Academic literature on the topic 'Juror judgement'

Purpose This study aims to investigate whether awareness of an ASD diagnostic label, knowledge of psychological conditions, and trait-empathy influence mock-jurors’ judgements of an autistic defendant. Some autistic adults have an increased risk of acting illegally and standing trial as a defendant because of their behavioural and cognitive characteristics. In court, they may display behaviours stereotypically perceived by jurors as indicators of guilt (e.g. averted gaze), potentially resulting in negative judgements. However, if autistic defendants disclose their condition, this may positively influence jurors’ judgements by offering an alternative explanation for their behaviour. This effect may be stronger in jurors who are highly knowledgeable about psychological conditions and empathic. Design/methodology/approach Non-autistic participants (N = 328; M age = 28.21) read a scenario about a defendant’s crime and courtroom behaviour before judging their character and reporting how empathic they felt towards the defendant. Participants were then informed that the defendant was autistic and provided with information about autism before re-evaluating the defendant. Participants’ empathy and knowledge of psychological conditions, including autism, were measured. Findings Participants judged the defendant to be more honest and less blameworthy post-label. Trait empathy was positively associated with honesty ratings and higher levels of self-reported empathy. Overall knowledge was negatively associated with ratings for defendant blameworthiness and likeability. Overall, the findings suggest that autistic defendants may benefit from disclosing their diagnosis as this may result in more favourable juror judgements. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to consider how jurors’ overall knowledge of psychological conditions and trait-empathy may influence judgements of an autistic defendant.

The current study examined the impact of complainant sexual history evidence on mock jurors' judgements in a sexual assault trial. One hundred and sixty-nine undergraduates listened to an audiotape of a sexual assault trial in which the sexual history between the complainant and defendant was systematically varied to include either sexual intercourse, kissing and petting, or no history information. The effectiveness of judicial limiting instructions that accompany the introduction of sexual history evidence at trial was also examined. Compared to the control condition, those who heard evidence involving prior sexual intercourse between the complainant and defendant were less likely to find the complainant credible, more likely to find her blameworthy, and more likely to believe she consented. The information failed, however, to influence participants' judgements about the defendant's belief in consent. As well, the presence of limiting instructions did little to curb the prejudicial influence of this information.

This study investigated the impact of a defendant’s emotions, expressed through gait and displayed through video footage, on jury decision making. The degree of state empathy and the case-related judgements of the mock jurors were assessed using a questionnaire. The results of the study suggest that the emotions being portrayed by a figure in a piece of video footage can be identified by viewers, and that careful consideration needs to be given to the potential ramifications of playing video footage in court and the subsequent impact on collective jury decision making.

Jurors in California have awarded $289 million to a man who claimed that his cancer was due to Monsanto's herbicide glyphosate, even though that is biologically impossible. Even the judge acknowledged that there was no evidence of harm. Yet, trial lawyers manipulated a jury's emotions and the public's misunderstanding of science to score another jackpot verdict. The plaintiff, Dewayne Johnson, claims that glyphosate gave him non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a cancer that occurs when the immune system goes awry. There are three major problems with this claim. First, as stated above, glyphosate does not cause cancer because it does not harm humans. It is an herbicide, so it is only toxic to plants. There is no known biological mechanism by which glyphosate could cause cancer, therefore its carcinogenicity is not even theoretically possible. That is why there is not a single reputable public health agency that believes glyphosate causes cancer. The US Environmental Protection Agency, the World Health Organization, and the European Food Safety Authority all reject claims of any link. The only organization of note that rejects this scientific consensus is a group within the World Health Organization called the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Contrary to all evidence, the group insists that glyphosate causes cancer – along with bacon and hot water. The truth is that IARC is a fringe outlier, staunchly ideological rather than scientific, and rife with financial conflicts of interest. Christopher Portier, a special adviser to the IARC working group that examined glyphosate, was also working for the activist organization the Environmental Defense Fund and received $160,000 from trial lawyers who stood to profit handsomely if IARC declared glyphosate a carcinogen because they could file suits in lawsuit-happy California. IARC's credibility has been so thoroughly shattered that Congress recently pulled its funding. Secondly, although the root cause of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is unknown, that does not mean its etiology is completely open to speculation. Lymphomas originate from white blood cells, so scientists believe that autoimmune disease or chronic infections play a role. Just because the plaintiff's attorneys can fool a jury into believing that glyphosate causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma does not mean there is any scientific evidence – and there is not. Thirdly, glyphosate has been off-patent for 18 years, and about 40% of the world's glyphosate is made in China. So, why pick on Monsanto when several different companies could have supplied the glyphosate the plaintiff used?

Reports of sexual offences have increased in recent years, with many cases involving allegations against high-status individuals (e.g., Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby). In addition, many of these cases have involved allegations against the defendant from multiple victims, with long delays in reporting of the alleged assault. The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of defendant occupational status (low vs. high), defendant race (White, Black), number of allegations (one vs. five victims), and the length of reporting delay (5, 20, or 35 years) on mock-juror decision-making. Mock-jurors ( N = 752) read a mock-trial transcript describing a sexual assault case. After reading the trial transcript, mock-jurors were asked to provide dichotomous and continuous guilt ratings, as well as ratings regarding their perceptions of the defendant and victim. Results revealed that mock-jurors rendered more guilty verdicts, assigned higher guilt ratings, and perceived the defendant less favorably and the victim more favorably, when the defendant was White (as opposed to Black) and when there were multiple allegations against the defendant. The current findings suggest that defendant race and the number of allegations are highly influential in the context of a sexual assault case.

Extra-legal variables are factors within a trial that are logically irrelevant to the determination of a verdict. They are deemed extra-legal they are extra to the law and are not prescribed in the relevant statutes upon which the relevant issue must be decided. Research investigating judicial decision-making, however, demonstrates that extra-legal variables often affect jurors' judgements and improperly influence their decision-making. Examples of extra-legal variables include the personal attributes of trial participants, e.g., the victim's physical attractiveness, socio-economic status, and age. Studies conducted in North America indicate that the race of the victim and defendant inappropriately influences jurors' decision-making. However, to date, no such published research has been conducted in Australia. Due to Australia's diverse population, which consists of several minority groups and a dominant Caucasian group, it is likely that race may net as an extra-legal variable. Furthermore, several Australian studies have documented a strong prejudice against Aborigines and Asians, with the potential for a newly emerging prejudice against individuals from Middle-Eastern countries. The present study investigated whether the race of the victim would affect jurors' perceptions and judgements in a simulated attempted-rape trial. Research also indicates that the process of deliberation amongst other things, can affect the influence of extra-legal variables on decision-making, and that it can either exaggerate or attenuate this influence. Therefore, the impact of deliberation on the jurors' perceptions and judgements was investigated, and also whether an interaction occurred between race and deliberation. One hundred and six participants were recruited to examine the effects of the race of the victim on their judgements of the defendant, crime, and victim. Due to Australia having a dominant Caucasian race, it was assumed that when the victim is Aboriginal, Asian or of a Middle Eastern origin, jurors' judgements of the defendant, crime and the victim will be negatively prejudiced by the victim's race, and that when the victim is Caucasian, no such prejudice will impact upon the jurors' decision-making. It was also assumed that deliberation would attenuate the influence of the extra-legal variable of the victim's race, such that any bias observed in pre-deliberation judgements will be reduced in post deliberation judgements. The quantitative data was analysed with a series of 4 x 2repeated measures ANOVAs and a qualitative analysis was undertaken of the deliberation discussions. Quantitative results revealed no significant effects for victim race. However, the effect for race approached significance regarding the seriousness of the crime, with the crime perceived as least serious for the Middle-Eastern victim. The pattern of results identified across several items also revealed a consistent trend toward the different races. An overall positive trend was observed toward the Aboriginal victim, and a negative trend identified toward the Middle-Eastern victim, and to a lesser extent, the Caucasian victim. Qualitative analyses support this pattern of results. The effect for deliberation revealed a number of significant findings, with the victim's character perceived as more positive, and the defendant as less guilty following deliberation. Significant interactions were also identified regarding the defendant's sentence and the responsibility of the victim. In particular, following deliberation, the defendant in the Caucasian condition was given a significantly reduced sentence, and the Asian victim was perceived as significantly less responsible. The results are discussed in terms of the need for closer analyses of Australian intergroup relations, social desirability and cultural stereotyping, and their influence on courtroom decisions.

This research examined the psychosocial-cognitive variables involved in decision making in the context of a murder trial. Schema Theory and the Elaboration Likelihood Model provided the theoretical bases from which three studies were conducted to investigate the influence of justice and vengeance motives, emotions, and factual and emotive information, upon juror judgement. Study 1 of this research involved the development of the ESPI Scale to measure the differing levels of affect and cognition hypothesised to underpin each of the emotion constructs (i.e., empathy, sympathy, personal distress, and indifference). Study 2 subjected the data from 203 respondents to exploratory factor analysis. The data from a further 202 respondents was utilised in confirmatory factor analysis which was conducted via structural equation modelling (SEM). In Study 3, data from 498 respondents were utilised to test the adequacy of two structural path models: the Schema model and an alternative model labelled Posner’s model. The direct and indirect relationships between the variables of these two models were assessed utilising SEM. The Schema model tested the hypothesis that justice and vengeance motives should be directly and indirectly associated with the judgement rendered through (1) the four emotions, and (2) emotive and factual information. Posner’s model also predicted that justice and vengeance motives should have direct and indirect associations with the judgement rendered through (1) emotive and factual information, and (2) the four emotions. In addition to investigating the appropriate sequential ordering of the variables involved in decision making, this research assessed the impact of the presentation of black and white photographs and colour photographs on the two decision-making processes. The results indicated that while both structural models were adequate in representing the decisionmaking process, Posner’s model was a better representation for the colour photographs, while decision-making via the Schema model was similar for both photographs modes. The implications of the study’s findings for theory and research, and for the legal process are discussed.

This item is only available electronically.
Objective: The present study aimed at understanding the effect of witness demeanour and testimonial inconsistencies on jurors’ assessment of probability of guilt. Method: It explored the hypothesis that extreme emotions, as depicted in witness demeanour, along with its interaction with the inconsistencies in testimony will affect the judgement of probability of guilt. A sample of one hundred and twenty-seven participants were recruited using snowball sampling technique, flyers and the online Research Participation System. The process of juror judgement was assessed using a brief audio recording of a criminal trial. Design: The study followed a 2 (witness demeanour) x 2 (testimonial inconsistencies) between group experimental design. The independent variables were witness demeanour and testimonial inconsistencies. Witness demeanour was manipulated using presentation of evidence that showed variations in paralinguistic cues such as pitch and tone. Testimonial inconsistencies were engineered to include certain contradictions or incorrect information to the trial. The probability of guilt judgements was assessed by using a questionnaire. Results: The demeanour of the witness had a significant effect on the juror’s assessment of the defendant’s probability of guilt. Testimonial inconsistencies and their interactions with witness demeanour however yielded no significant effects on probability of guilt. Conclusions: These findings imply that even within legal proceedings, when jurors have been instructed to consider only relevant facts certain abstractions permeate through affecting their judgement. The results of this study can aid us in understanding how extralegal factors operate within a jury setting. Keywords: Juror judgement, witness demeanour, testimonial inconsistencies.
Thesis (B.PsychSc(Hons)) -- University of Adelaide, School of Psychology, 2018

This item is only available electronically.
Jurors have the important task of deciding whether the defendant is guilty of an offense in a criminal trial. A jury makes a subjective determination of defendant or witness credibility solely based on their testimony and is asked to refrain from using personal beliefs and common sense in making their verdict. They must apply judicial instructions, which outline the relevant law, to the evidence presented at the trial. Previous mock juror literature has illustrated that judgements of credibility are often governed by various social stereotypes and beliefs about accepted norms of behaviour. Emotional displays by a witness that fit held stereotypes during their testimony are often a strong determinant of both perceived credibility and judgements of guilt. However, the literature is heavily saturated with rape, sexual assault, and partner violence cases whereby the victim is often a female and the suspect a male. There is also little understanding about how trauma-informed judicial instructions can influence perceptions of guilt. Here we explore how emotion displayed by a female defendant in a murder case affects credibility ratings given by mock jurors. We hypothesise that trauma-informed judicial instructions can moderate stereotypes regarding emotional expression and influence verdicts given by mock jurors. The results illustrated that mock jurors rated the defendant as more credible in the high emotion (vs. the neutral emotion) condition. However, an effect of trauma-informed judicial instructions on measures of guilt was not found.
Thesis (B.PsychSc(Hons)) -- University of Adelaide, School of Psychology, 2021