Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T18:21:40.064Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

24 - Legal and Extralegal Factors that Affect Jurors’ Decisions

from Part III - Trial Phase Decision-Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2024

By
Kimberly Schweitzer ,
Kayla A. Burd  and
Narina Nuñez
Edited by
Monica K. Miller ,
Logan A. Yelderman ,
Matthew T. Huss  and
Jason A. Cantone
Monica K. Miller
Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Reno
Logan A. Yelderman
Affiliation:
Prairie View A & M University, Texas
Matthew T. Huss
Affiliation:
Creighton University, Omaha
Jason A. Cantone
Affiliation:
George Mason University, Virginia
Get access

Summary

In the United States, jurors serve as the fact-finders for the civil and criminal justice systems and are tasked with making important decisions that impact society (e.g., verdicts and sentences in criminal cases and damages in civil cases). This chapter discusses current models and theories of juror decision-making to frame and provide a foundation for addressing how various types of legal evidence and nonlegal factors affect juror decision-making, including emotional evidence (e.g., victim impact statements and gruesome pictures and videos) and scientific evidence (e.g., DNA, shoe print, and fingerprint evidence). The chapter also examines how “nonevidentiary” extralegal factors, such as characteristics of the trial participants (e.g., age, sex, race, socioeconomic status, and other sociodemographics factors), are incorporated by jurors and influence their evaluation of evidence and decisions during trial. This chapter concludes with proposing various avenues for future research and a discussion of the policy implications of the work reviewed.

Keywords

decision-makingjurorsemotional evidenceforensic evidenceextralegal factors and decision-making
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making , pp. 365 - 378
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramson, J. (1994). We, the jury: The jury system and the ideal of democracy. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, N. H. (1971). Integration theory and attitude change. Psychological Review, 78, 171–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030834.Google Scholar
Bayer, D., Neumann, C., & Ranadive, A. (2016). Communication of statistically based conclusions to jurors – A pilot study. Journal of Forensic Identification, 66(5), 405–427. https://treadforensics.com/index.php/publications/peer-reviewed/25-communication-of-statistically-based-conclusions-to-jurors-a-pilot-study.Google Scholar
Booth v. Maryland, 482 US 496 (1987).Google Scholar
Bornstein, B., & Greene, E. (2017). The jury under fire: Myth, controversy, and reform. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carlson, K. A., & Russo, J. E. (2001). Biased interpretation of evidence by mock jurors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-898X.7.2.91.Google Scholar
Chaiken, S., & Ledgerwood, A. (2012). A theory of heuristic and systematic processing. In Van Lange, P., Kruglanski, A., & Higgins, E. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 246–266). Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Darley, J. M., Carlsmith, K. M., & Robinson, P. H. (2000). Incapacitation and just deserts as motives for punishment. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 659–683. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005552203727.Google Scholar
Devine, D. J., & Caughlin, D. E. (2014). Do they matter? A meta-analytic investigation of individual characteristics and guilt judgments. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 109–134. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000006.Google Scholar
Devine, D. J., Krouse, P. C., Cavanaugh, C. M., & Basora, J. C. (2016). Evidentiary, extraevidentiary, and deliberation process predictors of real jury verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 40(6), 670–682. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000209.Google Scholar
Diamond, S. S., Vidmar, N., Rose, M., & Ellis, L. (2003). Inside the jury room: Evaluating juror discussions during trial. Judicature, 87(2), 54–59. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/judica87&i=56.Google Scholar
Eberhardt, J. L., Davies, P. G., Purdie-Vaughns, V. J., & Johnson, S. L. (2006). Looking deathworthy: Perceived stereotypicality of Black defendants predicts capital-sentencing outcomes. Psychological Science, 17(5), 383–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01716.x.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, T., Hannaford‐Agor, P. L., Hans, V. P., et al. (2005). Judge‐jury agreement in criminal cases: A partial replication of Kalven and Zeisel’s The American Jury. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2(1), 171–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2005.00035.x.Google Scholar
Eldridge, H. (2019). Juror comprehension of forensic expert testimony: A literature review and gap analysis. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 1, 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2019.03.001.Google Scholar
Finkelstein, R., & Bastounis, M. (2010). The effect of the deliberation process and jurors’ prior legal knowledge on the sentence: The role of psychological expertise and crime scene photo. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 28, 426–441. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.914.Google Scholar
ForsterLee, R., ForsterLee, L., Horowitz, I. A., & King, E. (2006). The effects of defendant race, victim race, and juror gender on evidence processing in a murder trial. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 24, 179–198. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.675.Google Scholar
Garrett, B. L., Crozier, W. E., & Grady, R. (2020). Error rates, likelihood ratios, and jury evaluation of forensic evidence. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 65(4), 1199–1209. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14323.Google Scholar
Garrett, B. L., & Mitchell, G. (2016). Forensics and fallibility: Comparing the views of lawyers and jurors. West Virginia Law Review, 119(2), 621–650. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/3874.Google Scholar
Georges, L. C., Wiener, R. L., & Keller, S. R. (2013). The angry juror: Sentencing decisions in first-degree murder. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2880.Google Scholar
Greene, E. (1999). The many guises of victim impact evidence and effects on jurors’ judgments. Psychology, Crime & Law, 5, 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683169908401776.Google Scholar
Hofstein Grady, R., Reiser, L., Garcia, R. J., Koeu, C., & Scurich, N. (2018). Impact of gruesome photographic evidence on legal decisions: A meta-analysis. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 25, 503–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2018.1440468.Google Scholar
Holstein, J. A. (1985). Jurors’ interpretations and jury decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 9(1), 83–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01044291.Google Scholar
Ingriselli, E. (2014). Mitigating jurors’ racial biases: The effects of content and timing of jury instructions. Yale Law Journal, 124, 1690–1745. www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/g.1690.Ingriselli.1745_umeqnauw.pdf.Google Scholar
Kadane, J. B., & Koehler, J. J. (2018). Certainty & uncertainty in reporting fingerprint evidence. Daedalus, 147(4), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_00524.Google Scholar
Kadish, M. (1997). Behind the locked door of an American grand jury: Its history, its secrecy, and its process. Florida State University Law Review, 24, 1–77. https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol24/iss1/1.Google Scholar
Kassin, S. M., & Garfield, D. A. (1991). Blood and guts: General and trial-specific effects of videotaped crime scenes on mock jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1459–1472. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1991.tb00481.x.Google Scholar
Kunst, M., de Groot, G., Meester, J., & van Doorn, J. (2021). The impact of victim impact statements on legal decisions in criminal proceedings: A systematic review of the literature across jurisdictions and decision types. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 56, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2020.101512.Google Scholar
Leippe, M. R., Bergold, A. N., Despodova, N., Gettings, C., & Eisenstadt, D. (2021). Decision importance and Black and Hispanic jurors’ judgments of outgroup and ingroup defendants in a trial simulation. Psychology, Crime & Law, 28(10), 1024–1043. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2021.1984481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maeder, E. M., Ewanation, L. A., & Monnink, J. (2017). Jurors’ perceptions of evidence: The relative influence of DNA and eyewitness testimony when presented by opposing parties. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 32(1), 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-016-9194-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marder, N. S., & Hans, V. P. (2015). Introduction to juries and lay participation: American perspectives and global trends. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 90, 789–824. https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol90/iss3/3.Google Scholar
Martire, K. A., Kemp, R. I., Watkins, I., Sayle, M. A., & Newell, B. R. (2013). The expression and interpretation of uncertain forensic science evidence: Verbal equivalence, evidence strength, and the weak evidence effect. Law and Human Behavior, 37(3), 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000027.Google Scholar
Mazzella, R., & Feingold, A. (1994). The effects of physical attractiveness, race, socioeconomic status, and gender of defendants and victims on judgments of mock jurors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1315–1344. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb01552.x.Google Scholar
McQuiston-Surrett, D., & Saks, M. J. (2009). The testimony of forensic identification science: What expert witnesses say and what factfinders hear. Law and Human Behavior, 33(5), 436–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9169-1.Google Scholar
Miller, M. K., Pfeifer, J., Bornstein, B. H., & Kaplan, T. (2020). Trust in the jury system: A comparison of Australian and US samples. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 28(6), 823–840. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1862002.Google Scholar
Mitchell, K., Myers, B., & Broszkiewicz, N. (2016). Good or essential? The effects of victim characteristics and family significance on sentencing judgments and perceptions of harm. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 23, 651–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2015.1084662.Google Scholar
Mitchell, T. L., Haw, R. M., Pfeifer, J. E., & Meissner, C. A. (2005). Racial bias in mock juror decision-making: A meta-analytic review of defendant treatment. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 621–637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-8122-9.Google Scholar
Motivans, M. (2020). Federal Justice Statistics, 2016 – Statistical Tables. Bureau of Justice Statistics. www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fjs16st.pdf.Google Scholar
Myers, B, Nuñez, N., Wilkowski, B., Kehn, A., & Dunn, K. (2018). The heterogeneity of victim impact statements: A content analysis of capital trial sentencing penalty phase transcripts. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24, 474–488. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000185.Google Scholar
National Research Council. (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Nuñez, N., Myers, B., Wilkowski, B. M., & Schweitzer, K. (2017). The impact of angry versus sad victim impact statements on mock jurors’ sentencing decisions in a capital trial. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44, 862–886. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816689809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuñez, N., Schweitzer, K., Chai, C. A., & Myers, B. (2015). Negative emotions felt during trial: The effect of fear, anger, and sadness on juror decisions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29, 200–209. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3094.Google Scholar
Ostrom, T. M., Werner, C., & Saks, M. J. (1978). An integration theory analysis of jurors’ presumptions of guilt or innocence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 436–450. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.4.436.Google Scholar
Payne v. Tennessee, 501 US 808 (1991).Google Scholar
Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 242–258. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.2.242.Google Scholar
Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence: Tests of the Story Model for juror decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.189.Google Scholar
Pozzulo, J. D., Dempsey, J., Maeder, E., & Allen, L. (2010). The effects of victim gender, defendant gender, and defendant age on juror decision making. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809344173.Google Scholar
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). (2016, September). Report to the President, Forensic science in criminal courts: Ensuring scientific validity of feature comparison methods. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf.Google Scholar
Robbers, M. L. (2008). Blinded by science: The social construction of reality in forensic television shows and its effect on criminal jury trials. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19(1), 84–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403407305982.Google Scholar
Salerno, J. M., & Peter-Hagene, L. C. (2013). The interactive effect of anger and disgust on moral outrage and judgments. Psychological Science, 10, 2069–2078. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613486988.Google Scholar
Schweitzer, K., Estrada-Reynolds, V. C., Ferguson, E., & Nuñez, N. (2016, March 12). Disgust, anger, and cats: The role of emotions in jurors’ verdicts. Paper presented at the annual American Psychological – Legal Society conference. Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
Schweitzer, K., & Nuñez, N. (2017). Victim impact statements: How victim social class affects juror decision making. Violence and Victims, 32, 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-15-00187.Google Scholar
Simon, D. (2019). On juror decision making: An empathic inquiry. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 15, 415–435. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-042658.Google Scholar
Sommers, S. R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2000). Race in the courtroom: Perceptions of guilt and dispositional attributions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1367–1379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200263005.Google Scholar
Sommers, S. R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2001). White juror bias: An investigation of prejudice against Black defendants in the American courtroom. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 201–229. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-8971.7.1.201.Google Scholar
South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 US 805 (1989).Google Scholar
Swofford, H. J., & Cino, J. G. (2018). Lay understanding of “identification”: How jurors interpret forensic identification testimony. Journal of Forensic Identification, 68(1), 29–41. https://treadforensics.com/index.php/publications/peer-reviewed/113-lay-understanding-of-identification-how-jurors-interpret-forensic-identification-testimony.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. (2002). Social functionalist frameworks for judgment and choice: Intuitive politicians, theologians, and prosecutors. Psychological Review, 109, 451–471. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.451.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E., Self, W. T., & Singh, R. (2010). The punitiveness paradox: When is external pressure exculpatory – And when a signal just to spread blame? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 388–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.11.013.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E., Visser, P. S., Singh, R., et al. (2007). People as intuitive prosecutors: The impact of social-control goals on attributions of responsibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(2), 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.02.009.Google Scholar
Thomas, S. A. (2017). What happened to the American jury. Litigation, 43(3), 25–30. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26402056.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. C., & Newman, E. J. (2015). Lay understanding of forensic statistics: Evaluation of random match probabilities, likelihood ratios, and verbal equivalents. Law and Human Behavior, 39(4), 332–349. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000134.Google Scholar
Tiedens, L. Z., & Linton, S. (2001). Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: The effects of specific emotions on information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 973–988. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.973.Google Scholar
US Census Bureau. (2019). QuickFacts. www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219.Google Scholar
US Courts. (2019). Federal judicial caseload statistics 2019. www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/federal-judicial-caseload-statistics-2019.Google Scholar
Vidmar, N., & Hans, V. P. (2007). American juries: The verdict. Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Williams, M. R., Demuth, S., & Holcomb, J. E. (2007). Understanding the influence of victim gender in death penalty cases: The importance of victim race, sex-related victimization, and jury decision making. Criminology, 45, 865–891. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2007.00095.x.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×