Jury decision-making biases and methods to counter them

Legal and Criminological Psychology

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 133-154

  Daftary Kapur, Tarika ^a   Dumas, Rafaele ^a   Penrod, Steven D ^a  

^a JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DNA;

CRIMINAL JUSTICE; DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL EXPERT; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOANALYSIS; REVIEW;

EID: 74749104860     PISSN: 13553259     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1348/135532509X465624     Document Type: Review

References (113)

1. Arbuthnot, J., Myers, B., & Leach, J. (2002). Linking juror prejudgment and pretrial publicity knowledge: Some methodological considerations. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 20(3), 53-71.
2. Australian Law Reform Commission (2003). Essentially yours: The protection of human genetic information. Briefing note: Law enforcement, 2. Sydney, Australia: Goodman-Delahunty.
3. Carroll, J. S. (1986). Free press and fair trial: The role of behavioral research. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 187-201.
4. Chesterman, M., Chan, J., & Hampton, S. (2001). Managing prejudicial publicity. Sydney: Justice Research Center. Sydney: Law and Justice Foundation of New South Wales.
5. Committee on Identifying Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community (2009). Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A path forward. National Academy of Science.
6. Connors, E., Lundregan, T., Miller, N., & McEwen, T. (1996). Convicted by juries, exonerated by science: Case studies in the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
7. Contempt of Court Act, 1981, c.49, §8(1) (Eng).
8. Daftary-Kapur, T., Wallace, D. B., & Penrod, S. P. (2009). The influence of pretrial publicity: Field vs. laboratory effects. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Annual Conference, San Antonio, TX.
9. Dattu, F. (1998). Illustrated jury instructions: A proposal. Law and Psychology Review, 22, 67-102.
10. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals 951 F.2d 1128 (1993).
11. DeBarba, K. (2002). Maintaining the adversarial system: The practice of allowing jurors to question witnesses during trial. Vanderbilt Law Review, 55, 1521-1548.
12. Demaine, L. J. (2008). In search of the anti-elephant: Confronting the human inability to forget inadmissible evidence. George Mason Law Review, 16, 99-140.
13. Dexter, H. R., Cutler, B. L., & Moran, G. (1992). A test of voir dire as a remedy for the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(10), 819-832.
14. Dhami, M. K. (2008). On measuring quantitative interpretations of reasonable doubt. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14(4), 353-363.
15. Diamond, S. S. (1993). Instructing on death: Psychologists, juries, and judges. American Psychologist, 48(4), 423-434.
16. Duff, P. (1999). The Scottish criminal jury: A very peculiar institution. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62, 173-201.
17. Ellsworth (1989). Are twelve heads better than one? Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 205-224.
18. Elwork, A., Alfini, J. J., & Sales, B. D. (1982). Toward understandable jury instructions. Judicature, 65, 432-443.
19. Elwork, A., & Sales, B. D. (1985). Jury instructions. In S. M. Kassin & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), The psychology of evidence and trial procedure (pp. 280-297). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
20. Elwork, A., Sales, B. D., & Alfini, J. J. (1982). Making jury instructions understandable. Charlottesville, VA: Michie.
21. English, P. W., & Sales, B. D. (1997). A ceiling or consistency effect for the comprehension of jury instructions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3(2), 381-401.
22. Fein, S., McCloskey, A. L., & Tomlinson, T. M. (1997). Can the jury disregard that information? The use of suspicion to reduce the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity and inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(11), 1215-1226.
23. Finkel, N. J. (1995). Commonsense justice: Jurors' notions of the law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.
25. Freedman, J. L., Martin, C. K., & Mota, V. L. (1998). Pretrial publicity: Effects of admonition and expressing pretrial opinions. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3(2), 255-270.
26. Frye v. United States 293 F. 1013 (1923).
27. Gatowski, S. I., Dobbin, S. A., Richardson, J. T., Ginsburg, G. P., Merlino, M. L., & Dahir, V. (2001). Asking the gatekeepers: A National survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a postdaubert world. Law and Human Behavior, 25(5), 433-458.
28. General Electric v. Joiner 78 F.3d 524 (1996).
29. Golding, J. M., Stewart, T. L., Yozwiak, J. A., & Sanchez, R. P. (2000). The impact of DNA evidence in a child sexual assault trial. Child Maltreatment, 5(4), 373-383.
30. Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Tait, D. (2006). Lay participation in legal decision-making in Australia and New Zealand: Trials and Administrative Tribunals. In Kaplan, M. F., & Martin, A. M. (Eds.) Understanding world jury systems: Through social psychology research (pp. 47-70). New York, NY, US: Psychology Press.
31. Graesser, A. C. (1981). Reading and writing from multiple perspectives. Psyccritiques, 26(4), 296-296.
32. Greene, E., & Loftus, E. F. (1985). When crimes are joined at trial. Law and Human Behavior, 9(2), 193-207.
33. Greene, E., & Wade, R. (1988). Of private talk and public print: General pre-trial publicity and juror decision-making. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2(2), 123-135.
34. Halverson, A. M., Hallahan, M., & Hart, A. J. (1997). Reducing the biasing effects of judges' nonverbal behavior with simplified jury instruction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 590-598.
35. Hastie, R., Penrod, S., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36. Heuer, L. B., & Penrod, S. D. (1989). Instructing jurors: A field experiment with written and preliminary instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 409-430.
37. Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. (1994). Trial complexity: A field investigation of its meaning and its effects. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 29-51.
38. Horowitz, I. A. (1997). Reasonable doubt instructions: Commonsense justice and standard of proof. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3(2), 285-302.
39. Imrich, D. J., Mullins, C., & Linz, D. (1995). Measuring the extent of pretrial publicity in major American newspapers: A content analysis. Journal of Communication, 45, 94-117.
40. Irvin v. Dowd, 336 U.S. 717, 81 S. Ct. 1639, 6 L. Ed. 2d 751 (1961).
41. Jones, R. A., & Brehm, J. W. (1970). Persuasiveness of one- and two-sided communications as a function of awareness there are two sides. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6(1), 47-56.
42. Kagehiro, D. K. (1986, May). Defming the standard of proof in jury instructions. Paper presented at the Meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago.
43. Kagehiro, D. K. (1990). Defining the standard of proof in jury instructions. Psychological Science, 1(3), 194-200.
44. Kagehiro, D. K., & Rosen, C. J. (1986, October). Defining the standard of proof in jury instructions, II. Paper presented at the Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Atlanta.
45. Kassin, S. M., & Sommers, S. R. (1997). Inadmissible testimony, instructions to disregard, and the jury: Substantive versus procedural considerations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(10), 1046-1054.
46. Kovera, M. B. (2002). The effects of general pretrial publicity on juror decisions: An examination of moderators and mediating mechanisms. Law and Human Behavior, 26(1), 43-72.
47. Kovera, M. B., & McAuliff, B. D. (2000). The effects of peer review and evidence quality on judge evaluations of psychological science: Are judges effective gatekeepers? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 574-586.
48. Kovera, M. B., Russano, M. B., & McAuliff, B. D. (2002). Assessment of the commonsense psychology underlying Daubert: Legal decision makers' abilities to evaluate expert evidence in hostile work environment cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8(2), 180-200.
49. Kramer, G., & Koening, D. (1990). Do jurors understand criminal jury instructions? Analyzing the results of the Michigan juror comprehension project. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 23, 401-437.
50. Kramer, G. P., Kerr, N. L., & Carroll, J. S. (1990). Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies, and jury bias. Law and Human Behavior, 14(5), 409-438.
51. Kumho Tire v. Carmichael 131 F.3d 1433 (1999).
52. Levett, L. M., Danielsen, E. M., Kovera, M. B., & Cutler, B. L. (2005). Juror decision-making. In N. Brewer & K. Williams (Eds.), Psychology and law: An empirical perspective (pp. 365-406). New York: Guilford Press.
53. Lieberman, J. D., & Arndt, J. (2000). 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(3), 677-711.
54. Liberman, J. D., Arndt, J., & Vess, M. (2009). Inadmissible evidence and pretrial publicity: The effects (and ineffectiveness) of admonitions to disregard. In Liberman J. D., & Krauss, D. A. (Eds). Jury Psychology: Social Aspects of Trial Processes (pp. 67-96). UK: Ashgate.
55. Lieberman, J. D., Carrell, C. A., Miethe, T. D., & Krauss, D. A. (2008). Gold versus platinum: Do jurors recognize the superiority and limitations of DNA evidence compared to other types of forensic evidence? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14(1), 27-62.
56. Lieberman, J. D., & Sales, B. D. (1997). What social science teaches us about the jury instruction process. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3(4), 589-644.
57. Lloyd-Bostock, S. (2000). The effect on juries on hearing about the defendants previous criminal record: A simulation study. Criminal Law review, 734.
58. London, K., & Nunez, N. (2000). The effect of jury deliberations on jurors' propensity to disregard inadmissible evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 932-939.
59. McCauliff, C. M. A. (1982). Burdens of Proof: Degrees of Belief, Quanta of Evidence or Constitutional Guarantees. Vanderbilt Law Review, 35, 1293-1335.
60. Minnow, N. N., & Cate, F. H. (2001). Who is an impartial juror in an age of mass media? American University Law Review, 40, 631-664.
61. Moran, G., & Cutler, B. L. (1991). The prejudicial impact of pretrial publicity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 345-367.
62. Moran, G., Cutler, B. L., & Loftus, E. F. (1990). Jury selection in major controlled substance trials: The need for extended voir dire. Forensic Reports, 3(3), 331-348.
63. Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 799-802 (1975).
64. Narby, D. J., Cutler, B. L., & Moran, G. (1993). A meta-analysis of the association between authoritarianism and jurors' perceptions of defendant culpability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 34-42.
65. Newcomb v. State 800 p. 2d 935 (1990).
66. Nietzel, M. T., & Dillehay, R. C. (1983). Psychologists as consultants for changes of venue: The use of public opinion surveys. Law and Human Behavior, 7(4), 309-335.
67. Ogloff, J. R. (1995). Communication in the courtroom. Unpublished manuscript, Simon Fraser University.
68. Otto, A. L., Penrod, S., & Dexter, H. (1994). The biasing impact of pretrial publicity on juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 453-470.
69. Patry, M. W., Stinson, V., & Smith, S. M. (2006). What do we know about the CSI effect? Paper presented at the Dalhousie University Forensic Psychology Practice Day, Halifax, NS.
70. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence: Tests of the story model for juror decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2), 189-206.
71. Petty, R. E., & Wegner, D. T. (1993). Flexible correction processes in social judgment: Correcting for context-induced contrast. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 137-165.
72. Podlas, K. (2006). The CSI effect: Exposing the media myth. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media, and Entertainment Law Journal, 16, 430-465.
73. Reardon, M., O'Neil, K., & Lawson, K. (2007). A new definition of the crime scene investigation (CSI) effect. Poster presented at the Association for Psychological Science Annual Convention, Washington, DC.
74. Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (1953).
75. Rose, V. G., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2001). Evaluating the comprehensibility of jury instructions: A method and an example. Law and Human Behavior, 25(4), 409-431.
76. Ruva, C., McEvoy, C., & Bryant, J. B. (2007). Effects of pre-trial publicity and jury deliberation on juror bias and source memory errors. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(1), 45-67.
77. Sand, L. B., & Reiss, S. A. (1985). A report on seven experiments conducted by district court judges in the second circuit. New York University Law Review, 60, 423-497.
78. Schklar, J., & Diamond, S. S. (1999). Juror reactions to DNA evidence: Errors and expectancies. Law and Human Behavior, 23(2), 159-184.
79. Schweitzer, N. J., & Saks, M. J. (2007). The CSI Effects: Popular fiction about forensic science affects public expectations about real forensic science. Jurimetrics, 47, 357-364.
80. Semmler, C., & Brewer, N. (2002). Using a flow-chart to improve comprehension of jury instructions. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 9(2), 262-267.
81. Shelton, D. E. (2008). 'The CSI effect': Does it really exist? National Institute of Justice Journal, 259, 1-7.
82. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 362 (1966).
83. Simon, R. J., & Eimermann, T. (1971). The jury finds not guilty: Another look at media influence on the jury. Journalism Quarterly, 48, 343-344.
84. Skolnick, P., & Shaw, J. I. (2001). A comparison of eyewitness and physical evidence on mock-juror decision-making. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(5), 614-630.
85. Smith, V. L. (1990). The feasibility and utility of pretrial instruction in the substantive law: A survey of judges. Law and Human Behavior, 14(3), 235-248.
86. Smith, B. C., Penrod, S. D., Otto, A. L., & Park, R. C. (1996). Jurors' use of probabilistic evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 49-82.
87. Smith, S. M., Patry, M. W., & Stinson, V. (2007). But what is the CSI Effect? How crime drams influence people's beliefs about forensic evidence. Canadian Journal of Police and Security Services, 5, 187-195.
88. Sowell v. Walker 755 A.2d 438 (2000).
89. Steblay, N., Hosch, H. M., Culhane, S. E., & McWethy, A. (2006). The impact on juror verdicts of judicial instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 30(4), 469-492.
90. Steblay, N. M., Besirevic, J., Fulero, S. M., & Jimenez-Lorente, B. (1999). The effects of pretrial publicity on juror verdicts: A meta-analytic review. Law and Human Behavior, 23(2), 219-235.
91. Stoffelmayr, E., & Diamond, S. S. (2000). The conflict between precision and flexibility in explaining 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(3), 769-787.
92. Strawn, D. U., & Buchanan, R. W. (1976). Jury confusion: A threat to justice. Judicature, 59, 478-483.
93. Studebaker, C. A., & Penrod, S. D. (1997). Pretrial publicity: The media, the law, and common sense. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3(2), 428-460.
94. Studebaker, C. A., & Penrod, S. D. (2005). Pretrial publicity and its influence on juror decisionmaking. In N. Brewer & K. D. Williams (Eds.), Psychology and law: An empirical perspective (pp. 254-275). New York: Guilford Press.
95. Studebaker, C. A., Robbennolt, J. K., Pathak-Sharma, M. K., & Penrod, S. D. (2000). Assessing pretrial publicity effects: Integrating content analytic results. Law and Human Behavior, 24(3), 317-337.
96. Stuurman v. H. M. Advocate (1983). J. C. 111; 1980 S.L.T. 182.
97. Sue, S., Smith, R. E., & Gilbert, R. (1974). Biasing effects of pretrial publicity on judicial decisions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 2(2), 163-171.
98. Tanford, S., & Penrod, S. (1982). Biases in trials involving defendants charged with multiple offenses. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12, 453-470.
99. Tanford, S., Penrod, S., & Collins, R. (1985). Decision-making in joined criminal trials: The influence of charge similarity, evidence similarity, and limiting instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 9(4), 319-337.
100. Tans, M., & Chaffee, S. (1966). Pretrial publicity and juror prejudice. Journalism Quarterly, 43, 647-654.
101. Thompson,W. C., Fong, G. T., & Rosenhan, D. L. (1981). Inadmissible evidence and juror verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(3), 453-463.
102. Travis, L., & Linz, D. (2002). Television news, prejudicial pretrial publicity, and the depiction of race. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46, 112-136.
103. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974, September). Judgment under certainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
104. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Is the CSI Effect Good Science? Yale Law Journal (The Pocket Part). Retrieved February 15, 2009 from http://www. thepocketpart.org/2006/02/tyler.html.
105. United States v. Burton 402 F.2d 536 (1968).
106. United States v. Kallin 50 F.3d 689 (1995).
107. Vidmar, N. (2002). Case studies of pre- and midtrial prejudice in criminal and civil litigation. Law and Human Behavior, 26(1), 73-105.
108. Wenzlaff, R. M., &Wegner, D. M. (2000). Thought suppression. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 59-91.
109. Wiener, R. L., Habert, K., Shkodriani, G., & Staebler, C. (1991). The social psychology of jury nullification: Predicting when jurors disobey the law. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1379-1401.
110. Wiener, R. L., Pritchard, C. C., & Weston, M. (1995). Comprehensibility of approved jury instructions in capital murder cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 455-467.
111. Wilson, T. D., & Brekke, N. (1994). Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 117-142.
112. Wissler, R. L., & Saks, M. J. (1985). On the inefficacy of limiting instructions: When jurors use prior conviction evidence to decide on guilt. Law and Human Behavior, 9(1), 37-48.
113. Young, W. (2003). Summing up to juries in criminal cases - what jury research says about current rules and practices. Criminal Law Review, 665-689.