Moral foundations and juror verdict justifications.

The purpose of this study was to examine the ways in which mock jurors justified their verdict decisions using moral foundations language. Participants read a trial transcript describing a second-degree murder charge featuring an automatism plea (which negates the physical volition of a crime). They then provided a two-to-three sentence rationale for their verdict choice, which we coded for the contextually-valid presence of words from the Moral Foundations (MF) Dictionary. Mock jurors were most likely to use harm-related language in justifying murder votes. A qualitative description also revealed differences in the content of the justifications.

Quality-checking the new normal: trial modality in online jury decision-making research.

Objectives: We sought to examine differences between videotaped and written trial materials on verdicts, perceptions of trial parties, quality check outcomes, perceived salience of racial issues, and emotional states in a trial involving a Black or White defendant. Hypotheses: We predicted that verdicts and ratings of trial parties would be similar for those participants viewing a videotaped trial and those reading a written transcript. However, we suspected that emotional states might be heightened for those watching a video and that those reading transcripts would perform better on quality checks regarding trial content (but worse on those involving trial party characteristics, including defendant race). Method: Participants (N = 139 after removing those who did not meet our threshold for data quality) recruited from Amazon's Mechanical Turk were randomly assigned to watch a video or read a transcript of a trial involving an alleged murder of a police officer. They completed a questionnaire probing their verdict, perceptions of trial parties, perceived salience of racial issues, and emotional state, and responded to a series of quality checks. Results: Participants in the videotape condition performed significantly worse on quality checks than did those in the transcript condition. There were no significant differences between modalities in terms of verdict or perceived salience of racial issues. Some other differences emerged between conditions, however, with more positive perceptions of the pathologist and police officer in the transcript condition, and more negative emotion elicited by the trial involving a White defendant in the videotape condition only. Conclusions: There were no meaningful differences between videotaped and written trial materials in terms of outcome (verdict), but the presence of some trial party rating and emotional state differences stemming from modality epitomizes the internal/ecological validity trade-off in jury research. Our quality check results indicate that written transcripts may work better for obtaining valid data online. Regardless of modality, researchers must be diligent in crafting quality checks to ensure that participants are attending to the stimulus materials, particularly as more research shifts online.

The influence of race on jurors' perceptions of lethal police use of force.

OBJECTIVE: Many highly publicized police use-of-force encounters have recently occurred in the United States. This project primarily explored whether officer, juror, or victim race affects verdicts in trials involving police use of force. HYPOTHESES: Because of recent conflicting research surrounding race and juror decision-making, we conducted an exploratory analysis on the interactive effects of juror, victim, and defendant race. We hypothesized that mock jurors with favorable perceptions of police legitimacy would be less likely to convict an officer charged with manslaughter. METHOD: Four hundred sixteen (243 women, 170 men, three another gender; 263 White, 50 Asian, 44 Black, 41 Latine, four Native American, 14 another race/ethnicity) jury-eligible community members read a trial transcript involving a police officer charged with manslaughter, in which we manipulated victim and defendant race (Black, White), then rendered a verdict and answered a questionnaire. RESULTS: We found significant effects of police legitimacy and defendant race on verdicts. The main effect was qualified by an interaction between juror race/ethnicity and defendant race. Simple-slope analyses revealed no effect of defendant race for White mock jurors. In comparison, Black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) mock jurors were significantly more likely to convict a White than a Black defendant. We also observed significant effects of police legitimacy, defendant race, and victim race on perceptions of the officer's use of force. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses revealed that mock jurors were significantly more punitive when the defendant was White compared with Black, and they perceived the officer's use of force as significantly more excessive when the officer was White or the victim was Black. These effects appear to be driven primarily by BIPOC jurors. Mock jurors with more favorable perceptions of police legitimacy were significantly less likely to convict the officer and viewed his use of force as less excessive. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Mosaic or Melting Pot? Race and Juror Decision Making in Canada and the United States.

Although Canada and the United States both demonstrate significant overrepresentation of racialized groups in prisons, the overrepresented groups vary by country, potentially signifying results of the countries' different (though similarly problematic) histories of racial inequality. The present study investigated this issue within a jury context by assessing the influence of defendant race on Canadian and American participants' verdicts in an assault trial. We also examined mock jurors' attributions of the defendant's behavior and their perceptions of the cultural criminal stereotype for each racial group. Canadian and American participants (N = 198) read a trial transcript in which the defendant's race (i.e., Black, White, or Aboriginal Canadian/Native American) was manipulated, and then completed measures of attributions and stereotypes. Results demonstrated that although verdicts did not significantly differ as a function of defendant race or country, stability and control attributions did vary between Canadian and American participants, as did racial stereotypes. In addition, defendant race affected internal versus external attributions, regardless of country. These findings suggest that race may play a role in jurors' perceptions of defendants, but that in some ways, this varies by country, potentially accounting for some of the differences found between existing Canadian and American jury studies.

The Interactive Effects of Race and Expert Testimony on Jurors' Perceptions of Recanted Confessions.

We examined the effect of defendant race and expert testimony on jurors' perceptions of recanted confessions. Participants (591 jury-eligible community members) read a first-degree murder trial transcript in which defendant race (Black/White) and expert testimony (present/absent) were manipulated. They provided verdicts and answered questions regarding the confession and expert testimony. When examining the full sample, we observed no significant main effects or interactions of defendant race or expert testimony. When exclusively examining White participants, we observed a significant interaction between expert testimony and defendant race on verdicts. When the defendant was White, there was no significant effect of expert testimony, but when the defendant was Black, jurors were significantly more likely to acquit when given expert testimony. These findings support the watchdog hypothesis, such that White jurors are more receptive to legally relevant evidence when the defendant is Black.

What's in the Box? Punishment and Insanity in the Canadian Jury Deliberation Room.

In insanity cases, although the defendant's eventual punishment is legally irrelevant to the jury's decision, it may be psychologically relevant. In this three-part mixed-methods study, Canadian jury eligible participants (N = 83) read a fictional murder case involving an insanity claim, then took part in 45-min deliberations. Findings showed that mock jurors who were generally favourable towards punishment had a lower frequency of utterances that supported the Defence's case. A qualitative description of keyword flagged utterances also demonstrated that mock jurors relied on moral intuitions about authority, harm, and fairness in justifying their positions. These findings may have application in crafting effective Judge's instructions and lawyer's opening statements.

The influence of defendant race and mental disorder type on mock juror decision-making in insanity trials.

This study examined the joint influence of defendant race (Black/White) and mental disorder type (schizophrenia/depression) on mock juror decisions in a Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) case. We reasoned that unwillingness to vote for insanity would be more pronounced for a Black defendant with schizophrenia, given overlapping dangerousness and criminality stereotypes associated with those groups. Online community participants (N = 216) read a fictional second-degree murder case in which we varied mental disorder type and defendant race, then provided a verdict (guilty/NGRI) and answered questions regarding the trial. In line with hypotheses, participants were significantly more likely to vote guilty for a Black defendant with schizophrenia as compared to depression, but there were no significant differences for the White defendant. Results of this study suggest that bias in insanity trials can be exacerbated for a racialized defendant.

Creating the Punishment Orientation Questionnaire: An Item Response Theory Approach.

The purpose of these studies was to examine the principles people engage in when thinking about punishment, using a new measure (the Punishment Orientation Questionnaire [POQ]). Although traditional conceptualizations of punishment divide it into utilitarianism (e.g., deterrence) and retributivism ("eye for an eye"), we argue that a more useful metric of lay attitudes concerns orientation toward or away from punishment. After pilot testing and factor analysis, we used item response theory to assess four scales: prohibitive utilitarianism (limiting punishment based on utility), prohibitive retributivism (aversion to punishing innocent people), permissive utilitarianism (willingness to give strict punishment based on the benefits thereof), and permissive retributivism (desire for just deserts). The POQ showed good predictive validity for capital jury eligibility and sentencing recommendation in response to a death penalty trial stimulus. This study provides a better understanding of how classic punishment philosophies manifest among laypersons and contributes data outside of classical test theory.

Racial Composition of Couples in Battered Spouse Syndrome Cases: A Look at Juror Perceptions and Decisions.

This study manipulated the race of the defendant (wife) and the victim (husband)-White/White, White/Black, Black/Black, and Black/White-in a murder case involving a history of intimate partner violence (IPV) to examine the potential prejudicial impact of race on juror decision-making. A total of 244 jury-eligible American community members read a trial transcript of a murder case in which the defendant claimed self-defense using evidence of battered spouse syndrome. Participants provided a verdict, responsibility attributions, and their perceptions of the scenario. Findings revealed that the Black defendant (wife) was more likely to be found not guilty by reason of self-defense, and female jurors were overall more likely to acquit the defendant (wife) than were men. These results contribute to the scarce literature on the influence of race on perceptions of legal proceedings involving IPV.

A Case of Culture: Defendant Gender and Juror Decision-Making.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the use of cultural evidence toward an automatism defense, and whether such evidence would be detrimental or beneficial to a male versus a female defendant. U.S. participants ( N = 208), recruited via Amazon's Mechanical Turk, read a fictional spousal homicide case in which the defendant claimed to have blacked out during the crime. We manipulated the gender of the defendant and whether a culture-specific issue was claimed to have precipitated the defendant's blackout. ANOVAs revealed that cultural evidence positively affected perceived credibility for the female defendant, whereas there were no differences for the male defendant. Results also demonstrated that when cultural evidence was presented, the female defendant was seen as less in control of her actions than was the male defendant. Furthermore, lower credibility and higher perceived defendant control predicted harsher verdict decisions. This investigation may aid scholars in discussing concerns regarding a clash between multicultural and feminist objectives in the courtroom.

Putting negative attitudes on the agenda? Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act publicity and juror decision-making.

The current study examined the effect of publicity about Canada's recent Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) Reform Act - legislation surrounding accused in insanity cases that purportedly aims to enhance public safety - on juror decision-making. In line with agenda-setting theory, we expected that NCR Reform Act publicity might reinforce certain fears about the insanity defence, dependent on whether it had either a positive or negative evaluative slant. Contrary to previous work on the insanity defence, participants in this study generally favoured a NCR verdict. The evaluative slant of the NCR publicity had no effect on verdict decisions or insanity defence attitudes, but there was a significant difference in participants' evaluations of the fairness of the Reform Act, such that those exposed to a positive or control article viewed the act as fairer than those exposed to a negative article. This study may aid future researchers in evaluating potential unintended consequences of the NCR Reform Act.

Juror decision making in not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder trials: Effects of defendant gender and mental illness type.

This study sought to examine the potential impact of defendant gender and mental illness type on Canadian juror decision making by manipulating the gender (man, woman) and mental illness (substance abuse disorder, schizophrenia, bipolar, depression) of the defendant in a second-degree murder case involving an insanity plea. Participants read a trial transcript that included definitions of second-degree murder and the not criminally on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) defense. Participants then provided a verdict (guilty or NCRMD) and completed various scales measuring attributional judgments, perceptions of the defendant, and perceived dangerousness. Contrary to expectations, NCRMD was chosen over a guilty verdict in the majority of cases. Findings also indicated that participant decisions and perceptions regarding defendants diagnosed with substance abuse disorder differed from the other mental illness groups. The gender of the defendant had an influence on participants' perceptions of internal attributions, and the perceived stability of criminal behaviors. Results suggest that perceptions of mental illness influence verdicts in NCRMD cases, and that defendant gender plays a role in participants' perceptions of defendants. These findings contribute to the scarce literature on mental illness in the Canadian court system. Future research should examine the interaction between juror gender, defendant gender, and mental illness in insanity cases.

Culture in the Courtroom: Ethnocentrism and Juror Decision-Making.

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether a culturally-based argument in a non-insane automatism defense would be detrimental or beneficial to the defendant. We also examined how juror ethnocentrism might affect perceptions of such a defense. Participants read a fictional filicide homicide case in which the defendant claimed to have blacked out during the crime; we manipulated whether culture was used as an explanation for what precipitated the defendant's blackout. We conducted path analyses to assess the role of ethnocentrism in predicting lower defendant credibility, and harsher verdict decisions. Results revealed an interaction between ethnocentrism and defense type, such that ethnocentrism related to lower perceived defendant credibility in the cultural condition, but not in the standard automatism condition. This study marks a starting point for empirically investigating the role of culture in the courtroom, which may aid scholars in discussing the merits of a standalone cultural defense.

Defendant mental illness and juror decision-making: A comparison of sample types.

Two studies were conducted with separate student and community samples to explore the effect of sample types and the influence of defendant mental illness on juror decision-making. Following the completion of a pre-trial questionnaire in which jurors' attitudes towards mental illness were assessed, participants were provided with a robbery trial transcript, wherein the mental illness of the defendant was manipulated. Participants then answered a questionnaire to assess their knowledge of the scenario, their verdict, verdict confidence, and sentencing decision. Limited relationships were found between the variables in both Study 1 and Study 2. Neither attitude ratings nor mental illness type had a significant effect on juror decisions. Samples differed in terms of the paths through which juror decisions were achieved. Findings suggest that sample type may be particularly relevant for this topic of study, and that future research is required on legal proceedings for cases involving a defendant with a mental illness.

Secondary confessions: the influence (or lack thereof) of incentive size and scientific expert testimony on jurors' perceptions of informant testimony.

The goal of this research was to determine whether the size of the incentive (none, small, medium, or large, in terms of sentence reduction) a jailhouse informant receives for testifying, as well as scientific expert testimony regarding the fundamental attribution error, would influence mock juror decision-making in a criminal trial involving a secondary confession. Participants read a murder trial transcript involving informant testimony in which incentive size and expert testimony were manipulated and then provided verdict judgments, made attributions for the informant's decision to testify, and rated the informant and expert on a number of dimensions. Neither expert testimony nor size of incentive had a direct influence on verdicts. However, contrary to previous research on the influence of incentives on jurors' perceptions of secondary confessions, the presence of an incentive did influence verdict decisions, informant ratings, and attributional responses. Results imply that jury-eligible community members may be becoming aware of the issues with informant testimony as a function of incentive but that they are insensitive to the size of the incentive, and expert testimony may not sensitize them to the limitations of such testimony.

Canadian mock juror attitudes and decisions in domestic violence cases involving asian and white interracial and intraracial couples.

This study manipulated the race of the defendant and the victim (White/White, White/Asian, Asian/Asian, and Asian/White) in a domestic violence case to examine the potential prejudicial impact of race on juror decision making. A total of 181 undergraduate students read a trial transcript involving an allegation of spousal abuse in which defendant and victim race were manipulated using photographs. They then provided a verdict and confidence rating, a sentence, and responsibility attributions, and completed various scales measuring attitudes toward wife abuse and women. Findings revealed that female jurors were harsher toward the defendant than were male jurors. When controlling for attitudes toward Asians, jurors found the defendant guilty more often in cases involving interracial couples, as compared to same-race couples. Path analyses revealed various factors and attitudes involved in domestic violence trial outcomes. Findings contribute to the scarce literature on legal proceedings involving Asians, particularly in domestic violence cases. Outcomes also provide a model for relevant factors and characteristics of jurors in domestic violence cases. Roadblocks inherent in jury research are also discussed.

Talking about a black man: the influence of defendant and character witness race on jurors' use of character evidence.

To determine whether anti-Black bias influences mock jurors' use of character evidence (i.e., information about a defendant's personality), this study manipulated the race (Black, White) of the defendant and character witness and the type of character evidence presented in a fictitious criminal trial. Two hundred six predominantly White participants read a trial transcript, then made verdicts and trial judgments. Results confirm previous findings that positive character evidence has a limited impact on jurors' judgments, but negative character evidence is misused to evaluate the defendant's guilt. However, participants were more influenced by character evidence that was inconsistent with racial stereotypes. Specifically, positive character evidence had a stronger effect for Black defendants, whereas negative rebuttal evidence had a stronger influence for White defendants. The race of the character witness did not affect judgments. Thus, defendant race may provide a framework that influences how mock jurors process character evidence.

Likelihood of using drug courts: predictions using procedural justice and the theory of planned behavior.

The current research compares two theoretical models borrowed from social psychology (theory of planned behavior and procedural justice) to predict intentions to make use of a drug court. Medicaid-eligible substance users answered a number of questions regarding their intentions to use a drug court in the future, including items from planned behavior and procedural justice scales. When procedural justice was considered alone, only trustworthiness predicted intention to use drug courts. When planned behavior was considered alone, only deliberative attitudes predicted the intention. After combining the two models, deliberative attitudes from the theory of planned behavior were the only significant predictor of likelihood to make use of a drug court. Recommendations for future study of this area center on conceptualization of procedural justice and the use of alternative samples.