The influence of gruesome verbal evidence on Mock Juror verdicts

Psychiatry, Psychology and Law

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 154-166

  Bright, David A ^a   Goodman Delahunty, Jane ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUSTRALIA; COURT; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; DECISION MAKING; LAW; LEGAL ASPECT; REVIEW;

EID: 3142731927     PISSN: 13218719     EISSN: 19341687     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1375/pplt.2004.11.1.154     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Australian Law Reform Commission. (1985). Evidence (Vol. 26). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
2. Aronson, M.I., & Hunter, J. (2001). Litigation: Evidence and procedure. Butterworths.
3. Bell, B.E., & Loftus, E.F. (1985). Vivid persuasion in the courtroom. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 659–664.
4. Douglas, K.S., Lyon, D.R., & Ogloff, J.R.P. (1997). The impact of graphic photographic evidence on mock juror decisions in a murder trial: Probative or prejudicial. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 485–501.
5. Evidence Act (1995). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
6. Feigenson, N. (2001). Legal blame: How jurors think and talk about accidents. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
7. Frey, D. (1981). Postdecisional preference for decisionrelevant information as a function of the competence of its source and the degree of familiarity with this information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 51–67.
8. Frey, D. (1982). Different levels of cognitive dissonance, information seeking, and information avoidance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1175–1183.
9. Frey, D. & Rosch, M. (1984). Information seeking after decisions: The roles of novelty of information and decision reversibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 91–98.
10. Hastie, R. (1993). Algebraic models of juror decision processes. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11. Judicial Commission of New South Wales. Criminal Courts Bench Book. Sydney.
12. Kalven, H., Jr., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown.
13. Kaplan, M.F., & Miller, L.E. (1978). Reducing the effects of juror bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1443–1455.
14. 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, 1456–1472.
15. 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.
16. Kerr, N. (1993). Stochastic models of juror decision making. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17. 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 in the judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 282–294.
18. McCauliff, C.M.A (1982). Burdens of proof: Degrees of belief, quanta of evidence, or constitutional guarantees? Vanderbilt Law Review, 35, 1293–1335.
19. Nisbett, R.E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
20. Oliver, E., & Griffitt, W. (1976). Emotional arousal and objective judgment. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 8, 399–00.
21. 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, 436–50.
22. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1993). The story model of juror decision making. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23. Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (1987). Toward an integration of cognitive and motivational perspectives on social inference: A biased hypothesis testing model. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 20). San Diego: Academic Press.
24. R v Allen, 1 December 1992, NSW CCA, unreported.
25. R v Bowhay (1998) NSWSC 782
26. R v Jamieson (1992) NSWCCA.
27. R v Milat (1996) 87 A Crim R 446.
28. R v Telford (1996) 86 A Crim. R. 427.
29. R v Zammitt (1999) NSWCCA 65.
30. Sears, D. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 515–530.
31. Shedler, J., & Manis, M. (1986). Can the availability heuristic explain vividness effects? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 26–36.
32. Simon, R.J., & Mahan, L. (1971). Quantifying burdens of proof: A rev iew from the bench, the jury, and the classroom. Law and Society Review, 5, 319–330.
33. Solomon, R. (1990). A passion for justice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
34. Thornton, W., Kirchner, G., & Jacobs, J. (1991). Influence of a photograph on a charitable appeal: A picture may be worth a thousand words when it has to speak for itself. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 433–445.
35. Whalen, D.H., & Blanchard, F.A. (1982). Effects of photographic evidence on mock juror judgment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12, 30–41.