The effects of judicial admonitions on hearsay evidence

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry

Volumn 28, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 589-603

  Ho Lee, Dae ^a   Krauss, Daniel A ^b   Lieberman, Joel ^c  

^a CLAREMONT GRADUATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

Author keywords

Hearsay testimony; Juror decision making; Psychological reactance; Punitive damages

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; COURT; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; JURISPRUDENCE; LEGAL ASPECT; LEGAL LIABILITY; MALE; OCCUPATIONAL ACCIDENT; POLICY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; WITNESS;

ACCIDENTS, OCCUPATIONAL; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CALIFORNIA; COMPENSATION AND REDRESS; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDICIAL ROLE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PREJUDICE; RESEARCH;

EID: 27744511030     PISSN: 01602527     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2004.11.002     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Book of Approved Jury Instructions (BAJI) 2.60.
2. Book of Approved Jury Instructions (BAJI) 3.10.
3. Book of Approved Jury Instructions (BAJI) 14.71.
4. B.H. Bornstein The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior 23 1999 75 91
5. J. Brehm A theory of psychological reactance 1966 Academic press New York
6. M. Cox, and S. Tanford Effects of evidence and instructions in civil trials: An experimental investigation of rules of admissibility Social Behaviour 4 1989 31 55
7. K. Edwards, and T.S. Bryan Judgmental biases produced by instructions to disregard: The (paradoxical) case of emotional information Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23 1997 849 864
8. N. Finkel Not fair! The typology of commonsense unfairness 2001 American Psychological Association Washington, DC
9. F. Guerrieri Redefining the relationship between prosecutors and police Southern Illinois University Law Journal 25 2001 353 388
10. B. Johnson, and H. Eagly Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis Psychological Bulletin 20 1989 153 162
11. H. Kalven, and H. Zeisel The American jury 1966 Little, Brown Boston
12. M. Kovera, R. Park, and S. Penrod Jurors' perceptions of eyewitness and hearsay evidence Minnesota Law Review 76 1992 703 721
13. G.P. Kramer, N.L. Kerr, and J.S. Carroll Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies, and jury bias Law and Human Behavior 14 1990 409 438
14. D. Krauss, and D. Lee Deliberating on dangerousness and death: Jurors' ability to differentiate between expert actuarial and clinical predictions of dangerousness International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 26 2003 113 137
15. D. Krauss, and B.D. Sales The effects of clinical and scientific expert testimony on juror decision-making in capital sentencing Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 7 2001 267 310
16. S. Landsman, and R. Rakos A preliminary inquiry into the effect of potentially biasing information on judges and jurors in civil litigation Behavioral Sciences and the Law 12 1994 113 126
17. J.D. Lieberman Head over the heart or heart over the head? Cognitive-experiential self-theory and extra-legal heuristics in juror decision-making Journal of Applied Social Psychology 32 2002 2526 2553
18. J. Lieberman, and J. Arndt Understanding the limits of limiting instructions: Social psychological explanations for the failures of instructions to disregard pretrial publicity and other inadmissible evidence Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 6 2000 677 711
19. L. McGough Hearing and believing hearsay Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 5 1999 485 498
20. P. Miene, R. Park, and E. Borgida Juror decision-making and the evaluation of hearsay evidence Minnesota Law Review 76 1992 683 698
21. R. Paciocci, and B. Stuesser Law of evidence 1996 Irwin Concord
22. A. Paglia, and R. Schuller Jurors' use of hearsay evidence: The effects of type and timing of instructions Law and Human Behavior 22 1998 501 518
23. R. Park A subject matter approach to hearsay reform Michigan Law Review 86 1987 51 122
24. K. Pickel Inducing jurors to disregard inadmissible evidence: A legal explanation does not help Law and Human Behavior 19 1995 407 424
25. R. Rosenthal, and R. Rosnow Contrast analysis: Focused comparisons in the analysis of variance 1985 Cambridge University Press Cambridge
26. S. Sue, R. Smith, and C. Caldwell Effects of inadmissible evidence on the decisions of simulated jurors: A moral dilemma Journal of Applied Social Psychology 3 1973 345 353
27. W. Thompson, and M. Pathak Empirical study of hearsay rules: Bridging the gap between psychology and law Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 5 2 1999 456 472
28. U. S. Federal Rules of Evidence, 105.
29. U. S. Federal Rules of Evidence. 801 (c).
30. U. S. Federal Rules of Evidence. 804 (b) (2).
31. D.M. Wegner Ironic processes of mental control Psychological Review 101 1994 34 52
32. R. Wissler, and M. Saks On the inefficacy of limiting instructions: When jurors use prior conviction evidence to decide on guilt Law and Human Behavior 9 1985 37 48
33. S. Wolf, and D. Montgomery Effects of inadmissible evidence and level of judicial admonishment to disregard on the judgments of mock jurors Journal of Applied Social Psychology 7 1977 205 219