Probative or prejudicial: Biasing effects of background information in police body-worn video evidence on mock-juror decisions in victim-depressed domestic abuse cases

Body-worn videos enable domestic violence complainants’ first statements to be presented to in court to a jury if a complainant declines to attend. Footage of residential incidents might capture information not relevant to issues in dispute, but which might prejudicially influence juries’ fact-finding. The current research examined whether low salience case-irrelevant changes to background information biased mock juror decision-making. Participant mock jurors (n = 1,108) randomly viewed videos, or extracted audio only, depicting a female actor-complainant providing an alleged domestic abuse statement. Videos depicted toddler’s toys, games and sports equipment, a bookcase, or no additional furniture. The defendant’s mitigating statement referred to the complainant as depressed or of low mood. When the complainant was described as depressed, guilty verdict rates were significantly higher when participants heard audio than when they watched footage. Guilty verdict rates were also significantly lower when videos displayed games and sports equipment. Participants’ pre-existing attitudes towards blaming domestic abuse victims mitigated defendant guilt attributions. Higher perpetrator or situational blame aggravated blame. In summary, case-irrelevant background residential information implying different family relationships can influence juror verdicts, demonstrating a risk to trial fairness from extra-legal information presentation. It is important that courts worldwide are aware of this risk.

Trial by Social Media

Social media makes it easier than ever to access information and opinions associated with criminal proceedings and viewing or discussing these pre-trial could reduce juror impartiality. This study explored whether viewing social media comments influenced mock juror verdicts. Seventy-two participants formed 12 six-person ‘mock juries'. All participants received information regarding a murder trial. Nine groups were exposed to social media comments, manipulated to be negative, positive or neutral towards the defendant. The remaining three groups only received trial information (control condition). Results showed that prior to group discussion, exposure to negatively-biased comments significantly increased the number of guilty verdicts, however these effects disappeared after group discussion. Therefore, although jurors may be unable to remain impartial before a trial, jury discussion can remove these prejudices, supporting previous group research. Further research is suggested where participants interact actively with social media, rather than passively viewing comments.

Deliberating about terrorism: Prejudice and jury verdicts in a mock terrorism trial

Juries in many Western countries are being asked to make decisions about defendants charged with terrorist-related offences, in situations where heightened anxieties and hostility to outgroups may make a fair trial difficult. What impact can deliberation have in addressing any such prejudice? This study estimates the impact of several forms of prejudice on juror verdicts in a mock terrorism trial. The study provides a more realistic setting than most previous studies, with an authentic heritage courtroom, actual jury assembly room and jury deliberation rooms in the NSW Supreme Court, a one-hour live trial and one-hour deliberation. Strong relationships are found between conviction rates and prior attitudes before jury discussion, consistent with other literature. Deliberation significantly reduces the proportion of guilty verdicts; it also reduces the impact on verdict of two forms of prejudice – fear of terrorism and punitiveness. On the other hand it tends to increase the impact of cognitive prejudice, measured both by a modified version of the Jury Bias Scale and a terrorism-specific scale based on attitudes to Australian Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks.