The role of death qualification and need for cognition in venirepersons' evaluations of expert scientific testimony in capital trials

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of death qualification in venirepersons' evaluations of expert scientific testimony in capital trials. 200 venirepersons from the 12th Judicial Circuit in Bradenton, FL completed a booklet that contained the following: one question that measured their attitudes toward the death penalty; one question that categorized their death-qualification status; the Need for Cognition (NFC) scale (Cacioppo, Petty & Kao, 1984); a summary of the guilt phase of a capital case (which included the cross-examination of the state's expert witness); verdict preference; five questions concerning participants' evaluations of the expert's testimony; the penalty phase of a capital case; sentence preference; and standard demographic questions. Results indicated that death-qualified venirepersons were more likely to demonstrate a low need for cognition and view ambiguous expert scientific testimony as valid, important in their decision-making processes, unbiased, and of high quality. Finally, death-qualified participants were more conviction- and death- prone than their excludable counterparts. Surprisingly, death-qualified and excludable jurors did not differ with respect to whether or not they felt that the expert followed correct procedures. Legal implications and applications are discussed.

Reality check: A comparison of college students and a community sample of mock jurors in a simulated sexual violent predator civil commitment

“…Although the impact of NFC alone is not the thrust of this study, several other studies have demonstrated the moderating effects of NFC on various aspects of mock juror decision making, from disregarding inadmissible testimony (e.g., Sommers & Kassin, 2001) to sensitivity to methodological flaws in expert evidence (e.g., McAuliff & Kovera, 2008) to death qualification and evaluations of expert evidence (Butler & Moran, 2007). Because NFC has been shown to moderate so many aspects of legal decision making, undergraduates' higher levels of NFC should at least give us pause when generalizing results from studies that use undergraduates exclusively to juryeligible citizens.…”

Relationships Between Support for the Death Penalty and Cognitive Processing

“…Although previous studies provided mixed findings for the relationship between NFC and sentencing verdict (Butler & Moran, 2007b), no previous research has examined relationships between general death penalty attitudes and NFC.…”

A qualitative analysis of mock jurors' deliberations of linkage analysis evidence

“…It should be noted that several participants in the current study held higher levels of education and world experience than the norm. Since previous research has suggested that jurors with a high need for cognition are better able to critically evaluate expert evidence (McAuliff & Kovera, 2008) and that need for cognition is related to educational level (Butler & Moran, 2007), by sampling educated professionals our fi ndings may not refl ect the deliberations of all jurors. The small sample size in the current study also necessitates replication with different samples.…”