Effects of reasonable doubt definition and inclusion of a lesser charge on jury verdicts

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 23, Issue 6, 1999, Pages 653-674

  Koch, Chantal Mees ^a   Devine, Dennis J ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COURT; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; GUILT; HUMAN; JURISPRUDENCE; LAW SUIT; LEGAL ASPECT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MORALITY; PUNISHMENT;

EID: 0033429495     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1022389305876     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Blair, C. R. (1984). Constitutional limitations on the lesser included offense doctrine. American Criminal Law Review, 21, 445-476.
2. Bray, R. M., & Kerr, N. L. (1979). Use of the simulation method in the study of jury behavior. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 107-119.
3. Bray, R. M., & Noble, A. M. (1978). Authoritarianism and decisions of mock juries: Evidence of jury bias and group polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1424-1430.
4. Davis, J. H. (1973). Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review, 80, 97-125.
5. Davis, J. H. (1992). Some compelling intuitions about group consensus decisions, theoretical and empirical research, and interpersonal aggregation phenomena: Selected examples, 1950-1990. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 3-38.
6. Davis, J. H., Holt, R., Spitzer, C. E., & Stasser, G. (1981). The effects of consensus requirements and multiple decisions on mock juror verdict preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 1-15.
7. Davis, J. H., Kerr, N. L., Atkin, R. S., Holt, R., & Meek, D. (1975). The decision processes of 6- and 12-person mock juries assigned unanimous and 2/3 majority decision rules. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 1-14.
8. Davis, J. H., Kerr, N. L., Stasser, G., Meek, D., & Holt, R. (1977). Victim consequences, sentence severity, and decision processes in mock juries. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 18, 346-365.
9. Davis, J. H., Spitzer, C. E., Nagao, D. H., & Stasser, G. (1978). Bias in social decisions by individuals and groups: An example from mock juries. In H. Brandstatter, J. H. Davis, & H. Schuler (Eds.), Dynamics of group decisions (pp. 33-52). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
10. Diamond, S. S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561-571.
11. Freedman, J. L., Krismer, K., MacDonald, J. E., & Cunningham, J. A. (1994). Severity of penalty, seriousness of the charge, and mock jurors' verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 189-202.
12. Horowitz, I. A., & Kirkpatrick, L. C. (1996). A concept in search of a definition: The effects of reasonable doubt instructions, certainty of guilt standards, and jury verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 655-670.
13. Kagehiro, D. K., & Stanton, W. C. (1985). Legal vs. quantified definitions of standard of proof. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 159-178.
14. Kaplan, M. F., & Krupa, S. (1986). Severe penalties under the control of others can reduce guilt verdicts. Law and Psychology Review, 10, 1-18.
15. Kaplan, J. K., & Simon, R. I. (1972). Latitude of severity of sentencing options, race of the victim, and decisions of simulated jurors: Some issues arising from the "Algiers Motel" trial. Law and Society Review, 7, 87-98.
16. Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1979). On the requirements of proof: The timing of judicial instruction and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1877-1887.
17. Kerr, N. L. (1978). Severity of prescribed penalty and mock jurors' verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1431-1442.
18. Kerr, N. L., Atkin, R. S., Stasser, G., Meek, D., Holt, R. W., & Davis, J. H. (1976). Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: Effects of concept definition and assigned decision rule on the judgements of mock jurors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 282-294.
19. Kerr, N. L., Nerenz, D. R., & Herrick, D. (1979). Role playing and the study of jury behavior. Sociological Methods and Research, 7, 337-355.
20. Kerwin, J., & Shaffer, D. R. (1994). Mock jurors versus mock juries: The role of deliberations in reactions to inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 153-162.
21. MacCoun, R. J. (1989). Experimental research on jury decision making. Science, 244, 1046-1050.
22. MacCoun, R. J. (1990). The emergence of extralegal bias during jury deliberation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 303-314.
23. MacCoun, R. J., & Kerr, N. L. (1988). Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: Juror's bias for leniency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 21-33.
24. McComas, W. C., & Noll, M. E. (1974). Effects of seriousness of charge and punishment severity on the judgements of simulated jurors. Psychological Record, 24, 545-547.
25. Olgoff, J. R. P. (1991). A comparison of insanity defense standards on juror decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 509-531.
26. Penrod, S., & Hastie, R. (1980). A computer simulation of jury decision making. Psychological Review, 87, 133-159.
27. Saks, M. J., & Marti, M. W. (1997). A meta-analysis of the effects of jury size. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 451-466.
28. Schaffer, D. R., & Case, T. (1982). On the decision to testify in one's own behalf: Effects of withheld evidence, defendant's sexual preferences, and juror dogmatism on juridic decision. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 335-346.
29. Simon, R. J., & Mahan, L. (1971). Quantifying burdens of proof: A view from the bench, the jury and the classroom. Law and Society Review, 5, 319-330.
30. Tanford, S., & Penrod, S. (1983). Jury deliberations: Discussion content and influence processes in jury decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 322-347.
31. Tindale, R. S., Davis, J. H., Vollrath, D. A., Nagao, D. H., & Hinsz, V. B. (1990). Asymmetrical social influence in freely interacting groups: A test of three models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 438-449.
32. Weld, H. P., & Danzig, E. R. (1940). A study of the way in which a verdict is reached by a jury. American Journal of Psychology, 53, 518-536.
33. Wright, C. A. (1982). Burden of proof. In Federal Practice and Procedure: Vol. 2 (2nd ed., pp. 412-4115). St. Paul MN: West.
34. Vidmar, N. (1972). Effects of decision alternatives on the verdicts and social perceptions of simulated jurors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22, 211-218.