Accountability in legal decision-making

Figures & data

Table 1. ICC for the coded evidence and scenarios in the written decisions.

Category	ICC	95% CI
		lower bound	upper bound
Incriminating evidence	.949	.906	.972
Neutral evidence	.581	.340	.751
Exonerating evidence	.911	.841	.951
Scenarios implicating Emma	.816	.682	.896
Scenarios implicating James’ mistress	.859	.752	.921
Scenarios implicating other perpetrators	.792	.645	.882

Note: ICC = intra-class correlation coefficient; CI = confidence interval.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for the number of exonerating pieces of evidence mentioned in each of the conditions.

Condition	n	M	SD
Justification	45	1.31	1.84
Explication	40	1.90	1.77
Falsification	45	1.76	1.92
Control	43	0.79	1.26

Table 3. Number of scenarios considered per condition and type of scenario.

Condition	n	Mean number of scenarios
		Emma	Mistress	Other	Total
Justification	45	1.00 (0.43)	0.42 (0.50)	0.29 (0.46)	1.71 (0.84)
Explication	40	1.00 (0.55)	0.70 (0.69)	0.28 (0.45)	1.98 (0.97)
Falsification	45	1.07 (0.45)	0.80 (0.59)	0.20 (0.40)	2.07 (1.05)
Control	43	1.00 (0.31)	0.30 (0.46)	0.21 (0.41)	1.51 (0.80)

Note: Standard deviations in parentheses.

Table 4. Likelihood of guilt ratings across conditions.

Condition	n	M	SD
Justification	45	68.53	23.99
Explication	40	66.58	23.11
Falsification	45	66.40	20.48
Control	43	74.23	19.06

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.