juror decisions. Psychology, Public Policy,
and Law, 15, 124-148
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).
McAuliff, B. D., & Kovera, M. B.
(2008). Juror
need for cognition and sensitivity to methodological flaws in expert evidence.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 385-408.
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, Bradley D.; Kovera, Margaret
Bull; Nunez, Gabriel. (2009).
Can jurors recognize missing control groups, confounds, and
experimenter bias in psychological science?
Law and Human Behavior, 33, 247-257.
McAuliff, B. D., Nemeth, R. J.,
Bornstein, B. H.,
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'Connor, M. (2007). Expert Testimony in Sexual Harassment Cases: Its Scope, Limits, and
Effectiveness. In Costanzo, Mark
(Ed); Krauss, Daniel (Ed); Pezdek, Kathy (Ed), Expert
psychological testimony for the courts. (pp. 119-148).
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:
Robbennolt, J., Groscup, J. & Penrod,
S. & Heuer, L. (2006). Evaluating and
assisting jury competence in civil and criminal cases. In
Robbennolt, J., Penrod, S.
& Heuer, L. (1999). Assessing
and Aiding Jury Competence. In
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.
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.
van Koppen,
P.J., &
van Koppen,
P.J., &
van Koppen,
P.J., &
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.
Research Grants
Penrod, S. D. National Science Foundation.
Understanding The Impact On Juries Of Defense
Responses To Victim Impact Statements. ($245,813—8/08-8/10).
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.
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).
Margaret Bull Kovera National
Science Foundation SES# 0520617 (2006-2009) Title: Psychological
Mechanisms Underlying the Biasing Effects of Voir
Dire Amount: $365,000
Margaret Bull Kovera and Lora M. Levett National Science Foundation SBE# 0453197
(2005-2006) Title: Educating the jury about junk science through an
opposing expert witness Amount: $12,820
Margaret Bull Kovera National
Science Foundation SBE# 0136652 (2002-2006) Title: When juveniles are
tried as adults: The effects of voir dire on jury
composition and juror decisions. Amount: $300,062
Margaret Bull Kovera and Brian Cutler
National Science Foundation SBE# 9986240 (2000-2003) Title: Investigator
bias in identification procedures: Mechanisms and safeguards. Amount:
$191,682
Margaret Bull Kovera National Science Foundation SBE# 9711225
(1997-2000) Title: Reasoning about scientific evidence: The effects of
heuristic cues, evidence quality, and reasoning ability. Amount:
$110,772