Calls for Speculation: An Experimental Examination of Juror Perceptions of Attorney Objections

Should attorneys object during trial? Does preserving the record outweigh the potential costs of objections, such as upsetting the jury or drawing attention to the evidence? Legal scholars have opined on the delicate balance attorneys must strike in their decisions to object, but researchers have offered little to guide attorneys making these in-the-moment decisions. I discuss results from two empirical studies that provide evidence that attorneys have less to fear from objections than legal scholars suggest. Based on these results, I provide suggestions for practicing attorneys

Accounting for Awards: An Examination of Juror Reasoning behind Pain and Suffering Damage Award Decisions

What do civil jurors think about when they are asked to make damage award decisions? Given the secrecy of the jury deliberation process, often we are unaware of jurors\u27 thought processes. This Article presents the results from three studies in which mock jurors explained the reasoning behind their damage awards for pain and suffering. We highlight the most common explanations and distinguish between reasons justifying high and low pain and suffering awards. We conclude with a discussion for what this means for attorneys during trial

Reported Experiences with Plea Bargaining: A Theoretical Analysis of the Legal Standard

Although the majority of criminal cases in the United States are settled with plea bargains, very little empirical evidence exists to explain how defendants make life-altering plea bargain decisions. This Article first discusses the psychologicalfactors involved in plea bargaining decisions. Next, this Article empirically examines the factors involved in plea decisions of real-life defendants within the legal and psychological contexts. Finally, this Article highlights the psychological issues that need to be further examined in pleabargaining literature

Trial, Interrupted: Juror Perceptions of Attorney Objections

Attorneys object at trial to immediately correct errors or to preserve the record for appeal; however, legal scholars caution that objecting can negatively impact the jury. Thus, attorneys are caught in a predicament when deciding whether to object and psycholegal researchers have offered little guidance. Thus, the present studies experimentally isolated the influence of objections on mock-juror verdicts, perceptions of the attorneys, and memory for evidence following an audio trial. Study 1 manipulated the presence of trial interruptions, type of trial interruption, frequency of trial interruption, and sample of mock-jurors. There was a main effect of presence of interruption, such that participants in the interruption conditions were more likely to find the defendant not guilty but had worse memory for information following interruptions than participants in the control group. There were almost no effects of interruption type, interruption frequency, or sample on verdicts, perceptions of the attorneys, or memory for evidence. Study 2 focused only on objections (not other trial interruptions) and manipulated objection frequency and the gender of the objecting attorney. Again, there were almost no effects of objection frequency or attorney gender on verdicts, perceptions of the attorneys, or memory for evidence. These findings have direct implications for attorney practice and suggest that defense attorneys may not need to fear objections negatively impacting how they are perceived during trial

Trial, Interrupted: Juror Perceptions of Attorney Objections

Attorneys object at trial to immediately correct errors or to preserve the record for appeal; however, legal scholars caution that objecting can negatively impact the jury. Thus, attorneys are caught in a predicament when deciding whether to object and psycholegal researchers have offered little guidance. Thus, the present studies experimentally isolated the influence of objections on mock-juror verdicts, perceptions of the attorneys, and memory for evidence following an audio trial. Study 1 manipulated the presence of trial interruptions, type of trial interruption, frequency of trial interruption, and sample of mock-jurors. There was a main effect of presence of interruption, such that participants in the interruption conditions were more likely to find the defendant not guilty but had worse memory for information following interruptions than participants in the control group. There were almost no effects of interruption type, interruption frequency, or sample on verdicts, perceptions of the attorneys, or memory for evidence. Study 2 focused only on objections (not other trial interruptions) and manipulated objection frequency and the gender of the objecting attorney. Again, there were almost no effects of objection frequency or attorney gender on verdicts, perceptions of the attorneys, or memory for evidence. These findings have direct implications for attorney practice and suggest that defense attorneys may not need to fear objections negatively impacting how they are perceived during trial

Calls for Speculation: An Experimental Examination of Juror Perceptions of Attorney Objections

Should attorneys object during trial? Does preserving the record outweigh the potential costs of objections, such as upsetting the jury or drawing attention to the evidence? Legal scholars have opined on the delicate balance attorneys must strike in their decisions to object, but researchers have offered little to guide attorneys making these in-the-moment decisions. I discuss results from two empirical studies that provide evidence that attorneys have less to fear from objections than legal scholars suggest. Based on these results, I provide suggestions for practicing attorneys

Role of Guidance on Jury Deliberations

Empirical examination of FTT in deliberating jury decision

Accounting for Awards: An Examination of Juror Reasoning behind Pain and Suffering Damage Award Decisions

What do civil jurors think about when they are asked to make damage award decisions? Given the secrecy of the jury deliberation process, often we are unaware of jurors\u27 thought processes. This Article presents the results from three studies in which mock jurors explained the reasoning behind their damage awards for pain and suffering. We highlight the most common explanations and distinguish between reasons justifying high and low pain and suffering awards. We conclude with a discussion for what this means for attorneys during trial

Increasing support for alternatives to incarceration for drug use: is the brain disease model of addiction effective?

The National Institute of Drug Addiction has promoted the Brain Disease Model of Addiction (BDMA) for several decades, believing it will have a positive impact on drug-related social policies. Per research, neither understanding nor accepting the BDMA positively influences social behavior and decision making related to decreased stigma or increased support for treatment and funding for substance use disorders. An alternative model, the Malleability Model, focuses on the changeability of psychopathology associated with psychiatric disorders, and is associated with decreased hopelessness and increased prognostic optimism. The Moral Weakness Model focuses on moral character as the reason for addiction and is associated with punitive responses to use disorders. The current study sought to identify whether Malleability values were more predictive of willingness to vote for harm reduction (HR) policies than BDMA and Moral values (H1); and if agreement with Malleability values were more predictive of willingness to fund such policies than agreement with BDMA and Moral values (H2). Contrary to hypotheses, results indicated the Malleability Model failed to predict votes and donations, while agreement with the Moral Weakness Model and conservative political affiliation was predictive of lower HR donations. Agreement with the BDMA did not reliably predict votes and donations to policies; the associations reflected were tenuous and should be interpreted with caution. Overall, results indicated the Malleability Model did not increase votes and donations to HR policies, while agreement with Moral Weakness Model and conservative affiliation consistently predicted votes and donations