Enhancing the Quality of Jury Decision-Making through Jury Instruction Simplification

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chantelle Baguley
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Jury Decision Making ◽  
Jury Decision

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

Effects of Warning Quality and Expert Testimony on Allocation of Responsibility for Consumer Product Accidents

1998 ◽  
Vol 42 (9) ◽  
pp. 665-669 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael S. Wogalter ◽  
Kimberly A. Brantley ◽  
Kenneth R. Laughery ◽  
David R. Lovvoll
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Factors ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Consumer Product ◽  
Expert Witnesses ◽  
Jury Decision Making ◽  
Jury Decision ◽  
As If ◽  
The Way

The purpose of this experiment was to examine the effects of warning quality and human factors expert testimony on decision making in consumer product injury cases. Participants read summaries of consumer product accidents, where a no, poor or good warning was present. In two conditions, human factors (HF) expert testimony was included, giving an opinion on the quality of the product warnings. Participants allocated percentages of responsibility to the manufacturer, retailer, and consumer, as if they were jury members assigned to the cases. Results showed differences in allocations of responsibility among conditions. Manufacturers were allocated more responsibility when there was no warning on the product or when a poor warning was present and a HF expert testified that a better warning could have been used. Allocations did not differ between poor and good warning conditions, possibly because participants viewing poor warnings lacked knowledge of the way a good warning would look. The results have implications for warning design, the use of HF expert witnesses, and jury decision making.

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.

Judges Versus Juries

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Saks ◽  
Barbara A. Spellman
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Great Majority ◽  
Background Knowledge ◽  
Social Resources ◽  
Good News ◽  
Jury Decision Making ◽  
Factual Information ◽  
Strength Of Evidence ◽  
Information Studies ◽  
Jury Decision

The rules of evidence that have evolved prevent lawyers from using the most powerful, yet the most informationally empty, techniques of persuasion. The rules compel litigators to fight their battles by presenting juries with information. Studies conducted on jury decision-making indicate that evidence—factual information about the events in dispute—is the most potent force driving the verdicts of trials. Studies show that judges and jurors would reach the same verdicts in four-fifths of trials; that similarity is because they are responding to the same information. Studies of differences among jurors in demographics, attitudes, personalities, and knowledge have found that in the great majority of cases such differences matter very little to the outcomes of cases. Variation in the strength of evidence influences decisions far more than who is hearing the evidence. That is good news if we want trials to produce rational decisions based on evidence. The focus on evidence makes a juror’s job a demanding one, presenting challenges to understanding, remembering, evaluating, drawing inferences, and using evidence (in conjunction with the law) to reach conclusions about a disputed matter. Working as a group helps. Groups have advantages over individuals: they possess more cognitive and social resources such as wider background knowledge and experience, the ability of multiple minds to remember, to correct each other’s errors, to think about the proper meaning of the evidence, and so on.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document