Jurors’ perceptions of scientific testimony: The role of gender and testimony complexity in trials involving DNA evidence

Maeder, Evelyn M.; McManus, Laura; McLaughlin, Kendra J.; Yamamoto, Susan; Stewart, Harry E.

doi:10.1080/23311908.2016.1264657

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other possible venues for future research could deal with expert opinion as opposed to established majority opinion (Powers, 2017). Parallel research on expert evidence covers jury perception with regard to gender (Maeder, McManus, McLaughlin, Yamamoto, Stewart, & Walla, 2016) and the psychological dimensions of individuals involved in court proceedings (Case, 2016). Gender and psychology are not covered by this article, which may be considered a research limitation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The New Criteria for Expert Evidence in British Courts – Case Law, Statutory Rules and a Negligence Case Study

Eisenberg

2018

pijss

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work aims to analyse the legislation proposed by The Law Commission in Great Britain in order to establish statutory criteria for expert evidence in court. The proposal is assessed against the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Rules (CPR) initiated by The Government.From this comparison implications for expert witnesses are derived. For illustrative purposes, the case study of fictitious divorce proceedings of Peter Morgan is dealt with. The study shows legal remedies available to a party against its expert witness in negligence cases.Methodologically, expert evidence admissibility criteria are discussed on the background of common law rules and the Criminal Procedure Rules (2015). Legal academic literature is consulted to enrich the argument. The findings show that the Criminal Procedure Rules (2015) are rooted in settled case law, albeit stressing expertise enhancement and professional qualifications. The discussion of the Peter Morgan case study provides for a legal route for negligence claims based on the case law of Jones v Kaney. The originality of this work is based

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The New Criteria for Expert Evidence in British Courts – Case Law, Statutory Rules and a Negligence Case Study

Eisenberg

2018

pijss

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to ELM, limited cognitive resources and insufficient knowledge increase reliance on readily accessible but potentially irrelevant, peripheral aspects of a message (Petty and Cacioppo, 1984 , 1986 ; San José-Cabezudo et al, 2009 ; Salerno et al, 2017 ). This theory is supported by evidence suggesting that when information is unfamiliar, highly technical or complex—as is often the case for expert opinions—juror evaluations of credibility and persuasiveness may be swayed by superficial features of the expert and their evidence (Chaiken, 1980 ; Heuer and Penrod, 1994 ; Shuman et al, 1994 ; Cooper et al, 1996 ; Schuller et al, 2005 ; Ivković and Hans, 2006 ; Daftary-Kapur et al, 2010 ; Bornstein and Greene, 2011 ; Neal, 2014 ; Maeder et al, 2016 ). Expert likeability is one peripheral cue that may affect perceptions of persuasiveness.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Likeability and Expert Persuasion: Dislikeability Reduces the Perceived Persuasiveness of Expert Evidence

Younan

Martire

2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the use of expert evidence increasing in civil and criminal trials, there is concern jurors' decisions are affected by factors that are irrelevant to the quality of the expert opinion. Past research suggests that the likeability of an expert significantly affects juror attributions of credibility and merit. However, we know little about the effects of expert likeability when detailed information about expertise is provided. Two studies examined the effect of an expert's likeability on the persuasiveness judgments and sentencing decisions of 456 jury-eligible respondents. Participants viewed and/or read an expert's testimony (lower vs. higher quality) before rating expert persuasiveness (via credibility, value, and weight), and making a sentencing decision in a Capitol murder case (death penalty vs. life in prison). Lower quality evidence was significantly less persuasive than higher quality evidence. Less likeable experts were also significantly less persuasive than either neutral or more likeable experts. This “penalty” for less likeable experts was observed irrespective of evidence quality. However, only perceptions of the foundational validity of the expert's discipline, the expert's trustworthiness and the clarity and conservativeness of the expert opinion significantly predicted sentencing decisions. Thus, the present study demonstrates that while likeability does influence persuasiveness, it does not necessarily affect sentencing outcomes.

show abstract

“…These findings suggests that defendant race in combination with a common stereotype of Native American populations and substance use disorder yielded higher guilt ratings, influencing participants judgements. In the Canadian context, studies have found similar results, suggesting that defendant race can also be influential in juror perceptions in Canadian courtrooms (Maeder & Burdett, 2013;Maeder et al, 2016). Archival data from three provincial jails across Northern Ontario, housing Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders, demonstrated that there were no statistically significant differences in sentence length between a sample of Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders (Bonta, 1989).…”

Section: Defendant Racementioning

confidence: 86%

“…They also found that Indigenous Canadians are treated the harshest by mock-jurors in Canada. Furthermore, recent experimental juror studies suggest that Canadian mock-jurors are more likely to convict Indigenous defendants of criminal charges (Maeder & Burdett., 2013;Maeder et al, 2015), and assign harsher sentences to Indigenous defendants compared to White or Black defendants (Maeder et al, 2016;Maeder et al, 2015). For example, Maeder and colleagues (2015) examined defendant race and victim physical attractiveness on juror decisionmaking in a sexual assault trial.…”

Section: Defendant Racementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Research examining race-crime congruency has found that jurors are more punitive toward defendants charged with crimes stereotypical of a particular race (Jones & Kaplan, 2003). Maeder et al (2016) found that guilty verdicts did not differ for White defendants across crime types (e.g., auto-theft, fraud, dangerous operation of a vehicle while intoxicated). However, guilty verdicts significantly differed across crime-type for Indigenous defendants, such that higher proportions of guilty verdicts were given for Indigenous defendants for auto-theft, compared to fraud or dangerous operation of a vehicle while intoxicated (Maeder et al, 2016).…”

Section: Eyewitness Race and Defendant Racementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Indigenous Canadians take the Stand: The Influence of Age and Race on Mock-Juror Perceptions and Verdict Decisions

Vettese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined if race and age interact to influence juror perceptions of eyewitness memory and defendant guilt. Eyewitness age (i.e., 12-vs. 18-years-old), eyewitness race (i.e., Indigenous vs. White), and defendant race (i.e., Indigenous vs. White) were manipulated using a mock-trial transcript. Participants (N= 275) were recruited from psychology courses and Amazon's Mechanical Turk platform. Contrary to the hypotheses, Indigenous eyewitness testimony resulted in more guilty verdicts, higher guilt ratings, less favourable perceptions of the defendant, and more favourable perceptions of the eyewitness. Mock-jurors were more punitive toward White defendants and held more favourable perceptions of Indigenous defendants. Racial bias scores moderated the relationships between eyewitness race, defendant race, and the interaction of eyewitness-defendant race for verdict decisions and perceptions of trial party members. This research contributes to the understanding of racial bias in juror decision-making research and can be used to inform jury selection and best practices in the Canadian legal system.Witness: I am one of his best friends; I have known Mr. Smith since grade school. Defence: Mr. Simmons, what do you think of the allegations against Mr. Smith today? Witness: I am shocked. I know Mr. Smith like nobody else does, and I know he wouldn't physically assault anyone. Elijah should be ashamed of trying to destroy his legacy. Defence: So, you think that there is no way Mr. Dakota Smith could have physically abused a student at the school he worked at for three decades? Witness: Definitely not. Defence: How can you be so sure? Witness: I have known Mr. Smith for a very long time. I would have known if this happened, he would have told me. It is a shame that this student is misremembering the past or trying to ruin a great teacher's reputation. Defence: Thank you Mr. Simmons. No further questions your Honour.

show abstract

Jurors’ perceptions of scientific testimony: The role of gender and testimony complexity in trials involving DNA evidence

Cited by 7 publications

References 36 publications

The New Criteria for Expert Evidence in British Courts – Case Law, Statutory Rules and a Negligence Case Study

The New Criteria for Expert Evidence in British Courts – Case Law, Statutory Rules and a Negligence Case Study

Likeability and Expert Persuasion: Dislikeability Reduces the Perceived Persuasiveness of Expert Evidence

Indigenous Canadians take the Stand: The Influence of Age and Race on Mock-Juror Perceptions and Verdict Decisions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About