Evaluating witness testimony: Juror knowledge, false memory, and the utility of evidence-based directions

Eyewitness evidence is often important in criminal cases, but false or misleading eyewitness evidence is known to be a leading cause of wrongful convictions. One explanation for mistakes that jurors are making when evaluating eyewitness evidence is their lack of accurate knowledge relating to false memory. This article examines lay beliefs relating to memory and ways in which they diverge from expert consensus. It identifies ways in which current directions provided to jurors in this area are likely to be deficient in influencing juror knowledge and in helping them apply that knowledge in a case context, and develops criteria that can be used to assess the likely effectiveness of directions. A new evidence-based training direction is designed based on these criteria, and tested in a mock jury study (N = 411). Results suggest that the proposed direction is more effective than a basic direction in influencing juror knowledge and facilitating the application of that knowledge to case facts.

Presence and participation in a virtual court

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increase in the use of video-mediated justice practices. However, such developments have already been transforming justice over the course of the previous 20 years. Scholars and legal professinals have expressed concerns over how remote appearance in court impacts perceptions of the accused. In this article, we consider some of these concerns and explore the concept of the ‘distributed court’ as a potential remedy. Unlike traditional video appearance in court, where a defendant participates remotely while all other players are co-located in the same courtroom, in a distributed court all participants meet in a shared virtual space. Such a configuration is similar to the virtual courts developed worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic. We draw on a reimagining of co-presence from scholars in the sociology of technology to elaborate the concept of the distributed court. We then present the results of a mock jury study that examines how jurors respond to variations in court technology configurations. We find that appearing by video does not impact the likelihood of a guilty verdict. Rather, a defendant appearing alone in a dock seems to be the most prejudicial location. We find that a distributed court can communicate equality and produce a shared experience of remote participation. We conclude with a discussion of how this research can inform best practice in a future where a significant number of criminal hearings are likely to continue in a virtual format.

Neuroscience evidence is not more persuasive than behavioral evidence for both adults and juveniles: A preregistered study

In last two decades, developmental neuroscience results had been cited in high-profile legal cases in the United States and other countries. However, it’s unknown whether neuroscience evidence bring bias because of its over-persuasiveness for people without training in neuroscience. Previous studies suggested that neuroscience results were over-persuasive, this effect was termed as “neuroscience bias,” but the evidence was not conclusive because of failed replication attempts. Moreover, few studies directly examined the effect developmental neuroscience in juvenile cases. To address this issue, we conducted two mock jury studies with a three (evidence type: behavioral evidence, neuroscience evidence without brain images, and neuroscience evidence with brain images) by two (offenders’ age: juvenile vs. adult) between-subject design. In a pilot study (n = 94) and pre-registered study (n = 324), participants first read a vignette, which described an offender murdered a victim and his lawyer introduced scientific evidence when defending for the offender. Participants were required to make a series of judgments, including death penalty and criminal responsibility of defendant. The results revealed a main effect for offenders’ age, but no effect for evidence type or interaction between evidence type and offenders’ age. An exploratory conditional random forest analysis again revealed that evidence type was not important in predicting participants’ judgment. Instead, other self-reported variables are more important, such as the “just deserts” view of criminal punishment and the perceived possibility the offender would re-enter society. These results suggest that, in the severe criminal cases, the neuroscientific evidence is not more persuasive than behavioral evidence, regardless the neuroscientific results are from adults or juveniles.

Mock Jury and Juror Responses to Uncharged Acts of Sexual Misconduct

Internationally, admissible incriminating evidence of uncharged acts by the accused is presumed unfairly prejudicial, and remains controversial. In an experimental study, 325 jury-eligible citizens were randomly assigned to a simulated trial in which the accused faced two charges. Juries were exposed to no evidence of uncharged acts or prejudicial evidence describing four uncharged sexual acts by the accused reported by the complainant or two independent witnesses. Jury inferences about the accused’s sexual interest in children and his criminal intent were logically related to the source and type of evidence. While ratings of the likelihood of culpability increased with evidence of uncharged acts, juries were reluctant to convict solely on the basis of the complainant’s word. Jury deliberations disclosed that prejudicial evidence did not induce impermissible reasoning or a lower threshold of proof. Multiple convergent measures revealed little danger of unfair prejudice to the accused.

What do we know about rape myths and juror decision making?

This paper presents overwhelming evidence that prejudicial and false beliefs held by jurors about rape affect their evaluation of the evidence and their decision making in rape cases. The paper draws together for the first time the available evidence from both quantitative and qualitative studies (most of which are not found in law journals, but rather in scientific outlets, most commonly those focusing on experimental psychology). The quantitative research demonstrates that mock jurors’ scores on so-called ‘rape myth scales’ are significant predictors of their judgments about responsibility, blame and (most importantly) verdict. The qualitative research indicates that jurors frequently express problematic views about how ‘real’ rape victims would behave and what ‘real’ rape looks like during mock jury deliberations and that even those who score relatively low on abstract rape myth scales can express prejudicial beliefs when deliberating in a particular case. The studies vary in terms of their realism, but it is important to note that some of the studies reported here were highly realistic trial reconstructions, involving representative samples of jurors drawn from the community, live trial reconstructions, evidence-in-chief and cross-examination, accurate legal directions and deliberation in groups. The review concludes by examining the evidence on whether juror education—whether in the form of judicial directions or expert evidence—might be effective in addressing problematic attitudes.

Tipping the Scales: Effects of Gender, Rape Myth Acceptance, and Anti-Fat Attitudes on Judgments of Sexual Coercion Scenarios

A damaging belief exists that to become a victim of sexual violence, victims must be deemed sexually desirable. As a result, sexual violations where the victims are individuals whom society may deem as less attractive—such as overweight women—may elicit less empathy for the victim or minimize the likelihood they are believed. Yet, there is some evidence that overweight women actually report higher rates of sexual violence than women of other weight categories. Although there has been some research implicating weight biases in sexual assault cases, this has not been extended to cases of sexual coercion despite their growing share of police reports. A sample of 168 participants were recruited from Canada via social media ( n = 82) and through a midsized university in Ontario, Canada ( n = 86). Using a mock jury paradigm, participants responded to a vignette depicting the sexual coercion of a thin or overweight woman. Participants reported their opinions on the sexual coercion scenario, and prejudicial attitudes, using two standardized scales. Men reported greater rape myth acceptance, anti-fat attitudes, and victim responsibility and endorsed significantly more perpetrator mitigating factors and expressed more negative affect toward the victim. Participants in the overweight condition also expressed greater perpetrator sympathy, greater perpetrator mitigation, and less negative affect toward the perpetrator. These results suggest that overweight women may face additional barriers when reporting their experiences of sexual coercion, particularly to men.

Storytelling Rituals in Jury Deliberations

Research on jury deliberation tends to focus on deliberative outcomes, such as verdict decisions. Less attention is paid to the actual process of deliberation. This paper analyzes a video recording of a mock jury deliberation in a simulated criminal trial, focusing on facial expression, gesture, and discourse. Drawing on ethnomethodology and micro-sociological theories of ritual, I examine how jurors make sense of the evidence presented to them and how they work together to collectively produce a coherent narrative of events. I argue that a focus on the ritual dynamics of the deliberation help to understand how such a co-production can occur. La investigación sobre la deliberación del jurado tiende a centrarse en los resultados de esa deliberación, como pueden ser los veredictos. Menos atención genera el proceso mismo de deliberación. Este artículo analiza una grabación de vídeo de la deliberación de un jurado en un simulacro de juicio penal, y se fija especialmente en las expresiones faciales, los gestos y los discursos. Basándome en la etnometodología y en teorías de ritual microsociológicas, examino la forma en que los jurados buscan el sentido de las pruebas que se les presentan y la forma en que trabajan juntos para producir una narración coherente de los hechos. Argumento que poner el énfasis en las dinámicas rituales de la deliberación ayuda a entender cómo se realiza esa producción colectiva.

Biological Evidence Regarding Psychopathy Does Not Affect Mock Jury Sentencing

Research on the biological factors influencing criminal behavior is increasingly being introduced into court, necessitating research on how such evidence is perceived and influences decision makers. Research on how this evidence influences sentencing recommendations is inconclusive. In this study, we focus on biological evidence related to psychopathy, a construct commonly associated with criminal behavior. Approximately 800 community members were presented with a case vignette detailing an individual who is described as having a high level of psychopathic traits. Participants received either psychological information about psychopathy (i.e., no biological evidence), evidence the defendant had genetic risk factors for psychopathy, or written neuroimaging evidence the defendant had brain deficits associated with psychopathy. Participants then recommended a sentence. Overall, recommended sentence lengths did not differ between evidence conditions. These findings add to a growing body of research suggesting that biological evidence may not have as much of an influence on jurors as previously thought.