Diversity’s Impact on the Quality of Deliberations

The present research builds on previous models of jury diversity’s benefits by exploring how diversity impacts the deliberation process. In Study 1, community members ( N = 433) participated in a jury decision-making study manipulating the strength of evidence (ambiguous vs. weak) and the diversity of the jury. When the evidence in the case was ambiguous, both white and black jurors made high-quality contributions to discussion in diverse juries than in nondiverse juries. In Study 2, undergraduate students ( N = 369) were randomly assigned to wealth and power conditions and then deliberated in diverse and nondiverse groups. Diverse juries were less likely to convict the defendant, and jurors on diverse juries made high-quality contributions to discussion. Although previous work has documented effects of diversity on high-status jurors’ contributions to deliberations, this work suggests that diversity may relate to more complex evidence evaluation for members of low-status groups as well.

The Impact Of Alibi Change On Verdict Decision

Previous research has demonstrated that a change in one's alibi is perceived as a sign of guilt. The present study aimed to determine the impact of changing one's initial alibi on ratings of guilt. One hundred and seven participants were randomly assigned to read one of four scenarios (self, police, same, and lied) that described a robbery, a suspect's initial alibi and, in all but the 'same' condition, a modified alibi. An explanation for the change was also provided. It was predicted that both alibi change and the explanation for the change would impact verdict choices. Results revealed that 51% of participants believed that the suspect was guilty regardless of condition. Alibi change predicted more guilty verdicts in the self and lied conditions. Surprisingly, participants who were more trusting were also more likely to convict. The current research contributes to the literature on the importance of alibis as it provides a greater understanding of jury decision making.

The Impact Of Alibi Change On Verdict Decision

Previous research has demonstrated that a change in one's alibi is perceived as a sign of guilt. The present study aimed to determine the impact of changing one's initial alibi on ratings of guilt. One hundred and seven participants were randomly assigned to read one of four scenarios (self, police, same, and lied) that described a robbery, a suspect's initial alibi and, in all but the 'same' condition, a modified alibi. An explanation for the change was also provided. It was predicted that both alibi change and the explanation for the change would impact verdict choices. Results revealed that 51% of participants believed that the suspect was guilty regardless of condition. Alibi change predicted more guilty verdicts in the self and lied conditions. Surprisingly, participants who were more trusting were also more likely to convict. The current research contributes to the literature on the importance of alibis as it provides a greater understanding of jury decision making.

THE IDENTIFICATION OF EMOTIONS AND JURY DECISION MAKING

This study investigated the impact of a defendant’s emotions, expressed through gait and displayed through video footage, on jury decision making. The degree of state empathy and the case-related judgements of the mock jurors were assessed using a questionnaire. The results of the study suggest that the emotions being portrayed by a figure in a piece of video footage can be identified by viewers, and that careful consideration needs to be given to the potential ramifications of playing video footage in court and the subsequent impact on collective jury decision making.

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

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