Technology On Trial: Facilitative And Prejudicial Effects Of Computer-Generated Animations On Jurors' Legal Judgments

10.32920/ryerson.14649663 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Emma Rempel

Keyword(s):

Presentation Modality ◽

Mock Jurors ◽

Computer Animations ◽

Sequence Of Events ◽

Recent Emergence ◽

Visual Aid ◽

Oral Testimony ◽

Murder Trial ◽

Legal Judgments ◽

Trial Participants

The recent emergence of electronic courtrooms (i.e., courtrooms that are equipped with advanced digital technologies) has generated novel ways to present evidence to jurors. Computer-generated animations, which recreate or illustrate the alleged sequence of events in a crime, are increasingly being used by lawyers to present testimonial evidence to jurors. The current study used a 3 (modality: oral vs. static visual vs. animation) x 2 (congruence: incongruent vs. congruent) between-subjects design to investigate whether presentation modality and evidence congruence affect jurors’ ability to properly evaluate evidence and render ‘accurate’ verdicts. In a laboratory setting, mock jurors (N = 238) read a transcript from a fictitious second-degree murder trial. Participants read testimony from eight witnesses, and heard the oral testimony of the defendant with a static visual aid, a computer-generated animation, or no visual aid. Results demonstrated that mock jurors were more likely to acquit the defendant when his testimony was illustrated with a computer-generated animation compared to a static visual aid or with no additional aid. Research in this area can inform the development of evidentiary regulations which adequately govern the admissibility of computer-generated animations in the courtroom, so as ensure that they are used in a way that maintains a defendant’s right to a fair trial. Keywords: computer-generated evidence, computer animations, legal decision-making, information processing, electronic courtrooms

Download Full-text

The Effects of Polygraph Evidence and Eyewitness Testimony on the Beliefs and Decisions of Mock Jurors

Imagination Cognition and Personality ◽

10.2190/1ab2-3wlx-bfy1-8ycp ◽

1992 ◽

Vol 12 (2) ◽

pp. 103-113 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Nicholas P. Spanos ◽

Bryan Myers ◽

Susan C. Dubreuil ◽

Anne E. Pawlak

Keyword(s):

Small Groups ◽

Eyewitness Testimony ◽

Mock Jurors ◽

Two Factors ◽

Murder Trial

Mock jurors heard one of four versions of a murder trial and then deliberated in small groups to a verdict. Half the juries heard a trial in which an eyewitness identified the defendant as the murderer and half heard a trial in which a polygraph expert testified that the defendant responded deceptively when denying the crime. These two factors were completely crossed in a 2 × 2 (eyewitness/no eyewitness x polygraph/no polygraph) design. Jurors exposed to the eyewitness testimony believed more strongly in the defendant's guilt and voted guilty more frequently than did those not exposed to eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony also enhanced the degree to which jurors believed that other pieces of evidence indicated that the defendant was guilty. Polygraph evidence exerted no significant effects either on jurors' beliefs or on their verdicts.

Download Full-text

Victim Impact Statements: How Victim Social Class Affects Juror Decision Making

Violence and Victims ◽

10.1891/0886-6708.vv-d-15-00187 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 32 (3) ◽

pp. 521-532 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Kimberly Schweitzer ◽

Narina Nuñez

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Juror Decision Making ◽

Low Ses ◽

Mock Jurors ◽

Sentencing Decisions ◽

Capital Murder ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Victim Impact Statements ◽

Murder Trial ◽

Middle Socioeconomic Status

Although the Supreme Court has ruled that victim impact statements (VIS) should be allowed at trial, the concern voiced in Payne v. Tennessee (1991) and Furman v. Georgia (1972) was that VIS might enable jurors to make comparative judgments about the worth of the victim. This study examined the effect VIS and low and middle socioeconomic status (SES) victims have on jurors’ decisions. Mock jurors listened to 1 of 3 audio recordings of the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial (no VIS, low SES VIS, or middle SES VIS) and were asked to sentence the defendant to either life in prison without parole or death. Results indicated VIS themselves did not significantly affect mock jurors’ sentencing decisions. However, mock jurors who heard the middle SES victim VIS were significantly more likely to sentence the defendant to death compared to those who heard the low SES victim VIS. The results suggest that the concerns of the Supreme Court were valid. Mock jurors were impacted by SES information in the VIS and were more punitive toward the defendant when he killed a higher rather than a lower SES person.

Download Full-text

Oral Testimony, the Law and the Making of History: the ‘April 7’ Murder Trial

History Workshop Journal ◽

10.1093/hwj/20.1.5 ◽

1985 ◽

Vol 20 (1) ◽

pp. 5-35 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Alessandro Portelli

Keyword(s):

Oral Testimony ◽

The Law ◽

Murder Trial

Download Full-text

Exploring the use of systematic and heuristic processing in the courtroom: the effect of evidence modality on jurors’ decision-making processes

10.32920/ryerson.14644839 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Stuart Freedman

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Mock Jurors ◽

Use Of Technology ◽

Decision Making Processes ◽

Final Verdict ◽

Murder Trial ◽

Level Of Motivation ◽

Heuristic Processing

The use of technology in the courtroom is increasingly commonplace. While some research has explored how technology may influence jurors throughout the trial itself, there has been little focus on how it might influence jurors during the deliberation period, or whether it affects their verdicts. The current study assessed whether the form of evidence available during the decision-making period, along with the mock juror’s level of motivation for the task, affects how trial information is processed and how verdict decisions are made. Mock-jurors (N = 243), half of whom were explicitly informed of the task’s importance, watched a video of a murder trial. During the decision-making phase, some jurors were then given the opportunity to review the trial video, transcript, or both before rendering a final verdict. While there were no differences in verdicts as a function of review condition, the amount of content mock-jurors reviewed differed by review condition.

Download Full-text

Exploring the use of systematic and heuristic processing in the courtroom: the effect of evidence modality on jurors’ decision-making processes

10.32920/ryerson.14644839.v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Stuart Freedman

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Mock Jurors ◽

Use Of Technology ◽

Decision Making Processes ◽

Final Verdict ◽

Murder Trial ◽

Level Of Motivation ◽

Heuristic Processing

The use of technology in the courtroom is increasingly commonplace. While some research has explored how technology may influence jurors throughout the trial itself, there has been little focus on how it might influence jurors during the deliberation period, or whether it affects their verdicts. The current study assessed whether the form of evidence available during the decision-making period, along with the mock juror’s level of motivation for the task, affects how trial information is processed and how verdict decisions are made. Mock-jurors (N = 243), half of whom were explicitly informed of the task’s importance, watched a video of a murder trial. During the decision-making phase, some jurors were then given the opportunity to review the trial video, transcript, or both before rendering a final verdict. While there were no differences in verdicts as a function of review condition, the amount of content mock-jurors reviewed differed by review condition.

Download Full-text

The effects of crime-drama TV viewing on mock jurors in a murder trial

PsycEXTRA Dataset ◽

10.1037/e518132013-004 ◽

2012 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Susan H. Sarapin ◽

Glenn G. Sparks

Keyword(s):

Mock Jurors ◽

Tv Viewing ◽

Crime Drama ◽

Murder Trial

Download Full-text

Battling Bias: Can Two Implicit Bias Remedies Reduce Juror Racial Bias?

10.31219/osf.io/hj9e2 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Christine L Ruva ◽

Elizabeth Sykes ◽

Kendall Donovan Smith ◽

Lillian R Deaton ◽

SUMEYYE ERDEM

Keyword(s):

Racial Bias ◽

Implicit Bias ◽

Unconscious Bias ◽

Mock Jurors ◽

The Unconscious ◽

Black And White ◽

Project Study ◽

Race Effects ◽

Murder Trial ◽

White Defendants

Two studies examined the effectiveness of two implicit bias remedies at reducing racial bias in Black and White mock-jurors’ decisions. Participants were recruited through a Qualtrics Panel Project. Study 1 (murder trial; N = 554): Mage = 46.53; 49.1% female; 50% Black; 50.0% White. Study 2 (battery trial; N = 539): Mage = 46.46; 50.5% female; 49.5% Black; 50.5% White. Half of the participants viewed the UBJ video. Then participants read pretrial instructions (general or UBJ), trial summary, posttrial instructions (general or UBJ), and completed measures. Mock-juror race was expected to moderate the effect of defendant race (Black vs. White) on verdicts, sentences, culpability, and credibility, with jurors being more lenient toward same-race defendants. This interaction would be moderated by the unconscious bias juror (UBJ) video and instructions, reducing bias for White jurors only. Mock-jurors’ counterfactual endorsements would mediate race effects on verdicts. In Study 1, juror race moderated the effect of defendant race on verdicts, culpability, and credibility—White, but not Black, jurors demonstrated greater leniency for Black versus White defendants. The UBJ video moderated the effect of defendant race on murder counterfactual endorsement—when the video was present defendant race did not significantly affect endorsement. This endorsement mediated the effect of defendant race on White jurors’ verdicts. In Study 2, juror race influenced verdicts and sentences—White jurors were more lenient regardless of defendant race. The effect of juror race on sentence was qualified by the UBJ video—when present the effect of race was no longer significant. The UBJ remedies increased all mock jurors’ defendant credibility ratings. In conclusion, the debiasing interventions were ineffective in reducing racial bias in jurors’ verdicts. However, they do impact aspects of juror attribution and may be effective with modification.

Download Full-text