Judge Nonverbal Communication on Trial: Do Mock Trial Jurors Notice?

Abstract

This study investigated jurors' reactions to judges' nonverbal communication in mock trials. Participants in 80 mock juries viewed taped segments of direct and cross examination that varied the judges' level of nonverbal involvement. Comments about the judge were solicited in predeliberation questionnaires and unsolicited comments obtained from dialogue that occurred during mock jury deliberations. The investigation found that jurors are aware of nonverbal cues from judges, particularly negative behaviors. Although the high-and low-involved judges solicited roughly the same number of comments, more negative comments were made about the judge displaying low than high nonverbal involvement. The results also revealed that jurors made more negative comments than positive ones. Overall, jurors are most aware of a judge's lack of involvement and apparent bias. Discussion focuses on ways to minimize the influence of judge nonverbal communication on jurors.

Keeping Control: The Importance of Nonverbal Expressions of Power by Organizational Spokespersons in Times of Crisis

“…In the aftermath of the trigger event, crisis communication can additionally serve to repair the reputational damage caused by a crisis. We propose that the benefits of nonverbal expressions of power depend upon the crisis stage in which information is offered (Burnett & Badzinski, ).…”

Performing Impartiality: Judicial Demeanor and Legitimacy

“…This holistic analysis implicitly reflects a wide range of microbehaviors but does not expressly quantify a detailed or specific list (Blanck 1990; Blanck et al. 1990; Burnett and Badzinski 2005), nor does it involve technical discourse or conversation analysis (Travers 2006).…”

“…These characterizations are based on a holistic analysis (similar to that reported by Mileski 1971; Sarat 1977; Ptacek 1999; and Hunter 2005) and reflect a wide range of verbal and nonverbal behaviors, such as tone of voice, gestures, and facial expressions, as well as elements of the content of speech, detailed more fully below. This holistic analysis implicitly reflects a wide range of microbehaviors but does not expressly quantify a detailed or specific list (Blanck 1990; Blanck et al 1990; Burnett and Badzinski 2005), nor does it involve technical discourse or conversation analysis (Travers 2006).…”

“…This reaction is consistent with other research. Burnett and Badzinski (2005, 212, 217) point out that, in general, people focus more on and recall negative behaviors, and this is true of juror responses to judicial behavior. This finding, combined with the experience of the observers, suggests that court participants and members of the public who are present where a magistrate displays rude or harsh demeanor may take away a feeling that undermines rather than enhances judicial legitimacy.…”

From Group Member to Democratic Citizen: How Deliberating with Fellow Jurors Reshapes Civic Attitudes

“…Though many countries use juries to some degree, the overwhelming majority of the world's jury trials occur in the United States (Vidmar, 2001). The United States is also the principal site of jury research, and communication scholars used the jury to study group decision making (e.g., Boster, Hunter, & Hale, 1991;Burnett & Badzinski, 2000;Pettus, 1990;Sunwolf & Siebold, 1998), nonverbal communication in the courtroom (Burnett & Badzinski, 2005;Pryor & Buchanan, 1984), and the potential influence of public advocacy messages on jury deliberations (O'Connor, 2006). There is a noticeable absence of research, however, on the impact of jury service on the jurors themselves.…”