The Interactive Effects of Race and Expert Testimony on Jurors’ Perceptions of Recanted Confessions

We examined the effect of defendant race and expert testimony on jurors’ perceptions of recanted confessions. Participants (591 jury-eligible community members) read a first-degree murder trial transcript in which defendant race (Black/White) and expert testimony (present/absent) were manipulated. They provided verdicts and answered questions regarding the confession and expert testimony. When examining the full sample, we observed no significant main effects or interactions of defendant race or expert testimony. When exclusively examining White participants, we observed a significant interaction between expert testimony and defendant race on verdicts. When the defendant was White, there was no significant effect of expert testimony, but when the defendant was Black, jurors were significantly more likely to acquit when given expert testimony. These findings support the watchdog hypothesis, such that White jurors are more receptive to legally relevant evidence when the defendant is Black.

The Effect of Delayed Reporting on Mock-Juror Decision-Making in the Era of #MeToo

The #MeToo movement has given voice to victims of sexual harassment and assault. In many of these cases, there have been long delays in reporting of the sexual offence (e.g., the Harvey Weinstein case). The purpose of this study was to examine how the type of sexual offence (harassment vs. assault) and the length of delayed reporting (15, 25, 35 years) influenced mock-juror decision-making. Mock-jurors ( N = 319) read a mock trial transcript depicting an alleged sexual offence and were asked to render a dichotomous verdict, continuous guilt rating, and defendant and victim perception ratings. The data indicated an effect of sexual offence type such that mock-jurors held more favorable perceptions of the defendant when the alleged offence was harassment compared with assault. There also was an effect of delayed reporting such that mock-jurors rendered more guilty verdicts when there was a 25-year delay compared with a 15-year delay. Intriguingly, these results suggest that jurors in sexual offence cases may perceive longer delays in reporting as more believable than shorter delays.

Mosaic or Melting Pot? Race and Juror Decision Making in Canada and the United States

Although Canada and the United States both demonstrate significant overrepresentation of racialized groups in prisons, the overrepresented groups vary by country, potentially signifying results of the countries’ different (though similarly problematic) histories of racial inequality. The present study investigated this issue within a jury context by assessing the influence of defendant race on Canadian and American participants’ verdicts in an assault trial. We also examined mock jurors’ attributions of the defendant’s behavior and their perceptions of the cultural criminal stereotype for each racial group. Canadian and American participants ( N = 198) read a trial transcript in which the defendant’s race (i.e., Black, White, or Aboriginal Canadian/Native American) was manipulated, and then completed measures of attributions and stereotypes. Results demonstrated that although verdicts did not significantly differ as a function of defendant race or country, stability and control attributions did vary between Canadian and American participants, as did racial stereotypes. In addition, defendant race affected internal versus external attributions, regardless of country. These findings suggest that race may play a role in jurors’ perceptions of defendants, but that in some ways, this varies by country, potentially accounting for some of the differences found between existing Canadian and American jury studies.

Cyberbullying and cybervictimization: Does gender matter?

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate gender effects on college students’ judgements about a hypothetical episode of cyberbullying on Facebook that resulted in the suicide of a cybervictim. A total of 176 undergraduate students at a midsize public university in the Northeast served as participants. Four one-page versions of a hypothetical trial transcript detailing a cyberbullying case were utilized. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: male cyberbully/male cybervictim, male cyberbully/female cybervictim, female cyberbully/male cybervictim, and female cyberbully/female cybervictim. After reading one of the trial transcripts, participants rated eight variables, including criminal guilt and intent of the cyberbully, responsibility of entities involved, and appropriate punishment for the cyberbully. Results revealed significant differences in judgments based on the gender of the cyberbully, cybervictim, and participant.

From The Hague to Arusha to Kansas Federal Court

Paul Magnarella describes his legal work with the UN Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and his travel to Arusha, Tanzania, to work with the UN Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. He describes meeting the O’Neals and agreeing to become Pete O’Neal’s attorney. After examining Pete’s court records and trial transcript, Magnarella concludes that the presiding judge, Arthur J. Stanley, made a number of crucial errors that resulted in Pete’s wrongful conviction. Magnarella examines Judge Stanley’s previous famous case involving George John Gessner, a private first-class nuclear weapons specialist. Judge Stanley’s court found Gessner guilty of communicating restrictive data to a foreign nation. Federal appellate judges overturned the conviction, ruling that the U.S. military had coerced Gessner’s confession and the Stanley court had suspended Gessner’s constitutional protections to satisfy the needs of government.

Do Judicial Instructions Aid in Distinguishing Between Reliable and Unreliable Jailhouse Informants?

Jailhouse informants are a leading cause of wrongful convictions. In an attempt to preempt such miscarriages of justice, several states (e.g., Connecticut and California) have mandated that judicial instructions be provided to act as a safeguard against false testimony. This study evaluated the effectiveness of these instructions in helping jurors distinguish between reliable and unreliable jailhouse informants. Participants read a trial transcript that varied instructions (Standard, Connecticut, Enhanced) and informant reliability (reliable, unreliable). The results indicated that the instructions had no effect on verdict decisions. Even though verdicts did not vary, participants rated the unreliable informant as less trustworthy, honest, and interested in justice than the reliable informant. This is consistent with previous findings that indicate that participants are aware of the legal prescriptions given in the instructions, but they do not implement them in making decisions. Therefore, instructions may be an insufficient safeguard.

Examining Mock Jurors' Perceptions of Intimate Partner Violence Factors

The purpose of the current study was to examine whether juror gender, male-to-female or female-to-male abuse, eyewitness age (8, 12, and 16 years old), and type of intimate partner violence witnessed (physical, sexual, and emotional) influenced mock jurors' decision-making. Mock jurors (N = 1,162) read a trial transcript where the child of a married couple witnessed one of the three types of intimate partner violence, perpetrated by the husband against his wife or the wife against her husband, and answered related questions. Mock jurors were asked to render a dichotomous verdict, continuous guilt rating, and rate their perceptions of the victim, defendant, and eyewitness. Male jurors were more likely to find the defendant guilty when the defendant was female and the witness was 16 years old; additionally, female mock jurors assigned higher guilt ratings for the male defendant compared to the female defendant. Mock jurors also assigned higher guilt ratings when the abuse was physical compared to both sexual and emotional; abuse also influenced perceptions of the defendant, victim, and eyewitness. Mock jurors also were more likely to hold positive perceptions of the eyewitness when she was 16 years old compared to 8 years old. The results of the current study suggest that gender of the defendant and victim may combine to influence mock jurors' perceptions of a case involving intimate partner violence; moreover, the type of abuse witnessed by a child also may impact the child's perceived credibility.

‘[Expletive], that was confusing, wasn’t it?’ Defence lawyers’ and intermediaries’ assessment of the language used to question a child witness

While language specialists and legal professionals have voiced concerns about the language used to question child witnesses in the Aotearoa/NZ courts, it is unclear whether both groups share a common understanding of what those language problems are. This study compares five Aotearoa/NZ defence lawyers’ and two England/Wales intermediaries’ perceptions of the developmental (in)appropriateness of the language used to question an 11-year-old witness, based on their assessment of the witness’ anonymised trial transcript. The comparison showed that both groups agreed on the categories of language features that might confuse children, however, intermediaries identified many more instances of problematic language within those categories than lawyers. Training on developmentally appropriate language and pre-trial preparation of questions would certainly help lawyers improve the comprehensibility of their questions. However, the implementation of a full intermediary scheme, such as that in England/Wales, probably offers the best prospects for a sustained sea change in questioning practices.

What Makes Race Salient? Juror Decision-Making in Same-Race Versus Cross-Race Identification Scenarios and the Influence of Expert Testimony

Research demonstrates that juror race may interact with defendant race to influence decision-making, but little work has investigated interactions with eyewitness race. This study tested whether Black/White jurors would produce different perceptions/decisions when faced with a Black/White defendant identified by a Black/White eyewitness. We also examined the influence of expert testimony regarding the cross-race effect in two floating cells. Mock jurors read a trial transcript, provided a verdict and trial party ratings, and indicated perceived race salience. Black jurors were more likely to convict a White defendant identified by a Black eyewitness than a Black defendant identified by a White eyewitness. Expert testimony was valued more highly when the defendant was Black, but had no direct influence on verdict; however, it raised race salience perceptions (as did presence of Black trial parties). Perceived race salience was associated with lower rates of conviction, suggesting that race and expert testimony have potential courtroom implications.