The relationship between beliefs, strength of evidence, statistical presentation, and expert testimony on jury decision-making in DNA cases

Judges Versus Juries

The Psychological Foundations of Evidence Law ◽

10.18574/nyu/9781479880041.003.0002 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Do Video Recordings Help Jurors Recognize Coercive Influences in Interrogations?

10.1093/oso/9780190658113.003.0010 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Iris Blandón-Gitlin ◽

Amelia Mindthoff

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Expert Testimony ◽

Video Recording ◽

False Confessions ◽

Jury Decision Making ◽

Wrongful Convictions ◽

Video Recordings ◽

Confession Evidence ◽

Jury Decision ◽

Proper Interpretation

In recognition of the role that false confessions play in wrongful convictions, it is recommended that criminal interrogations be video recorded from beginning to end to document the process by which suspects decide to confess. With a full video recording, it is assumed that jurors can see for themselves whether the defendant was coerced to confess to a crime he or she did not commit. Yet research suggests that video recording may in fact induce bias in interpretations of coercion and confession reliability, as factors like camera angles and close-ups can make confession evidence too vivid and persuasive. Without proper interpretation, even seemingly neutral recordings may unduly influence jurors’ decisions about confessions. This chapter reviews the literature on the usefulness of video-recorded interrogations in assisting jury decision-making, as well as the potential for procedural safeguards (e.g., expert testimony) to improve jurors’ understanding of the issues at hand.

Download Full-text

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

10.31234/osf.io/euh9g ◽

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

Download Full-text

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

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting ◽

10.1177/154193129804200904 ◽

1998 ◽

Vol 42 (9) ◽

pp. 665-669 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

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.

Download Full-text

The Effects of Expert Testimony about Eyewitness Memory on Jury Decision Making

한국심리학회지 사회및성격 ◽

10.21193/kjspp.2008.22.3.003 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 22 (3) ◽

pp. 33-47

Author(s):

So Yeon Jo ◽

조은경

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Expert Testimony ◽

Eyewitness Memory ◽

Jury Decision Making ◽

Jury Decision

Download Full-text

Social Psychology and the Law

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199684267.013.008 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Pam Mueller ◽

Janice Nadler

Keyword(s):

Social Psychology ◽

Decision Making ◽

Expert Testimony ◽

Eyewitness Identification ◽

Narrow Range ◽

Eyewitness Testimony ◽

Jury Decision Making ◽

Related Field ◽

Psychological Science ◽

Jury Decision

Research in psychological science, specifically social psychology, has challenged many of the law's assumptions about human behaviour. Traditionally, these challenges have focused on a fairly narrow range of legal processes involving courtroom evidence and decision making. Thus, social psychologists have examined problems and processes such as pre-trial publicity, interrogations and confessions, juror and jury decision making, and the like. In the related field of cognitive psychology, important contributions from research in memory regarding eyewitness testimony and eyewitness identification have led to greater scrutiny and occasionally expert testimony at trials. This article discusses findings from some of the traditional intersections of law and social psychology, many of which focus on courtroom processes and procedures. It also explores the ways in which more recent findings in social psychology inform debates about legal issues such as punishment, discrimination, morality, mens rea, and remorse, as well of out-of-court processes such as negotiation and dispute resolution.

Download Full-text