Race and Information Processing in Criminal Trials: Does the Defendant’s Race Affect How the Facts Are Evaluated?

Abstract

Two studies examined whether a criminal defendant's race influences Whites' sensitivity to legally relevant information. In Study 1, prosecution case strength ratings and guilt likelihood ratings were more sensitive to the strength of the defendant's alibi when he was Black than when he was White, if the experimental task was designed to elicit low processing motivation. Under high motivation, participants were equally sensitive to alibi strength, regardless of defendant race. In Study 2, the alibi strength manipulation was replaced with a manipulation of the effectiveness of the district attorney's cross-examination. As predicted, defense case strength ratings were more sensitive to the strength of the prosecutor's cross-examination with a Black defendant than with a White defendant-under low motivation. Under high motivation, sensitivity did not depend on defendant race. These results suggest that a Black defendant can elicit greater sensitivity to legally relevant information than will a White defendant.

When emotionality trumps reason: A study of individual processing style and juror bias

“…Studies have documented the influence of a host of extralegal factors on juror decisions, mainly focusing on characteristics of the defendant. Relevant external extralegal factors have included the defendant's race (Sargent & Bradfield, 2004;Sommers & Ellsworth, 2001), age (Bergeron & McKelvie, 2004;Mueller-Johnson, Toglia, Sweeney, & Ceci, 2007;Warling & Badali-Peterson, 2001), religious conviction (Johnson, 1985), gender (DeSantis & Kayson, 1997;Fisher, 1997;McCoy & Gray, 2007), physical attractiveness (Stewart, 1985), occupation (Loeffler & Lawson, 2002), and ethnicity (Perez, Hosch, Ponder, & Trejo, 1993).…”

Talking about a Black Man: The Influence of Defendant and Character Witness Race on Jurors' Use of Character Evidence

“…These findings differ somewhat from the watchdog effect, in which mock jurors give greater scrutiny to evidence for Black than for White defendants (Sargent & Bradfield, 2004). This hypothesis suggests that heightened scrutiny would lead both positive and negative CE to more strongly affect Black defendants.…”

“…This hypothesis suggests that heightened scrutiny would lead both positive and negative CE to more strongly affect Black defendants. Our findings may suggest that the watchdog hypothesis applies more to evidence that is completely novel, such as alibis (Sargent & Bradfield, 2004). Because jurors may have initial impressions of the defendant based on the charges or racial stereotypes, their attention to CE may be more affected by factors such as stereotype consistency.…”

“…If jurors are more influenced by stereotype-inconsistent information because of its apparent diagnosticity, positive CE may have a stronger impact on Black defendants, whereas negative CE may have a stronger influence on White defendants. However, other research shows jurors often scrutinize evidence more closely in cases involving Black rather than White defendants (Sargent & Bradfield, 2004). Because jurors do not wish to be biased, they act as "watchdogs" by thoroughly examining the evidence in order to treat Black defendants fairly.…”

“…We expected that stereotypeinconsistent CE would be more influential (Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg, 1996), such that positive CE would be more beneficial to a Black defendant, and negative CE would be more harmful to a White defendant. Alternatively, mock jurors might attend more to all CE when the defendant is Black because of fairness concerns (Sargent & Bradfield, 2004).…”