Psychology of Jury Research --St

Psychology of Jury Research --Steve Penrod

CLASS INFORMATION

This class meets Tuesdays 4:15-6:15 in room 4106N, John Jay College To John Jay College home page

Steve Penrod
Office: 2131N,      ph: 212-237-8877
spenrod@jjay.cuny.edu,            http://penrods.net
This page: http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~spenrod/Juries/

Link to IRB materials for John Jay studies

Course Requirements

General Requirements: Complete readings (which will concentrate on recent research on juries, complemented by some older classics), complete weekly commentaries, organize a set of readings and class discussion around your writing topic, complete papers

Writing Requirements:

Major Written: 15 page jury research proposals/reviews of research

Minor Written: Commentaries in advance of 10 class meetings, file a 275-300 word commentary on readings in response to assigned readings. Submit commentary, critiques, evaluations, ideas for discussion. These are due by 10am on the day of class . Commentaries should be numbered sequentially and the class date to which the commentary refers should be noted. Electronic submission only–see email address above--subject line should indicate class date: Penrod Jury Class 10/24 paper #7

Textbooks: None

Readings: Assignments include relevant appendices.

No Exam: No final.

Grades: 20% classroom participation, 30% commentaries, 20% timely reading of assignments (assessed at end of semester), 30% papers.

Example comment #1

Reading assignments

Readings

9/5 Orientation--Intro

9/12 Pretrial Publicity

Studebaker, C. A. & Penrod, S. D. (2005). Pretrial Publicity and Its Influence on Juror Decision Making. In Brewer, N. & Williams, K. D. (Eds.), Psychology and Law: An Empirical Perspective. New York: Guilford Press.

NSF Research Grant Proposal

Lisa Marie Chrzanowski. (2005). Rape? Truth? And The Media. Laboratory And Field Assessments Of Pretrial Publicity In A Real Case. CUNY Dissertation.

9/19 Jury Consulting

Kressel, N. J., & Kressel, D. F. (2002). Stack and sway: The new science of jury consulting.Boulder, CO, US: Westview Press.
A new and largely hidden profession has emerged during the past three decades. Drawing on the techniques of modern social science, psychology, and market research, its practitioners seek to remake the way we pursue justice in the US. Jury consultants help lawyers to pick-- some would say "stack'-- juries predisposed to render the "right' verdict. And consultants apply sophisticated research methods to figure out the best strategies for swaying the panel. What are we to make of this new and steadily growing industry? Do the techniques work? Is this, as some critics have argued, a new form of high-tech jury-rigging, not much more acceptable than cruder forms of jury tampering? Or do the methods of jury consultants amount to little more than an extension of what attorneys have always done? This book will reveal the "tricks of the trade' and explore the many ways in which trial consultants have infiltrated the courtroom. The authors' purpose is not to launch an all-out attack on this growing industry, but rather to pull back the curtains, allowing a fair and balanced assessment of a new phenomenon in American justice.

Kovera, M. B., Dickinson, J. J., & Cutler, B. L. (2003). Voir dire and jury selection. In Handbook of psychology: Forensic psychology, Vol. 11. (pp. 161-175). New York, NY, US: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York, NY, US.
In this chapter, the authors describe the procedure, voir dire, through which regular citizens are chosen to serve on juries. They also review the research, examining the efficacy of traditional attorney-conducted jury selection. The authors contrast traditional methods of jury selection with one of the many services provided by trial consultants: scientific jury selection. Scientific jury selection relies on community surveys to identify demographic, personality, or attitudinal correlates of potential jurors' inclinations to vote guilty or not guilty in a particular case. Finally, the authors note the limitations of the extant research on jury selection and, based on relevant social psychological research on attitude-behavior relationships, suggest avenues for future research on voir dire and jury selection.

Survey of Jury Research (read to p. 14 --Juror Personality Traits--for this week)
Devine, Dennis J.; Clayton, Laura D.; Dunford, Benjamin B.; Seying, Rasmy; Pryce, Jennifer. (2001). Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 622-727. [500k pdf] [same paper in 300k wordprocessor file] Tables in 1.4MB pdf or Tables in 1.1MB tif format [free downloadable graphics file viewer-- http://tucows.tierranet.com/mmedia/preview/194967.html 700k ]
This article provides a comprehensive review of the empirical research on jury decision making published between 1955 and 1999. In total, 206 distinguishable studies involving deliberating juries (actual or mock) were located and grouped into 4 categories on the basis of their focal variables: (a) procedural characteristics, (b) participant characteristics, (c) case characteristics, and (d) deliberation characteristics. Numerous factors were found to have consistent effects on jury decisions: definitions of key legal terms, verdict/sentence options, trial structure, jury-defendant demographic similarity, jury personality composition related to authoritarianism/dogmatism, jury attitude composition, defendant criminal history, evidence strength, pretrial publicity, inadmissible evidence, case type, and the initial distribution of juror verdict preferences during deliberation. Key findings, emergent themes, practical implications, and future research directions are discussed.

Optional
Van Wallendael, L., & Cutler, B. (2004). Limitations to Empirical Approaches to Jury Selection. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 4(2), 79-86.
The superiority of social scientific approaches to voir dire is questioned on two grounds. First, the advantage of social scientific methods over normative approaches has not been established. Indeed, we have little empirical understanding of normative approaches to voir dire and therefore have little basis for comparison. Second, the variability in voir dire procedure from courtroom to courtroom and the lack of empirical knowledge on how this variability in practice affects traditional or social scientific approaches to voir dire makes generalizations premature.

9/26 Jury Research Survey [finish Devine, et al]

Devine, Dennis J.; Clayton, Laura D.; Dunford, Benjamin B.; Seying, Rasmy; Pryce, Jennifer. (2001). Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 622-727

Optional: Williams, K & Jones, A. (2005). Trial Strategy and Tactics. In Brewer, N. & Williams, K. D. (Eds.), Psychology and Law: An Empirical Perspective. New York: Guilford Press.

10/3 Classes follow a Monday Schedule

10/10 The Death Qualified Jury

Gross, S. R. (1984). Determining the neutrality of death-qualified juries. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 7-30. [ file is 367k]
Cowan, C.L. & Thompson, W. & Ellsworth, P. (1984). The effects of death qualification on jurors' predisposition to convict and on the quality of deliberation. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 53-80. [file is 365k]
Bersoff, D.N. (1987). Social science data and the Supreme Court. Psychology and Law, 42(1), 52-58. [file is 220k]

10/17 DQJ

Lockhart vs.McCree APA Amicus Brief. (1987). American Psychologist, 42, 59-68. [469k]
Lockhart vs McCree 476 U.S. 162 (1986). [37k in html]]
Elliott, R. (1991). Social science data and the APA: The Lockhart brief as a case in point. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 59-76. [270k]
Ellsworth, P. (1991). To tell what we know or wait for Godot? Law and Human Behavior, 15, 77-9. [222k]

10/24 Juries and Death Penalty Attitudes

Wiener, R. L., Rogers, M., Winter, R., Hurt, L., Hackney, A., Kadela, K., Seib, H., Rauch, S., Warren, L., & Morasco, B. (2004). Guided Jury Discretion in Capital Murder Cases: The Role of Declarative and Procedural Knowledge . Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10, 516-576.
    Capital punishment has once again become the focus of intense national debate in the United States. There is increasingly widespread public concern over the propriety of state-sanctioned executions and the legal processes by which they are accomplished. Even in political arenas, where little more than a decade ago commentators'could quip that "[t]he electric chair has replaced the American flag as your all-purpose campaign symbol," many elected officials are voicing second thoughts about capital punishment. The American Bar Association (ABA), among other prestigious groups, has called for a moratorium on executions until, at least, the procedural flaws in the legal process through which death sentencing takes place--what the ABA analysts characterized as a "haphazard maze of unfair practices"--have been identified and remedied. Recent assessments of the scope and seriousness of the problems that plague this process suggest that the task of reforming the system of capital punishment will prove to be a daunting one. Several of the remaining articles in this theme issue are devoted to capital jury decision making. All of the articles in this theme issue share the implicit assumption that numerous aspects of the system of death sentencing in the Unites States must continue to be subjected to careful and critical empirical scrutiny.

Butler, B. M., & Moran, G. (2002). The role of death qualification in venirepersons' evaluations of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials. Law & Human Behavior, 26(2), 175-184.
    Previous research has found that death qualification impacts jurors' receptiveness to aggravating and mitigating circumstances (e.g., J. Luginbuhl & K. Middendorf, 1988). However, the purpose of this study was to investigate whether death qualification affects jurors' endorsements of aggravating and mitigating circumstances when Witt, rather than Witherspoon, is the legal standard for death qualification. Four hundred and fifty venirepersons from the 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami, Florida completed a booklet of stimulus materials that contained the following: two death qualification questions; a case scenario that included a summary of the guilt and penalty phases of a capital case; a 26-item measure that required participants to endorse aggravators, nonstatutory mitigators, and statutory mitigators on a 6-point Likert scale; and standard demographic questions. Results indicated that death-qualified venirepersons, when compared to excludables, were more likely to endorse aggravating circumstances. Excludable participants, when compared to death-qualified venirepersons, were more likely to endorse nonstatutory mitigators. There was no significant difference between death-qualified and excludable venirepersons with respect to their endorsement of 6 out of 7 statutory mitigators. It would appear that the Gregg v. Georgia (1976) decision to declare the death penalty unconstitutional is frustrated by the Lockhart v. McCree (1986) affirmation of death qualification.

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, & Law, 10(4), 443-470.
    Attitudes toward the death penalty are multifaceted and strongly held, but little research outside of the death-qualification literature has focused on the role that such attitudes and beliefs play in jurors' capital sentencing verdicts. A single item is insufficient to properly measure attitudes toward the death penalty; therefore, a new 15-item, 5-factor scale was constructed and validated. Use of this scale in 11 studies of capital jury decision making found a large effect of general support of the death penalty on sentencing verdicts as well as independent aggravating effects for the belief that the death penalty is a deterrent and the belief that a sentence of life without parole nonetheless allows parole. These effects generally were not completely mediated by, nor did attitudes moderate the effects of, aggravating and mitigating factors

Optional

Allen, M., Mabry, E., & McKelton, D.-M. (1998). Impact of juror attitudes about the death penalty on juror evaluations of guilt and punishment: A meta-analysis. Law & Human Behavior, 22(6), 715-731.
This literature review summarizes the existing research examining how the attitude a potential juror has toward the death penalty impacts on the probability of favoring conviction. The summary of 14 investigations indicates that a favorable attitude toward the death penalty is associated with an increased willingness to convict (average r = .174). Using the binomial effect size display, this favorable attitude towards the death penalty translates into a 44% increase in the probability of a juror favoring conviction.

10/31 Victim and Defendant Characteristics

Myers, B.; Greene, E. (2004). The Prejudicial Nature of Victim Impact Statements: Implications for Capital Sentencing Policy. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 10, 492-515.
Victim impact evidence is presented during sentencing hearings to convey the harm experienced by victims and victims' relatives as a result of a crime. Its use in capital cases is highly controversial. Some argue that the Supreme Court's decision to allow the admission of victim impact statements (VIS) during capital sentencing proceedings (Payne v. Tennessee, 1991) invites prejudice and judgments based on emotion rather than reason. Others reason that it provides an important voice for survivors and affords the jury an opportunity to learn about the victim. The authors outline the chief psychological issues that arise in the context of VIS, including their relevance to jurors' judgments of blameworthiness, concerns that the social worth of the victim will influence jurors' sentencing decisions, and issues related to the emotional appeal of VIS. Psycholegal research on the influence of VIS on mock jurors is reviewed, and implications of this work for capital sentencing policy and suggested directions for future research are discussed

Krauss, D. A., & Lee, D. H. (2003). Deliberating on dangerousness and death: Jurors' ability to differentiate between expert actuarial and clinical predictions of dangerousness. International Journal of Law & Psychiatry, 26(2), 113-137.
Seeks to: (a) replicate the findings of D. Krauss and B. D. Sales (2001) with regard to the effect that different types of expert testimony on future dangerousness exert on mock juror capital sentencing decisions; (b) examine what role deliberation conditions play in these decisions; and (c) explain why clinical opinion expert testimony might be preferred over actuarial expert testimony by jurors. The simulated capital sentencing case used in Krauss and Sales was presented to mock jurors (aged 17-27 yrs) using both written and videotaped materials. Across time, when presented with actuarial expert testimony mock jurors' evaluations of the defendant's dangerousness returned to initial levels after cross-examination and deliberation while jurors' presented with clinical opinion expert testimony ratings remained significantly above their initial levels after these manipulations. Taken together, these results point to juror preference for clinical opinion expert testimony, and support the notion that mock jurors, at least, are unable to fully appreciate the weaknesses of clinical opinion estimates of dangerousness even after cross-examination and deliberation.

Schuller, R., & Klippenstine, M. A. (2004). The Impact of Complainant Sexual History Evidence on Jurors' Decisions: Considerations From a Psychological Perspective . Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10, 321-342.
Although Canada's sexual assault laws have undergone considerable modification and revision since the late 1970s and early 1980s, it has only been within the past decade that a "rape shield" protection has applied to the complainant's prior sexual conduct with the defendant. Although the admission of evidence concerning the complainant's prior sexual conduct with the defendant now receives legislative protection, it can still, under some circumstances, be admitted at trial. Specifically, if the trial judge determines that the evidence pertaining to the complainant's prior sexual conduct with the defendant is of significant probative value to a fact at issue (other than the complainant's consent or credibility) and that this value is not outweighed by any potential prejudicial effects, it may be admitted at trial. Drawing on psychological research investigating the role played by complainant/defendant relational history in people's evaluations of sexual assault, the current article critically examines the potential impact that this evidence may have on jurors' decisions in sexual assault trials. This review suggests that significant dangers are associated with its introduction at trial and also includes a discussion of the legal implications of these research findings.

11/7 Jury Persuasion, confessions, instructions

Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2005). The Last Word in Court--A Hidden Disadvantage for the Defense . Law and Human Behavior, 29, 705-722.
In the legal systems of most western countries, defense attorneys present their sentencing recommendation after the prosecution has presented its sentencing demands. This procedural sequence for criminal cases is intended to balance the impact of both parties on the judge's final decision. Especially the positioning of the defense's plea at the end of the trial follows the fundamental legal principle "in dubio pro reo." Research on judgmental anchoring, however, suggests that the standard procedural sequence may in fact work against this principle. Consistent with this implication, the present studies demonstrate that the defense's sentencing recommendation is anchored on, and consequently assimilated toward, the preceding recommendation by the prosecution. This influence prevents the defense attorney from effectively counterbalancing the prosecutor's demand. Instead, the biased defense attorney's recommendation partially mediates the impact of the prosecutor's demand on the judge's decision. These findings suggest that the standard procedural sequence in court may place the defense at a distinct disadvantage.

Dolnik, L., T. I. Case, et al. (2003). "Stealing thunder as a courtroom tactic revisited: Processes and boundaries." Law & Human Behavior 27(3): 267-287.
Stealing thunder refers to a dissuasion tactic in which an individual reveals potentially incriminating evidence first, for the purpose of reducing its negative impact on an evaluative audience. We examined whether it was necessary to frame the negative revelation in a manner that downplayed its importance, and found that stealing thunder successfully dissuaded mock jurors even without framing. We also sought to determine the mechanism by which stealing thunder operated, and found that stealing thunder led mock jurors to change the meaning of incriminating evidence to be less damaging to the individual. We also found that stealing thunder's effectiveness did not hinge on whether or not opposing counsel also mentioned the thunder evidence, and that the stealing thunder tactic was no longer effective when opposing counsel revealed to the mock jurors that the stealing thunder tactic had been used on them.

Brewer, N., S. Harvey, et al. (2004). "Improving Comprehension of Jury Instructions with Audio-Visual Presentation." Applied Cognitive Psychology 18(6): 765-776.
This study examined whether mock-jurors' comprehension of judicial self-defence instructions improved when an audio-visual instructional format involving computer animations and a flow chart was used. In a mock-juror paradigm, 90 law students (experts) and 90 legally untrained adults (novices) were randomly allocated to one of three instructional conditions (audio, audio-elaborated, audio-visual). Dependent measures of self-defence comprehension included verdict delivery, multiple-choice (recognition), paraphrasing (recall) and novel scenarios (transfer). Law students performed better on self-defence comprehension tests than novices in the audio-only conditions. The audio-visual format significantly enhanced novices' comprehension, with their comprehension scores matching those of law students.

Lassiter, G. D., P. J. Munhall, et al. (2005). "Attributional complexity and the camera perspective bias in videotaped confessions." 27(1): 27-35.
Prior research has established that simply altering the perspective from which a videotaped confession is recorded influences judgments of the confession's voluntariness and the suspect's guilt. This study examined whether, when evaluating a videotaped confession, a higher degree of attributional complexity would buffer people from the contaminating effects of camera perspective. We found that although people high and low in attributional complexity differed in their overall verdicts and voluntariness assessments, they were comparably swayed by the camera's perspective. That is, consistent with prior demonstrations of the camera perspective bias, the proportion of guilty verdicts and the proportion assessing the confession was voluntary were both significantly greater when the camera focused on the suspect rather than focused equally on the suspect and the interrogator. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

Optional:

Weinstock, M. P. and R. A. Flaton (2004). "Evidence Coverage and Argument Skills: Cognitive Factors in a Juror's Verdict Choice." Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 17(3): 191-212.
Juror reasoning and verdict choice have been explored variously as functions of argument skill and the overall story representation of the evidence on which verdict choices are based. This study investigates the proportion of testimony covered in the justification of a verdict choice and its relationship with argument skill, narrative explanation or evidence-based argument, and certainty about verdict choice. Each of these variables was also compared with the verdict choice. People serving jury duty justified verdict choices in two abridged jury trials. Individuals were consistent in the relative amount of evidence used in both trials. Argument skills, evidence evaluation type, and evidence synthesis type all accounted for variance in the amount of evidence covered. Evidence coverage, along with argument skills, predicted verdict choice. As expected, those most certain about verdict choice did not use the most evidence. Implications regarding mediating factors in story construction and juror decision making are discussed.

11/14 Jury Decisionmaking --

Taylor, T. S., & Hosch, H. M. (2004). An examination of jury verdicts for evidence of a similarity-leniency effect, an out-group punitiveness effect or a black sheep effect . Law and Human Behavior, 28, 587-598.
This article reviews legally oriented research guided by terror management theory. An analysis of terror management, a social psychological theory that explicates the central role of mortality concerns in human social behavior, is applied to domains associated with legal decision making. This article reviews research demonstrating that reminders of death instigate pervasive efforts to defend culturally derived belief systems. Next, the authors introduce empirical inquiry that has explicitly examined how mortality salience affects judgments toward criminal offenders, due process concerns, and compliance with judicial admonitions. Finally, the article explores implications for understanding potential bias in trial strategy, deliberation, and outcomes, as well as the psychological consequences of different punishments. Archival data from cases adjudicated by jury in El Paso and Bexar County, Texas, were used to test whether a similarity-leniency effect, an out-group punitiveness effect, or a black sheep effect (BSE; J. M. Marques, V. Y. Yzerbyt, & J.P. Leyens, 1988) influenced jury decisions. Defendant ethnicity, jury ethnic composition, and strength of evidence against the defendant were coded for 418 closed noncapital, felony cases to test their impact on trial verdicts and sentence lengths. Results indicated complex relations exist among juror and defendant characteristics and their influence on trial outcomes. No support was found for any of the theoretical models as predictors of jury decision-making. Strength of evidence was the most influential variable for both verdicts and length of sentences. Case strength, defendant ethnicity, and jury composition were related to sentence lengths.

Arndt, J., Lieberman, J. D., Cook, A., & Solomon, S. (2005). Terror Management in the Courtroom: Exploring the Effects of Mortality Salience on Legal Decision Making . Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 407-438.
This article reviews legally oriented research guided by terror management theory. An analysis of terror management, a social psychological theory that explicates the central role of mortality concerns in human social behavior, is applied to domains associated with legal decision making. This article reviews research demonstrating that reminders of death instigate pervasive efforts to defend culturally derived belief systems. Next, the authors introduce empirical inquiry that has explicitly examined how mortality salience affects judgments toward criminal offenders, due process concerns, and compliance with judicial admonitions. Finally, the article explores implications for understanding potential bias in trial strategy, deliberation, and outcomes, as well as the psychological consequences of different punishments.

Devine, D. J., Olafson, K. M., Jarvis, L. L., Bott, J. P., Clayton, L. D., & Wolfe, J. M. T. (2004). Explaining Jury Verdicts: Is Leniency Bias for Real? . Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2069-2098.
Laboratory research suggests juries that begin deliberation with a strong majority (i.e., 2/3 or more) usually end up choosing the verdict favored by this majority, whereas those without a strong majority generally acquit or hang. We tested the robustness of these findings in the field by examining trial and deliberation correlates of jury verdicts using data from 79 criminal jury trials held in Indiana. As expected, several trial characteristics and the first-vote preference distribution were related to jury verdicts. However, there was no evidence of leniency bias--75% of those juries without a 2/3 majority on the first deliberation vote ended up convicting. Contributions of the study, limitations, and alternative explanations for the observed severity bias are discussed.

11/21 Expert Witnesses/Attorneys

Schuller, R. A., McKimmie, B. M., & Janz, T. (2004). The Impact of Expert Testimony in Trials of Battered Women Who Kill . Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 11, 1-12.
Participants (N = 195) were presented with a criminal homicide trial involving a battered woman who had killed her abuser. Within the trial, the presence of expert testimony (battered woman syndrome, social/agency, no expert testimony) was systematically varied. Overall, participants, drawn from both Australia (n = 99) and Canada (n = 96), were more favourable to the woman's claim of self-defence if they had been provided with expert testimony. The results indicated that, compared to the no expert control condition, the participants provided with expert testimony (either form) were more lenient in their verdict decisions, with this effect most pronounced for Canadian men. Compared to the no expert control condition, the presence of the testimony, either form, also resulted in a belief that the woman's options were far more limited. The implications of these findings are discussed.

McKimmie, B. M., Newton, C. J., Terry, D. J., & Schuller, R. A. (2004). Jurors' responses to expert witness testimony: The effects of gender stereotypes . Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7, 131-143.
The present study investigated whether the impact of expert testimony was influenced by the congruency between the gender of the expert and the gender orientation of the case. 62 participants read a trial transcript involving a price-fixing allegation in either a male or female oriented domain. Within the case, the gender of the expert was manipulated. As predicted, the impact of the expert (e.g., damage awards) was greater when the gender of the expert and domain of the case were congruent as opposed to incongruent. Results also indicated that the impact of gender-domain congruency was particularly pronounced following group discussion. In addition, there was evidence that this effect was mediated through participants' evaluations of the expert witness

Ruva, C. L., & Bryant, J. B. (2004). The Impact of Age, Speech Style, and Question Form on Perceptions of Witness Credibility and Trial Outcome . Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 1919-1944.
The experiment examined the effects that witness age (6, 10, or 22 year old), witness speech style (powerful or powerless), and prosecuting attorney's questioning style (open-or closed-ended) have on perceived witness credibility and trial outcome. Potential jurors (N= 276) read trial transcripts involving a murder. A significant age by speech style interaction revealed that speaking in a powerless manner was significantly more harmful to the adult witness' credibility than it was to the child witness' credibility. A Significant Age x Question Form interaction revealed that question form only had a significant effect on the 6-year-old's credibility. Finally, verdicts, guilt ratings, and the length of the sentence were significantly correlated with ratings of the witness' credibility.

Adams, C. M. S., & Bourgeois, M. J. (2006). Separating Compensatory and Punitive Damage Award Decisions by Trial Bifurcation . Law and Human Behavior, 30, 11-30.
In a simulated products liability trial, we tested the effects of bifurcating decisions regarding compensatory and punitive damage awards. Fifty-nine groups of 5-7 jurors heard evidence in a unitary or bifurcated format, deliberated about the case to a unanimous decision, and awarded damages. Trial bifurcation decreased variability in compensatory damage awards across juries hearing the same case, and also decreased the tendency for juries to award extremely high compensatory damages. In addition, deliberation led to lower compensatory awards in the low injury severity condition and higher awards in the high injury severity condition. Jurors reported that they were using evidence more appropriately when the decisions were bifurcated. Implications of evidence bifurcation in civil trials are discussed.

Optional Reading:

Daniel A. Krauss, [in Word format] [in PDF] Bruce D. Sales (2201). The Effects Of Clinical and Scientific Expert Testimony On Juror Decision Making In Capital Sentencing. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law June 2001 Vol. 7, No. 2, 267-310

Nelson, M. S. (2004). The effect of attorney gender on jury perception and decision-making . Law & Psychology Review, 28, 177-193.
Although few social scientists have addressed the effect of an attorney's gender on jury decisions, those who have explored the topic have reached conflicting conclusions. Most researchers have found that an attorney's gender has an effect on jury verdicts. However, other analysts have concluded that attorney gender has little or no effect on jury decisions. In reaching these conclusions, researchers have examined various factors and combinations thereof to determine the source and extent of juror bias based on attorney gender. A comprehensive review of the literature and studies available indicates that, though the increasing presence of women in the legal profession has decreased the effect of an attorney's gender on his or her success, attorney gender continues to be a pervading factor in jury perception and decision-making.

11/28 Evidence & Instructions

Koehler, J. J. & Thompson, W. C. (2006). Mock Jurors’ Reactions to Selective Presentation of Evidence from Multiple-Opportunity Searches. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 455-468.
Prior to trial, litigants sometimes conduct broad investigations in which there are multiple opportunities to find supportive evidence by chance alone. During trial, litigants may selectively present only the most helpful evidence uncovered by their investigations. Two experiments examined whether mock jurors appreciate that the evidence they hear at trial may be a selective and unrepresentative sample of underlying facts. The data suggest that people do understand the significance of multiple-opportunity searches for legal inference. However, they may not consider the possibility that evidence was strategically selected from a larger sample space of facts unless that sample space is identified.

Horowitz, I. A., Kerr, N. L., Park, E. S., & Gockel, C. (2006). Chaos in The Courtroom Reconsidered: Emotional Bias and Juror Nullification. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 163-181.
A widespread presumption in the law is that giving jurors nullification instructions would result in "chaos"--jurors guided not by law but by their emotions and personal biases. We propose a model of juror nullification that posits an interaction between the nature of the trial (viz. whether the fairness of the law is at issue), nullification instructions, and emotional biases on juror decision-making. Mock jurors considered a trial online which varied the presence a nullification instructions, whether the trial raised issues of the law's fairness (murder for profit vs. euthanasia, and emotionally biasing information (that affected jurors' liking for the victim). Only when jurors were in receipt of nullification instructions in a nullification-relevant trial were they sensitive to emotionally biasing information. Emotional biases did not affect evidence processing but did affect emotional reactions and verdicts, providing the strongest support to date for the chaos theory.

Steblay, N., Hosch, H.M., Culhane, S. E. & McWethy, A. (2006). The Impact on Juror Verdicts of Judicial Instruction to Disregard Inadmissible Evidence: A Meta-Analysis. Law Human Behavior, 30 469–492.
The effect on juror verdicts of judicial instructions to disregard inadmissible evidence was evaluated using meta-analysis. One hundred seventy-five hypothesis tests from 48 studies with a combined 8,474 participants were examined. Results revealed that inadmissible evidence (IE) has a reliable effect on verdicts consistent with the content of the IE. Judicial instruction to ignore the inadmissible evidence does not effectively eliminate IE impact. However, if judges provide a rationale for a ruling of inadmissibility, juror compliance may be increased. Contested evidence ruled admissible accentuates that information, resulting in a significant impact on verdicts. Suggestions for how the courts may mitigate the impact of inadmissible evidence more effectively are discussed.

Bright, D. A., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2006). Gruesome Evidence and Emotion: Anger, Blame, and Jury Decision-Making . Law and Human Behavior, 30, 183-202.
Judges assume that gruesome evidence can influence juror verdicts, but little is known about the manner in which the influence is manifested. In a 2 × 3 study that varied the gruesome content of photographic and verbal evidence, gruesome verbal evidence did not influence mock juror emotional states, and had no impact on the conviction rate. Mock jurors who saw gruesome photographs, compared with those who saw no photographs, reported experiencing significantly more intense emotional responses, including greater anger at the defendant. The conviction rate when visual evidence in the form of gruesome or neutral photographs was included was significantly higher than the conviction rate without photographic evidence. Mean ratings of the inculpatory weight of prosecution evidence by mock jurors presented with gruesome photographs were significantly higher than those by mock jurors who did not view any photographs. Further analyses revealed that mock juror anger toward the defendant mediated the influence of the gruesome photographs in enhancing the weight of inculpatory evidence.

12/5 Jury Composition

Sommers, S. R. (2006). On Racial Diversity and Group Decision Making: Identifying Multiple Effects of Racial Composition on Jury Deliberations . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 597-612.
This research examines the multiple effects of racial diversity on group decision making. Participants deliberated on the trial of a Black defendant as members of racially homogeneous or heterogeneous mock juries. Half of the groups were exposed to pretrial jury selection questions about racism and half were not. Deliberation analyses supported the prediction that diverse groups would exchange a wider range of information than all-White groups. This finding was not wholly attributable to the performance of Black participants, as Whites cited more case facts, made fewer errors, and were more amenable to discussion of racism when in diverse versus all-White groups. Even before discussion, Whites in diverse groups were more lenient toward the Black defendant, demonstrating that the effects of diversity do not occur solely through information exchange. The influence of jury selection questions extended previous findings that blatant racial issues at trial increase leniency toward a Black defendant.

Mitchell, T. L., Haw, R. M., Pfeifer, J. E., & Meissner, C. A. (2005). Racial Bias in Mock Juror Decision-Making: A Meta-Analytic Review of Defendant Treatment . Law and Human Behavior, 29, 621-637.
Common wisdom seems to suggest that racial bias, defined as disparate treatment of minority defendants, exists in jury decision-making, with Black defendants being treated more harshly by jurors than White defendants. The empirical research, however, is inconsistent--some studies show racial bias while others do not. Two previous meta-analyses have found conflicting results regarding the existence of racial bias in juror decision-making (Mazzella & Feingold, 1994, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1315-1344; Sweeney & Haney, 1992, Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 10, 179-195). This research takes a meta-analytic approach to further investigate the inconsistencies within the empirical literature on racial bias in juror decision-making by defining racial bias as disparate treatment of racial out-groups (rather than focusing upon the minority group alone). Our results suggest that a small, yet significant, effect of racial bias in decision-making is present across studies, but that the effect becomes more pronounced when certain moderators are considered. The state of the research will be discussed in light of these findings.

12/12 Jury Decisionmaking

Shari Seidman Diamond. (2002). Convergence and Complementarity and Lay Adjudicators. In van Koppen, P.J., & Penrod, S.D. (Eds.). (2002). Adversarial versus inquisitorial justice: Psychological perspectives on criminal justice systems. New York: Plenum.

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.

Read, J. D., Connolly, D. A., & Welsh, A. (2006). An Archival Analysis of Actual Cases of Historic Child Sexual Abuse: A Comparison of Jury and Bench Trials . Law and Human Behavior, 30, 259-285.

Abstract Logistic regression analyses were used to predict verdicts from 466 Canadian jury and 644 Canadian judge-alone criminal trials involving delayed or historic allegations of child sexual abuse. Variables in regard to the complainant and offence were selected from the legal, clinical, and experimental literatures, including mock juror research. Of six variables that had been related to decisions reached in mock juror research concerning delayed allegations of child sexual abuse (i.e., repressed memory testimony, involvement in therapy, length of delay, age of complainant, presence of experts, and frequency of abuse) two (age of complainant and presence of expert) predicted verdicts. An additional five variables (duration, severity, complainant-accused relationship, threats, and complainant gender) were also examined: of these, threats and the complainant-accused relationship reliably predicted jury verdicts. For judge-alone trials, five variables predicted verdict: length of the delay, offence severity, claims of repression, the relationship between complainant and accused, and presence of an expert. Implications of the jurors' and judges' differential sensitivity to these variables for future simulation and archival research are discussed.

Additional Resources
Viscusi (complete file in Word-775k), W. Kip. (2000). CORPORATE RISK ANALYSIS: A RECKLESS ACT? 52 Stanford Law Review, 547    Alternative files: Viscusi text in Wordperfect [285k]   Tables in pdf [550k]NSF grant proposal (400k pdf) --this proposal has apparently been funded by NSF--Kevin O'Neil, who is the principal architect of the studies will join us for class
Jen Groscup NSF proposal
Kovera, M.B., McAuliff, B.D., & Hebert, K.S. (1999). Reasoning about scientific evidence: Effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decision in a hostile work environment case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 362-375.
Daniel A. Krauss, [in Word format] [in PDF] Bruce D. Sales (2201). THE EFFECTS OF CLINICAL AND SCIENTIFIC EXPERT TESTIMONY ON JUROR DECISION MAKING IN CAPITAL SENTENCING Psychology, Public Policy, and Law   June 2001 Vol. 7, No. 2, 267-310
Solomon M. Fulero and Norman J. Finkel. (1991). Barring Ultimate Issue Testimony An "Insane" RuIe? Law and Human Behavior, 15, 495-507. In Acrobat
Reid Hastie, David A. Schkade, & John W. Payne. (1999) Juror Judgments in Civil Cases: Hindsight Effects on Judgments of Liability for Punitive Damages. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 597-614.)
Tetlock, Philip E.; Kristel, Orie V.; Elson, S. Beth; Green, Melanie C.; Lerner, Jennifer S. (2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. 78, 853-870.) Note: Tetlock Tables and Figures            alternative: Text & Tables in Acrobat
Valerie P. Hans & William S. Lofquist. (1992). Jurors’ Judgments of Business Liability in Tort Cases: Implications for the Litigation Explosion Debate. Law & Society Review, 26, 85-115)
Sophia I. Gatowski, Shirley A. Dobbin, James T. Richardson, Gerald P. Ginsburg, Mara L. Merlino, and Veronica Dahir. ( 2001). Asking the Gatekeepers: A National Survey of Judges on Judging Expert Evidence in a Post-Daubert World. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 433-458.
Cooper, Joel; Bennett, Elizabeth A.; Sukel, Holly L. (1996). Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions? Law & Human Behavior, 20, 379-394.
Cooper, Joel; Neuhaus, Isaac M. (2000). The "Hired Gun' effect: Assessing the effect of pay, frequency of testifying, and credentials on the perception of expert testimony. Law & Human Behavior, 24, 149-171.
Mauet on Cross-examination
Groscup IRB materials (these are in Wordperfect--you will probably have to download and then open them--Word should open them--drag and drop)
MacCoun, R. J. (1996). Differential Treatment of Corporate Defendants by Juries: An Examination of the ‘Deep-Pockets” Hypothesis.
Mitchell, T. L., Haw, R. M., Pfeifer, J. E., & Meissner, C. A. (2005). Racial Bias in Mock Juror Decision-Making: A Meta-Analytic Review of Defendant Treatment . Law and Human Behavior, 29, 621-637.
Horowitz, I. A., Kerr, N. L., Park, E. S., & Gockel, C. (2006). Chaos in The Courtroom Reconsidered: Emotional Bias and Juror Nullification. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 163-181.
Heuer, L.B. & Penrod, S. (1994). Juror notetaking and question asking during trials: A national field experiment. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 121-150.

Bright, D. A., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2006). Gruesome Evidence and Emotion: Anger, Blame, and Jury Decision-Making . Law and Human Behavior, 30, 183-202.

Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Dunford, B. B., Seying, R., Pryce, J. (2001). Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 622-727.

Adams, C. M. S., & Bourgeois, M. J. (2006). Separating Compensatory and Punitive Damage Award Decisions by Trial Bifurcation . Law and Human Behavior, 30, 11-30.

Kovera, M. B., Dickinson, J. J., & Cutler, B. L. (2003). Voir dire and jury selection. In Handbook of psychology: Forensic psychology, Vol. 11. (pp. 161-175). New York, NY, US: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York, NY, US.

Read, J. D., Connolly, D. A., & Welsh, A. (2006). An Archival Analysis of Actual Cases of Historic Child Sexual Abuse: A Comparison of Jury and Bench Trials . Law and Human Behavior, 30, 259-285.

Brewer, N., S. Harvey, et al. (2004). "Improving Comprehension of Jury Instructions with Audio-Visual Presentation." Applied Cognitive Psychology 18(6): 765-776.

Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2005). The Last Word in Court--A Hidden Disadvantage for the Defense . Law and Human Behavior, 29, 705-722.

Kressel, N. J., & Kressel, D. F. (2002). Stack and sway: The new science of jury consulting.Boulder, CO, US: Westview Press.

Van Wallendael, L., & Cutler, B. (2004). Limitations to Empirical Approaches to Jury Selection. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 4(2), 79-86.

Large Jury Bibliography in compressed zip file -- in .rtf format and should open in most word processors -- in zipped .txt file