Reality check: a comparison of college students and a community sample of mock jurors in a simulated sexual violent predator civil commitment

Evaluating layperson interpretation of actuarial sexual violence risk data: A multi-method comparison of risk communication with attention to gender bias

Forensic clinicians are often called upon to help courts determine the likelihood that someone will continue to commit sexually violent acts in the future. The utility of these evaluations depends largely on how effectively the results are communicated to and understood by the trier of fact. Actuarial results, such as those commonly reported in sexual offense risk assessments, appear particularly challenging for laypersons to understand. Using a representative sample of 206 U.S. adults, this study examines three methods of communicating actuarial risk via simulated expert testimony on participants' ratings of a hypothetical evaluee's risk of sexual re-offending. The results suggested that all participants, regardless of how results were communicated, over-estimated the examinee's risk level relative to the expert's probabilistic findings, but tended to agree with the expert's categorical predictions. Participants who were only shown actuarial data consistently rated the evaluee as more dangerous and likely to commit future sexually violent acts. Additionally, it was found that gender significantly impacted participants' perceptions, such that women found the evaluee more dangerousness and desired greater social distance from him. This study has implications for best practices regarding expert communication of actuarial results in cases involving sexual violence.

Race/Ethnicity and Relationship Stereotypes in Child Sex Abuse Cases

Child sex abuse (CSA) is a specific category of crime for which the presumption of guilt may be particularly high, especially for defendant categories stereotypically associated with the crime. The current study utilized survey methodology to examine the magnitude of the presumption of guilt for CSA, as well as stereotypes associating perpetrator race and relationship to the victim with likelihood of CSA. Participants (N = 220) indicated the percentage of CSA allegations they believed to be true, and rank-ordered racial and relationship categories they believed most likely to commit CSA. Female (77%) and male (71%) participants believed most CSA allegations were true. White men and stepfathers were ranked as the most likely perpetrators compared to Hispanic men, Black men, other male relatives, neighbors, and others. These data suggest that alleged perpetrators of CSA are particularly likely to be perceived negatively, especially if they possess stereotypical racial and relational characteristics.

Juror characteristics on trial: Investigating how psychopathic traits, rape attitudes, victimization experiences, and juror demographics influence decision-making in an intimate partner rape trial

INTRODUCTION

Trial by jury is a longstanding legal tradition used in common law jurisdictions to try the most serious of criminal cases. Yet, despite hearing the same trial evidence, individual jurors often arrive at different verdict decisions, indicating that they may be impacted by more than the evidence presented at trial. This study therefore sought to investigate the role of jurors' psychopathology, attitudinal, experiential, and demographic characteristics upon individual verdict decisions.

METHODS

Adopting an improved mock trial paradigm, 108 jury-eligible participants took part in one of nine identical 12-person mock trial simulations depicting a videotaped recreation of an intimate partner rape trial. Pre-trial, mock-jurors completed a psychosocial survey capturing their psychopathic personality traits (affective and cognitive responsiveness, interpersonal manipulation; egocentricity), rape myth beliefs, victimization experiences and demographics. Post-trial, jurors deliberated to reach a collective group decision and individual verdict decisions were recorded pre- and post-deliberation.

RESULTS

Binary logistic regression analyses revealed rape myth beliefs and juror ethnicity were significantly related to verdict decisions both pre- and post-deliberation. Post-deliberation, decreased affective responsiveness (empathy) and experience of sexual victimization were also found to be significant predictors of guilty verdict selections.

DISCUSSION

These findings indicate for the first time that within an intimate-partner rape trial, certain psychosocial traits, crime-specific attitudes, and experiences of sexual victimization appear to predispose juror judgments and decision-making even after group-deliberation. This study therefore has important implications for understanding how individual differences among jurors may impact rape trial verdict outcomes and the need for targeted juror reforms.

Greater Knowledge Enhances Complainant Credibility and Increases Jury Convictions for Child Sexual Assault

Child sexual assault (CSA) cases reliant on uncorroborated testimony yield low conviction rates. Past research demonstrated a strong relationship between verdict and juror CSA knowledge such as typical delays in reporting by victims, and perceived victim credibility. This trial simulation experiment examined the effectiveness of interventions by an expert witness or an educative judicial direction in reducing jurors' CSA misconceptions. Participants were 885 jurors in New South Wales, Australia. After viewing a professionally acted video trial, half the jurors rendered individual verdicts and half deliberated in groups of 8-12 before completing a post-trial questionnaire. Multilevel structural equation modeling exploring the relationship between CSA knowledge and verdict demonstrated that greater CSA knowledge after the interventions increased the odds ratio to convict by itself, and that the judicial direction predicted a higher level of post-trial CSA knowledge in jurors than other expert interventions. Moreover, greater CSA knowledge was associated with heightened credibility perceptions of the complainant and a corroborating witness. At the conclusion of the trial, the more jurors knew about CSA, the higher the perceived credibility of both the complainant and her grandmother, and the more likely jurors were to convict the accused.

Can the effectiveness of eyewitness expert testimony be improved?

For over 35 years, scholars have searched with little success for a legal safeguard that can sensitize jurors to eyewitness testimony. The present study explored whether expert testimony that uses the I-I-Eye method of analyzing eyewitness testimony can improve juror sensitivity to eyewitness evidence. Participants read a trial transcript with no expert testimony, standard expert testimony or expert testimony that used the I-I-Eye method. The two transcripts for the three expert groups had either strong or weak eyewitness testimony. Unlike the control participants, the I-I-Eye expert participants rendered significantly more guilty verdicts in the strong than in the weak case. The standard expert testimony did not affect verdicts even though it increased participants' knowledge of the eyewitness factors. It appears that the I-I-Eye method improved sensitivity because it not only increased participants' knowledge of eyewitness factors, but also explained how to use that knowledge in assessing eyewitness accuracy.

Impact of Veteran Status and Timing of PTSD Diagnosis on Criminal Justice Outcomes

Previous research has demonstrated that jurors show a bias towards treatment for veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The present research examines this bias when jurors are faced with cases of potential malingering, in which the defendant’s claim of PTSD is a perceived attempt to escape legal punishments. Trial vignettes, in which veteran status and PTSD diagnosis timing were manipulated, were used to explore this phenomenon. It was found that veterans who received their diagnosis after being arrested were found guilty more often, and were diverted to treatment less often, than those who were diagnosed before an arrest. This has critical implications for mental healthcare in that it is crucial to properly diagnose and treat people before they find themselves in court. Further, the negative outcomes in court demonstrate one of the severe social impacts of untreated or late-diagnosed PTSD.

Adding Insult to Injury: Sex, Sexual Orientation, and Juror Decision-Making in a Case of Intimate Partner Violence

Societal definitions of intimate partner violence (IPV) are highly gendered and heteronormative, resulting in dissonance regarding cases of same-sex IPV. This study explored perceptions of IPV when the context of the case is inconsistent with societal norms regarding sex and sexuality. Mock jurors read a vignette describing a case of alleged IPV in which the sex and sexual orientation of the defendant were manipulated. Participants (N = 415) rendered a verdict and provided ratings of the defendant, victim, and case. Results suggest participants were more confident in a guilty verdict when the defendant was male, compared to female. Further, male defendants were perceived as more morally responsible, but only when the victim was female. Perceptions regarding the crime suggest violence perpetrated by a man against a woman is viewed more adversely than any other condition. Data are discussed in terms of implications for legal decision-makers and public policy.

Individual versus group decision making: Jurors' reliance on central and peripheral information to evaluate expert testimony

To investigate dual-process persuasion theories in the context of group decision making, we studied low and high need-for-cognition (NFC) participants within a mock trial study. Participants considered plaintiff and defense expert scientific testimony that varied in argument strength. All participants heard a cross-examination of the experts focusing on peripheral information (e.g., credentials) about the expert, but half were randomly assigned to also hear central information highlighting flaws in the expert's message (e.g., quality of the research presented by the expert). Participants rendered pre- and post-group-deliberation verdicts, which were considered "scientifically accurate" if the verdicts reflected the strong (versus weak) expert message, and "scientifically inaccurate" if they reflected the weak (versus strong) expert message. For individual participants, we replicated studies testing classic persuasion theories: Factors promoting reliance on central information (i.e., central cross-examination, high NFC) improved verdict accuracy because they sensitized individual participants to the quality discrepancy between the experts' messages. Interestingly, however, at the group level, the more that scientifically accurate mock jurors discussed peripheral (versus central) information about the experts, the more likely their group was to reach the scientifically accurate verdict. When participants were arguing for the scientifically accurate verdict consistent with the strong expert message, peripheral comments increased their persuasiveness, which made the group more likely to reach the more scientifically accurate verdict.

Want a Better Criminal Justice Response to Rape? Improve Police Interviews With Complainants and Suspects

Achieving just outcomes in rape cases is difficult, but there are ways we can improve the investigation and prosecution of these crimes, now. We outline how targeting variables, within control of the criminal justice system, can improve the quality of information police obtain from interviews with complainants and suspects. We explore how, by preserving these accounts on video, the criminal justice process can better use this information to improve effective decision making from investigation through to criminal trial through to prevention.

Defendant mental illness and juror decision-making: A comparison of sample types

Two studies were conducted with separate student and community samples to explore the effect of sample types and the influence of defendant mental illness on juror decision-making. Following the completion of a pre-trial questionnaire in which jurors' attitudes towards mental illness were assessed, participants were provided with a robbery trial transcript, wherein the mental illness of the defendant was manipulated. Participants then answered a questionnaire to assess their knowledge of the scenario, their verdict, verdict confidence, and sentencing decision. Limited relationships were found between the variables in both Study 1 and Study 2. Neither attitude ratings nor mental illness type had a significant effect on juror decisions. Samples differed in terms of the paths through which juror decisions were achieved. Findings suggest that sample type may be particularly relevant for this topic of study, and that future research is required on legal proceedings for cases involving a defendant with a mental illness.

Jurors report that risk measure scores matter in sexually violent predator trials, but that other factors matter more

After deliberating to a verdict, jurors (N = 462) from 40 sexually violent predator (SVP) trials completed a questionnaire asking them to rate the extent to which risk measure scores, diagnoses, expert witness testimony, and offender characteristics described during the trials influenced their commitment decisions. Jurors reported that offenders' sexual offending history, failure to change, and lack of remorse had the strongest influence on their commitment decisions. They reported that testimony about risk instrument scores (e.g., Static-99) and psychopathy had less influence on their decisions, but those who did report being influenced by instrument results were especially likely to view the offender as being at a high risk for reoffending. Overall, findings suggest that SVP jurors view risk measure results as important, but not as important as other offender, offense, and testimony characteristics, including some that have limited relevance to recidivism risk. Thus, findings also suggest that experts may need to better educate jurors regarding factors that do and do not relate to recidivism risk.

Explaining gender differences in jurors' reactions to child sexual assault cases

In three experiments, we investigated the influence of juror, victim, and case factors on mock jurors' decisions in several types of child sexual assault cases (incest, day care, stranger abduction, and teacher-perpetrated abuse). We also validated and tested the ability of several scales measuring empathy for child victims, children's believability, and opposition to adult/child sex, to mediate the effect of jurors' gender on case judgments. Supporting a theoretical model derived from research on the perceived credibility of adult rape victims, women compared to men were more empathic toward child victims, more opposed to adult/child sex, more pro-women, and more inclined to believe children generally. In turn, women (versus men) made more pro-victim judgments in hypothetical abuse cases; that is, attitudes and empathy generally mediated this juror gender effect that is pervasive in this literature. The experiments also revealed that strength of case evidence is a powerful factor in determining judgments, and that teen victims (14 years old) are blamed more for sexual abuse than are younger children (5 years old), but that perceptions of 5 and 10 year olds are largely similar. Our last experiment illustrated that our findings of mediation generalize to a community member sample.

Jurors' views on the value and objectivity of mental health experts testifying in sexually violent predator trials

Although psychologists and psychiatrists often testify in court, we know relatively little about the extent to which jurors value the testimony they hear from these experts. We surveyed 161 jurors who rendered opinions in 14 sex offender civil commitment trials after hearing testimony from psychologists and psychiatrists serving as expert witnesses. Most jurors reported that the experts they heard testify were honest, and they tended to attribute disagreements among experts to case complexity, as opposed to adversarial allegiance or bias. Most reported that hearing from the experts helped them make better decisions and that experts using risk assessment instruments could make more accurate predictions than those who did not. Jurors were, however, more skeptical about the ability of experts to accurately predict recidivism when they heard testimony from both prosecution and defense experts. Findings suggest that jurors value risk assessment testimony from experts, but that experts must think carefully about how to best make risk assessment instrument results accessible to jurors.

Jury panel member perceptions of interpersonal-affective traits of psychopathy predict support for execution in a capital murder trial simulation

Recent research with college undergraduate mock jurors suggests that how psychopathic they perceive a criminal defendant to be is a powerful predictor of whether they will support a death verdict in simulated capital murder trials. Perceived affective and interpersonal traits of psychopathy are especially predictive of support for capital punishment, with perceived remorselessness explaining a disproportionate amount of variance in these attitudes. The present study attempted to extend these findings with a more representative sample of community members called for jury duty (N = 304). Jurors reviewed a case vignette based on an actual capital murder trial, provided sentencing verdicts, and rated the defendant on several characteristics historically associated with the construct of psychopathy. Consistent with prior findings, remorselessness predicted death verdicts, as did the affective and interpersonal features of psychopathy - though the latter effect was more pronounced among jurors who were Caucasian and/or who described their political beliefs as moderate rather than conservative or liberal. Results are discussed in terms of the potentially stigmatizing effects of psychopathy evidence in capital cases.

Jurors' use of standards of proof in decisions about punitive damages

Standards of proof define the degree to which jurors must be satisfied that a fact is true, and plaintiffs in civil lawsuits assume the burden of proving their claims to the requisite standard of proof. Three standards-preponderance of evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and beyond a reasonable doubt-are used by different jurisdictions in trials involving liability for punitive damages. We investigated whether individual mock jurors apply these standards appropriately by instructing them to read two personal injury trial summaries and to use one of three standards in either qualitative or quantitative format when deciding punitive liability. Results showed that jurors tended not to incorporate the standard into their judgments: defendants were just as likely to be found liable when the plaintiff's burden was high ("beyond a reasonable doubt") as when the burden was low ("preponderance of evidence"). The format of the instruction also had a negligible effect. We suggest that nonuse of the standard of proof is related to jurors' preferences for less effortful or experiential processing in situations involving complicated or ambiguous material.

The effect of acknowledging mock jurors' feelings on affective and cognitive biases: it depends on the sample

An intervention designed to correct affective and cognitive biases was tested in the context of a civil commitment hearing of a sexually violent predator. Potential differences between a college student mock jury sample and a more representative, juror venire sample in reaction to these bias correction interventions were explored. In the first of two experiments, undergraduate mock jurors (n = 130) demonstrated a leniency effect when the sex offender's attorney acknowledged jurors' emotional reactions and motivated them to thoughtfully weigh the evidence. The second experiment failed to replicate these findings with a more ecologically valid sample (n = 300). Several differences between samples were found: representative jurors, as opposed to undergraduates, were sensitive to differences between pure clinical and actuarial expert testimony; and measures of intrinsic cognitive effort predicted verdicts for undergraduates, but not for representative jurors. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.