First-ballot votes, predeliberation dispositions, and final verdicts in jury trials.

Sandys, Marla; Dillehay, Ronald C.

doi:10.1007/bf01499324

Cited by 89 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Broadly speaking, there have been two approaches to studying real jurors. In one approach, jurors are questioned about the trial in which they were involved after completing jury duty (e.g., Moran & Comfort, 1982;Reifman, Gusick, & Ellsworth, 1992;Sandys & Dillehay, 1995). Al-though this method has the drawback of potential memory bias in jurors' retrospective reports, it tends to support the fi ndings of simulation studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out?

Bornstein¹

1999

Law and Human Behavior

619

531

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out?

Bornstein¹

1999

Law and Human Behavior

619

531

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Thus, potential biases against the defendant resulting from overly emotional evidence might be attenuated after group deliberation (as found in laboratory research by Kaplan & Miller, 1977. Alternatively, deliberation might also maximize initial biases, or do little more than develop the picture that was formed before deliberation among the majority of jurors (Kalven & Zeisel, 1966;MacCoun & Kerr, 1988;Sandys & Dillehay, 1995; for a review, see Devine, Clayton, Dunford, Seying, & Pryce, 2001). Most of the research we reviewed considered individual jurors' judgments, and if emotional evidence causes more individual jurors to favor a punitive judgment before deliberation, then the chance is increased that the pre-deliberation picture, which deliberation might develop, is one that is biased toward a more punitive decision.…”

Section: Caveatsmentioning

confidence: 93%

Emotional evidence and jurors' judgments: the promise of neuroscience for informing psychology and law

Salerno¹,

Bottoms²

2009

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article is a review of psychological and neuroscience research addressing how juror decision making is influenced by emotion elicited from potentially disturbing evidence such as gruesome autopsy photographs, victim impact statements, and information about a defendant's tragic personal history presented as mitigating evidence. We review (a) converging evidence suggesting that the presence versus absence of such evidence results in more punitive juror judgments, (b) social cognition theories that provide potential explanations for these effects, and (c) neuroscience research aimed at understanding the role of emotion in moral judgments by identifying how brain activity is affected by emotion-eliciting stimuli. We argue that neuroimaging evidence showing that emotional stimuli cause heightened emotion and decreased effortful cognitive processing is relevant in understanding jurors' increased punitiveness after being exposed to emotional evidence, and in turn relevant to debates about the admissibility of emotional evidence in courts of law. Ultimately, we argue for more ecologically valid psychological research to clarify these important issues.

show abstract

“…Also, our mock jurors did not deliberate as a group, which might attenuate (Shaw & Skolnick, 1995) or amplify (Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969) individual jurors' biases. Yet several studies (including one using a case involving a juvenile defendant, Haegerich & Bottoms, 2004) have found that deliberation has few effects on postdeliberation verdicts as compared with the average of pre-deliberation verdict preferences (Kalven & Zeisel, 1966;MacCoun & Kerr, 1988;Sandys & Dillehay, 1995).…”

Section: Caveats and Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Jurors' perceptions of juvenile defendants: the influence of intellectual disability, abuse history, and confession evidence

Najdowski¹,

Bottoms

Vargas³

2009

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding jurors' perceptions of juvenile defendants has become increasingly important as more and more juvenile cases are being tried in adult criminal court rather than family or juvenile court. Intellectual disability and child maltreatment are overrepresented among juvenile delinquents, and juveniles (particularly disabled juveniles) are at heightened risk for falsely confessing to crimes. In two mock trial experiments, we examined the effects of disability, abuse history, and confession evidence on jurors' perceptions of a juvenile defendant across several different crime scenarios. Abused juveniles were treated more leniently than nonabused juveniles only when the juvenile's crime was motivated by self-defense against the abuser. Jurors used disability as a mitigating factor, making more lenient judgments for a disabled than a nondisabled juvenile. Jurors also completely discounted a coerced confession for a disabled juvenile, but not for a nondisabled juvenile. In fact, compared with when it was portrayed as voluntary, jurors generally discounted a juvenile's coerced confession. Implications for public policy and directions for future research are discussed.

show abstract

First-ballot votes, predeliberation dispositions, and final verdicts in jury trials.

Abstract: for their assistance in conducting the interviews; Steve McKinley and Professors Young Koh, Dualatram Lund and Alexander Weiss for their comments on the statistics, and the anonymous reviewers for the helpful suggestions. Copies of reprints can be obtained from either Maria Sandys,

Cited by 89 publications

References 16 publications

The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out?

The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out?

Emotional evidence and jurors' judgments: the promise of neuroscience for informing psychology and law

Jurors' perceptions of juvenile defendants: the influence of intellectual disability, abuse history, and confession evidence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About