Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T17:37:22.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Impacts of Evidence and Extralegal Factors in Jurors' Decisions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2024

Barbara F. Reskin  and
Christy A. Visher
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This study uses data from courtroom observations and posttrial interviews with jurors who served in thirty-eight actual sexual assault trials. It addresses three issues: (1) the effects of several measures of evidence on jurors' judgments of a defendant's guilt, (2) the relative merits of jurors' recollections of the evidence and measures of evidence coded at trial by trained observers, and (3) whether the effects of jurors' attitudes toward crime and their sentiments toward victims and defendants depend on the strength of the evidence, as Kalven and Zeisel (1966) contended. We find that both trial- and juror-level measures of evidence adequately capture the effects of evidence, and that neither measure is inherently preferable. Also, while jurors were influenced by extralegal factors, these effects were largely limited to weak cases in which the state presented little hard evidence, which is consistent with Kalven and Zeisel's “liberation hypothesis.”

Type
Research Note
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , 1986 , pp. 423 - 438
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 The Law and Society Association

Footnotes

This research was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant No. R01 MH29727, awarded through the National Center for the Prevention and Control of Rape. We gratefully acknowledge the helpful suggestions of Gary LaFree, Polly Phipps, David Rauma, two anonymous reviewers, and the current and past editors of the Law & Society Review. We are indebted to Stephanie Sanford for observing trials and helping to prepare the data for analysis, to Linda Copenhaver for arranging the juror interviews, to the Marion County Criminal Courts and Prosecutor's Office for their cooperation, and to the jurors for generously participating in this study. Our greatest debt is to Marie Matthews, who was instrumental in all phases of study design and data collection.

References

CALHOUN, L., SELBY, J., CANN, A. and G. T., KELLER (1978) “The Effects of Victim Physical Attractiveness on Social Reactions to Victim of Rape,” 17 Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 191.Google Scholar
FEILD, H. (1979) “Rape Trials and Jurors' Decisions: A Psycholegal Analysis of the Effects of Victim, Defendant, and Case Characteristics,” 3 Law and Human Behavior 261.Google Scholar
FEILD, H., and L., BIENEN (1980) Jurors and Rape. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
GLEASON, J., and V., HARRIS (1975) “Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Perceived Similarity as Determinants of Judgments by Simulated Jurors,” 3 Social Behavior and Personality 175.Google Scholar
HASTIE, R., S., PENROD, and N., PENNINGTON (1983) Inside the Jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HEPBURN, J. (1980) “The Objective Reality of Evidence and the Utility of Systematic Jury Selection,” 4 Law and Human Behavior 89.Google Scholar
HOWARD, J. (1984) “Societal Influences on Attribution: Blaming Some Victims More than Others,” 47 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 494.Google Scholar
KALVEN, H., and H., ZEISEL (1966) The American Jury. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
KAPLAN, M. (1982) “Cognitive Processes in the Individual Juror,” in Kerr, N. and Bray, R. (eds.), The Psychology of the Courtroom. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
KAPLAN, M., and G., KEMMERICK (1974) “Juror Judgment as Information Integration: Combining Evidential and Nonevidential Information,” 30 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 493.Google Scholar
KAPLAN, M., and L., MILLER (1978) “Reducing the Effects of Juror Bias,” 36 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1443.Google Scholar
LAFREE, G., B., RESKIN and C., VISHER (1985) “Jurors' Responses to Victims' Behavior and Legal Issues in Sexual Assault Trials,” 32 Social Problems 389.Google Scholar
LOFTUS, E. (1981) “Reconstructive Memory Processes in Eyewitness Testimony,” in Sales, B. (ed.), The Trial Process. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
MYERS, M. (1979) “Rule Departures and Making Law: Juries and Their Verdicts” 13 Law & Society Review 781.Google Scholar
PENROD, S., and R., HASTIE (1979) “Models of Jury Decision Making: A Critical Review,” 86 Psychological Bulletin 462.Google Scholar
RESKIN, B., and G., LAFREE (1981) Final Report to National Institute of Mental Health on Grant No. R01 MH29727. Unpublished.Google Scholar
SAKS, M., C., WERNER, and T., OSTROM (1975) “The Presumption of Innocence and the American Juror,” 2 Journal of Contemporary Law 46.Google Scholar
SCHEFLIN, A., and J. VAN, DYKE (1980) “Jury Nullification: The Contours of a Controversy,” 43 Law and Contemporary Problems 51.Google Scholar
SEALY, A. (1981) “Another Look at Social Psychological Aspects of Juror Bias,” 5 Law and Human Behavior 187.Google Scholar
SELIGMAN, C., J., BRICKMAN and D., KOULACK (1977) “Rape and Physical Attractiveness: Assigning Responsibility to Victims,” 45 Journal of Personality 554.Google Scholar
SIMON, R. (1967) The Jury and the Defense of Insanity. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
SIMON, R. (1980) The Jury: Its Role in American Society. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
TANFORD, S., and S., PENROD (1982) “Biases in Trials Involving Defendants Charged with Multiple Offenses,” 12 Journal of Applied Social Psychology 453.Google Scholar
VISHER, C. (1982) “Jurors' Decisions in Criminal Trials: Individual and Group Influences.” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
VISHER, C. (1985) “Research on Juror Decision Making: Do Experimental Studies Generalize?” Unpublished. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council.Google Scholar