Jurors' perception of violence: A framework for inquiry

Aggression and Violent Behavior

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 77-92

  Bornstein, Brian H ^a   Nemeth, Robert J ^a  

^a LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Jurors' perception; Jury decision; Violence

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDE; COURT; CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; DECISION MAKING; FAMILY VIOLENCE; HOMICIDE; HUMAN; LAW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; VIOLENCE;

EID: 0032889724     PISSN: 13591789     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1359-1789(97)00059-1     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Bronson E. On the conviction proneness and representativeness of the death-qualified jury. An empirical study of Colorado veniremen University of Colorado Law Review. 42:1970;1-32.
2. Bureau of Justice Statistics Criminal victimization in the United States, 1995. 1996;U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
3. Campbell K.M. Roll tape. Admissibility of videotape evidence in the courtroom University of Memphis Law Review. 26:1996;1445-1500.
4. Costanzo M., Costanzo S. Jury decision making in the capital penalty phase. Legal assumptions, empirical findings, and a research agenda Law and Human Behavior. 16:1992;185-201.
5. Costanzo M., Costanzo S. The death penalty. Public opinions, legal decisions, and juror perspectives Costanzo M., Oskamp S. Violence and the law. 1994;246-272 Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
6. Cowan C.C., Thompson W.C., Ellsworth P.C. The effects of death qualification on jurors' predispositions to convict and on the quality of deliberation. Law and Human Behavior. 8:1984;53-80.
7. Curriden, M. (1990, May). Crime-scene videos. ABA Journal, 76, 32.
8. Diamond S.S. Instructing on death. Psychologists, juries, and judges American Psychologist. 48:1993;423-434.
9. Ebbesen E.B., Konecni V.J. The process of sentencing adult felons. A causal analysis of judicial decisions Sales B.D. The trial process. 1981;413-458 Plenum, New York.
10. Elwork A., Sales B.D., Alfini J.J. Making jury instructions understandable. 1982;Michie, Charlottesville, VA.
11. Fagan J.F. Smile. How prejudicial can the candid camera be? The admission of photographs in a criminal trial. St. John's Journal of Legal Commentary. 9:1993;145-161.
12. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). (1996). Uniform crime reports for the United States, 1995. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
13. Finkel N.J., Duff K.B. Felony-murder and community sentiment. Testing the supreme court's assertions Law and Human Behavior. 15:1991;405-429.
14. Finkel N.J., Hughes K.C., Smith S.F., Hurabiell M.L. Killing kids. The juvenile death penalty and community sentiment Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 12:1994;5-20.
15. Fishfader V.L., Howells G.N., Katz R.C., Teresi P.S. Evidential and extralegal factors in juror decisions. Presentation mode, retention, and level of emotionality Law and Human Behavior. 20:1996;565-572.
16. Follingstad D.R., Polek D.S., Hause E.S., Deaton L.H., Bulger M.W., Conway Z.D. Factors predicting verdicts in cases where battered women kill their husbands. Law and Human Behavior. 13:1989;253-269.
17. Gold V.J. Limiting judicial discretion to exclude prejudicial evidence. UC Davis Law Review. 18:1984;59-96.
18. Goldberg F. Toward expansion of Witherspoon. Capital scruples, jury bias, and the use of psychological data to raise presumptions in the law Harvard Civil Rights - Civil Library Law Review. 5:1970;53-69.
19. Haney C., Lynch M. Comprehending life and death matters. A preliminary study of California's capital penalty instructions Law and Human Behavior. 18:1994;411-436.
20. Hendrick C., Shaffer D.R. Murder. Effects of number of killers and victim mutilation on simulated jurors' judgements Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society. 6:1975;313-316.
21. Hennes D.B. Manufacturing evidence for trial. The prejudicial implications of videotaped crime scene reenactments University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 142:1994;2125-2181.
22. Hester R.K., Smith R.E. Effects of a mandatory death penalty on the decisions of simulated jurors as a function of heinousness of the crime. Journal of Criminal Justice. 1:1973;319-326.
23. Jurow G. New data on the effect of a "death-qualified" jury in the guilt determination process. Harvard Law Review. 84:1970;567-611.
24. Kasian M., Spanos N.P., Terrance C.A., Peebles S. Battered women who kill. Jury simulation and legal defenses Law and Human Behavior. 17:1993;289-312.
25. Kassin S.M., Garfield D.A. Blood and guts. General and trial-specific effects of videotaped crime scenes on mock jurors Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 21:1991;1459-1472.
26. Linsky L.A. Use of domestic violence history evidence in the criminal prosecution. A common sense approach Pace Law Review. 16:1995;73-95.
27. Luginbuhl J., Middendorf K. Death penalty beliefs and juror's responses to aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials. Law and Human Behavior. 12:1988;263-281.
28. Petersilia J. Violent crime and violent criminals. The response of the justice system Costanzo M., Oskamp S. Violence and the law. 1994;246-272 Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
29. Pollman T. Maynard v. Cartwright. Channeling Arizona's use of the heinous, cruel, or depraved aggravating circumstance to impose the death penalty Arizona Law Review. 32:1990;193-210.
30. Rosen R.A. The "especially heinous" aggravating circumstance in capital cases - the standardless standard. North Carolina Law Review. 64:1986;941-992.
31. Schuller R.A. The impact of battered woman syndrome evidence on jury decision processes. Law and Human Behavior. 16:1992;597-620.
32. Schuller R.A., Vidmar N. Battered woman syndrome evidence in the courtroom. A review of the literature Law and Human Behavior. 16:1992;273-291.
33. Severance L.J., Loftus E.F. Improving the ability of jurors to comprehend and apply criminal jury instructions. Law & Society Review. 17:1982;153-197.
34. Sugarman D.B., Cohn E.S. Origin and solution attributions of responsibility for wife abuse. Effects of outcome severity, prior history, and sex of subject Violence and Victims. 1:1986;291-303.
35. Ward S.R. Maynard v. Cartwright. How the supreme court killed the catchall category in the Oklahoma death penalty Tulsa Law Journal. 24:1988;215-237.
36. Whalen D.H., Blanchard F.A. Effects of photographic evidence on mock juror judgement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 12:1982;30-41.
37. White L.T. Juror decision making in the capital penalty trial. An analysis of crimes and defense strategies Law and Human Behavior. 11:1987;113-130.
38. Wiener R.L., Pritchard C.C., Weston M. Comprehensibility of approved jury instructions in capital murder cases. Journal of Applied Psychology. 80:1995;455-467.
39. Wiggins R.L. Death on a whim. Jury discretion and "especially heinous" crimes Mississippi College Law Review. 9:1989;357-372.
40. Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968).