The influence of sex on mock jurors’ verdicts across type of child abuse cases

This study examined the influence of victim sex, mock juror sex, and type of child abuse (physical, sexual, emotional, and neglect) on mock jurors’ assessments of eyewitness and defendant integrity, continuous guilt ratings, dichotomous verdicts, and sentencing recommendations. Participants read one of eight versions of a trial transcript and then answered a self-report questionnaire. Female mock jurors were significantly more likely to find the defendant guilty overall. Moreover, female mock jurors recommended significantly longer sentences for defendants in sexual abuse cases; whereas, male mock jurors recommended significantly longer sentences for defendants in sexual and physical abuse cases. Male mock jurors perceived the defendant more favorably than female mock jurors; whereas, female mock jurors perceived the alleged victim more favorable than male mock jurors. These results suggest that juror sex may be an influential factor in child abuse cases overall

The Influence of a Defendant’s Chronological Age, Developmental Age, and Race on Mock Juror Decision Making

The purpose of the current study was to examine whether a defendant’s developmental age, chronological age, and race influenced mock jurors’ decision making. Mock jurors (N = 444) read a trial transcript involving an assault where the defendant allegedly shoved the victim to the ground at a grocery store. The defendant’s developmental age (14 or 24 years old), chronological age (14 or 24 years old), and race (White, Black, or Aboriginal-Canadian) were varied. Mock jurors rendered a verdict and rated their perceptions of the defendant. Developmental age was found to influence verdict decisions such that a developmentally 24-year-old was given more guilty verdicts than a developmentally 14-year-old. Race was also influential such that the Black defendant received fewer guilty verdicts than the White defendant; no significant interactions were present. The presence of a developmental delay influenced mock jurors’ guilt ratings such that the defendant who was developmentally delayed received lower guilt ratings compared to a typically developing defendant. These results suggest that defendants with a developmental delay may be perceived more favorably, regardless of their race, and thus given more lenient treatment

An Examination of Mock Jurors’ Judgments in Familiar Identification Cases

The present studies examined jurors’ perceptions of “familiar” identifications—that is, identifications where an eyewitness espouses prior exposure to the perpetrator. In two studies, undergraduate mock jurors (total N = 760) read a criminal case vignette that manipulated whether the eyewitness claimed to have prior exposure to the perpetrator (and how much). Study 1 additionally manipulated the eyewitness’ subsequent lineup identification confidence level, finding that confidence (but not familiarity) increased participants’ beliefs in guilt and identification accuracy. Study 2 employed a stronger familiarity manipulation while additionally manipulating how long before the crime the prior exposure occurred and the viewing conditions during the crime. Results indicated that this stronger familiar identification was perceived as more accurate and indicative of guilt than the stranger identification, but only in cases of minimal prior exposure. And while viewing conditions independently affected legal judgments, it rarely moderated these familiarity effects. Theoretical and applied implications are discussed

The Influence of Familiar and Confident Eyewitnesses on Mock Jurors’ Judgments

We examined whether eyewitness confidence, familiarity with the defendant (defined as number of prior exposures), and eyewitness age (Study 1 only) influenced mock jurors in a murder trial. Participants read a criminal mock trial transcript where the eyewitness reported seeing the defendant once or many times (vs. none) and answered questions relating to the defendant’s guilt, culpability, and the accuracy of the eyewitness’ identification. In Studies 1 and 2 (N = 542 and N = 169, respectively) only confidence influenced jurors’ judgments with more guilt judgments and higher likelihood of identification accuracy when the witness espoused high (vs. low) confidence. Study 3 (N = 179) utilized a stronger operationalization of familiarity by explicitly stating the number of times the eyewitness had seen the defendant prior to the crime (e.g., 0, 10, or 20 times). Mock jurors were more likely to believe that the defendant was guilty when the eyewitness had seen him 10 times prior to the crime compared to zero times. Additionally, there was a trend for more favorable perceptions of the eyewitness as familiarity with the defendant increased. These results suggest that in some cases, familiarity between an eyewitness and defendant can impact mock juror decision-making