Judges assume that gruesome evidence can influence juror verdicts. Legal safeguards such as exclusionary evidentiary doctrines are in place to protect defendants against the misuse of visual gruesome evidence by jurors. However, little is known about the impact of gruesome evidence on juror decision-making. The current study investigated the hypothesis that convictions are more likely in cases in which gruesome evidence is admitted. When inculpatory evidence was held constant, 34.4% of mock jurors presented with gruesome evidence convicted the defendant, whereas only 13.9% of the mock jurors who reviewed no gruesome evidence did so. When inculpatory evidence was legally insufficient for conviction and gruesome evidence was presented, mock jurors rated the likelihood of the guilt of the defendant significantly higher compared with ratings from mock jurors to whom no gruesome facts were presented. The presence of gruesome facts also significantly enhanced the inculpatory value of one item in evidence.
Psychiatry, Psychology and Law
Volume 11, 2004 - Issue 1
![Sample our Bioscience journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5925/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Bioscience.jpg"})
Reprints and Corporate Permissions
Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?
To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:
Academic Permissions
Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?
Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:
If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.
Related Research Data
Different levels of cognitive dissonance, information seeking, and information avoidance.
Source:
American Psychological Association (APA)
Postdecisional preference for decision-relevant information as a function of the competence of its source and the degree of familiarity with this information.
Source:
Elsevier BV
An integration theory analysis of jurors' presumptions of guilt or innocence.
Source:
American Psychological Association (APA)
The American Jury
Source:
Test accounts
On the requirements of proof: The timing of judicial instruction and mock juror verdicts.
Source:
American Psychological Association (APA)
Legal blame: How jurors think and talk about accidents.
Source:
American Psychological Association
Emotional arousal and ‘objective’ judgment
Source:
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Negative emotions and decision making
Source:
Wiley
When emotions get the better of us: the effect of contextual top-down processing on matching fingerprints
Source:
Wiley
The Psychology of Juror Decision Making
Source:
Cambridge University Press
Let's find the evidence: an analogue study of confirmation bias in criminal investigations
Source:
Wiley
The Roles of Novelty of Information and Decision Reversibility
Source:
SAGE Publications
Can the availability heuristic explain vividness effects
Source:
American Psychological Association (APA)
Reducing the effects of juror bias.
Source:
American Psychological Association (APA)
Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: Effects of concept definition and assigned decision rule on the judgments of mock jurors.
Source:
American Psychological Association (APA)
Blood and Guts: General and Trial-Specific Effects of Videotaped Crime Scenes on Mock Jurors
Source:
Wiley
College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of human nature.
Source:
American Psychological Association (APA)
Linking provided by
