Neuroscience and Jury Decision-Making

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shelby Hunter ◽  
N. J. Schweitzer ◽  
Jillian M. Ware
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
The United States ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Jury Decision Making ◽  
Expert Evidence ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Current State ◽  
Jury Decision ◽  
Lay Public

This chapter examines the emerging use of neuroscience evidence in criminal trials and its influence on jury decision-making. It begins with a look at the prevalence of neuroscience expert evidence in criminal cases, finding a rapid increase in its use both in and outside of the United States. It then looks at the broader research on how the lay public is persuaded by neuroscience-derived information, followed by an examination of the relatively young literature on the specific (and often paradoxical) impact of neuroscience and neuroimagery on jurors’ judgments of criminal defendants. The chapter concludes with some caveats about the current state of neuroscience with respect to the legal system and some recommendations for future research.

Exploring Juror Evaluations of Expert Opinions Using the Expert Persuasion Expectancy (ExPEx) Framework

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristy Martire ◽  
Danielle Navarro ◽  
Gary Edmond
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Gait Analysis ◽  
Expert Opinion ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Jury Decision Making ◽  
Expert Evidence ◽  
Subjective Ratings ◽  
Expert Opinions ◽  
Jury Decision

Title: Exploring Juror Evaluations of Expert Opinions Using the Expert Persuasion Expectancy (ExPEx) Framework PurposeFactfinders in trials struggle to differentiate witnesses who offer genuinely expert opinions from those who do not. The Expert Persuasion Expectancy (ExPEx) framework proposes eight attributes logically relevant to this assessment: foundation, field, specialty, ability, opinion, support, consistency and trustworthiness. We present two experiments examining the effects of these attributes on the persuasiveness of a forensic gait analysis opinion. MethodsJury-eligible participants rated the credibility, value and weight of an expert report that was either generally strong (Exp. 1; N = 437) or generally weak (Exp. 2; N = 435). The quality of ExPEx attributes varied between participants. Allocation to condition (none, foundation, field, specialty, ability, opinion, support, consistency, trustworthiness) determined which attribute in the report would be weak (cf. strong; Exp. 1), or strong (cf. weak; Exp. 2). ResultsIn Experiment 1, the persuasiveness of a strong report was significantly undermined by weak versions of ability, consistency and trustworthiness. In Experiment 2. a weak report was significantly improved by strong versions of ability and consistency. Unplanned analyses of subjective ratings also identified effects of foundation, field, specialty and opinion.ConclusionsWe found that evidence that ability (i.e., personal proficiency), consistency (i.e., endorsement by other experts), and trustworthiness (i.e., objectivity) attributes influence opinion persuasiveness in logically appropriate ways. Ensuring that factfinders have information about these attributes may improve their assessments of expert opinion evidence. KEYWORDS: Expert opinion; Persuasion; Expert Testimony; Jury decision-making; Expert evidence

scholarly journals On Juror Decision Making: An Empathic Inquiry

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 415-435
Author(s):  
Dan Simon
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Juror Decision Making ◽  
Jury Decision Making ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Fact Finding ◽  
Jury Decision ◽  
Societal Expectations

This review examines the workings of jurors deciding criminal cases. It seeks not to commend or condemn jury decision making but rather to offer an empathic exploration of the task that jurors face in exercising their fact-finding duty. Reconstructing criminal events in the courtroom amounts to a difficult feat under the best of circumstances. The task becomes especially complicated under the taxing conditions of criminal adjudication: the often substandard evidence presented in court; the paucity of the investigative record; types of evidence that are difficult to decipher; the unruly decision-making environment of the courtroom; and mental gymnastics required to meet the normative demands of criminal adjudication. The critical spotlight is directed not at the jurors but at the conditions under which we expect them to fulfill their duty and at the unverified reverence in which their verdicts are held. The article concludes with a set of recommendations designed to assist our fact-finders in meeting the societal expectations of this solemn task.

Criminal Juries in the 21st Century

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret C. Stevenson ◽  
Cynthia J. Najdowski
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Psychological Research ◽  
Jury Decision Making ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Technological Advances ◽  
The Common ◽  
And Performance ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Jury Decision

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the goals of the present volume and a preview of the individual chapters herein. Specifically, it reviews research on various understudied and cutting-edge topics related to the intersection of psychological research and criminal jury decision-making. This research is placed in a real-world context by relating it to actual criminal cases that exemplify each topic addressed in the volume. In doing so, the chapter focuses on the common themes that are reflected in all of the chapters of the volume: the need to understand how issues such as societal attitudinal shifts, technological advances, and juror experiences affect the structure, function, and performance of the modern criminal jury; the merits of implementing legal innovations and practices informed by empirical research; and important avenues for future empirical exploration.

Jury Decision Making in the Context of Excuse Defenses

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher S. Peters ◽  
James Michael Lampinen ◽  
William Blake Erickson ◽  
Lindsey Nicole Sweeney ◽  
Brad Zeiler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Jury Decision Making ◽  
Jury Decision

Making a biased jury decision: Using the Steven Avery murder case to investigate potential influences in jury decision-making.

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 429-436
Author(s):  
Lourdes Rodriguez ◽  
Stephanie Agtarap ◽  
Adriel Boals ◽  
Nathan T. Kearns ◽  
Lee Bedford
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Jury Decision Making ◽  
Jury Decision

An Undergraduate Course in Psychology and the Law

1987 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 238-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edith Greene ◽  
Edith Greene
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
Jury Decision Making ◽  
Teaching Aids ◽  
The Law ◽  
Jury Decision

This article describes a course that bridged the disciplines of clinical and experimental psychology and the law. The course included discussion of issues in criminal law, such as the psychology of policing, the reliability of confessions, victimization, plea bargaining, jury decision making, and alternative dispute resolution, and in civil law, such as civil commitment, predicting dangerousness, and child custody. Course objectives, requirements, and teaching aids are outlined, and some thoughts on integrating these diverse topics are included.

scholarly journals The Two–dimensional Model of Jury Decision Making

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-42
Author(s):  
Manfred J. Holler
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Utility Maximization ◽  
Simple Majority ◽  
Jury Decision Making ◽  
Two Dimensional ◽  
Dimensional Model ◽  
Single Group ◽  
Voting Game ◽  
Conflicting Interests ◽  
Jury Decision

Abstract This paper discusses a two-dimensional jury model. It combines the idea of winning a maximum of votes in a voting game with utility maximization that derives from the winning proposition. The model assumes a first mover, the plaintiff, and a second-mover, the counsel of the defendant. Typically, these agents represent parties that have conflicting interests. Here they face a jury that consists of three groups of voters such that no single group has a majority of votes. Each group is characterized by homogeneous preferences on three alternatives that describe the possible outcomes. The outcome is selected by a simple majority of the jury members. The agents are interested in both gaining the support of a majority of jury members and seeing their preferred alternative selected as outcome. It will be demonstrated that equilibrium decision making can be derived for this model.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document