Not separate but equal? The impact of multiple-defendant trials on juror decision-making

References

• Berlinger, J., & Sinofsky, B. (1996). Paradise lost: The child murders at Robin Hood Hills (Documentary). United States: Home Box Office (HBO).
   Google Scholar
• Bordens, K. S., & Horowitz, I. A. (1985). Joinder of criminal offenses: A review of the legal and psychological literature. Law and Human Behavior, 9(4), 339–353. doi: 10.1007/bf01044475
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75–91. doi: 10.1023/A:1022326807441
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornstein, B. H., Golding, J. M., Neuschatz, J., Kimbrough, C., Reed, K., Magyarics, C., & Luecht, K. (2017). Juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 41(1), 13–28. doi:10.1037/lhb/0000223
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123. (1968).
   Google Scholar
• Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5. doi:10.1037/e527772014-223
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daftary-Kapur, T., Dumas, R., & Penrod, S. D. (2010). Jury decision-making biases and methods to counter them. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15(1), 135–154. doi:10.1348/135532509×465624
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawson, R. O. (1979). Joint trials of defendants in criminal cases: An analysis of efficiencies and prejudices. Michigan Law Review, 77(6), 1379–1455. doi: 10.2307/1288108
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Dunford, B. B., Seying, R., & Pryce, J. (2001). Jury decision making 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(3), 622–727. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.7.3.622
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diamond, S. S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561–571. doi: 10.1023/A:1024831908377
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farrin, J. (1989). Rethinking criminal joinder: An analysis of the empirical research and its implications for justice. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52(4), 325–340. doi: 10.2307/1191917
   Google Scholar
• Greene, E., & Loftus, E. F. (1985). When crimes are joined at trial. Law and Human Behavior, 9(2), 193–207. doi: 10.1007/bf01067051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horowitz, I. A., & Bordens, K. S. (1988). The effects of outlier presence, plaintiff population size, and aggregation of plaintiffs on simulated civil jury decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 12(3), 209–229. doi: 10.1007/bf01044382
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horowitz, I. A., & Bordens, K. S. (2000). The consolidation of plaintiffs: The effects of number of plaintiffs on jurors’ liability decisions, damage awards, and cognitive processing of evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 909–918. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.909
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsee, C. K., Loewenstein, G. F., Blount, S., & Bazerman, M. H. (1999). Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of a review and theoretical analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(5), 576–590. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.125.5.576
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsee, C. K., & Zhang, J. (2010). General evaluability theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 343–355. doi: 10.1177/1745691610374586
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imes, R. (2003). Joinder and severance. Georgetown Law Journal, Thirty-Second Annual Review of Criminal Procedure, 1–26.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
   Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1983). The construction and validation of a juror bias scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 423–442. doi: 10.1016/0092-6566(83)90070-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keller, S. R., & Wiener, R. L. (2011). What are we studying? Student jurors, community jurors, and construct validity. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 29, 376–394. doi: 10.1002/bsl.971
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kovera, M. B., & Levett, L. M. (2015). Jury decision making. In B. L. Cutler & P. A. Zapf (Eds.), Apa handbook of forensic psychology: Volume 2. Criminal investigation, adjudication, and sentencing outcomes (pp. 271–311). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/14462-010
   Google Scholar
• Leipold, A. D., & Abbasi, H. A. (2006). The impact of joinder and severance on federal criminal cases: An empirical study. Vanderbilt Law Review, 59, 349–404. Retrieved from http://libproxy.uml.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/198966738?accountid=14575
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levett, L., & Kovera, M. B. (2009). Psychological mediators of the effects of opposing expert testimony on juror decisions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15(2), 124–148. doi: 10.1037/a0016309
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olson, E. A., & Wells, G. L. (2004). What makes a good alibi? A proposed taxonomy. Law and Human Behavior, 28(2), 157–176. doi: 10.1023/b:lahu.0000022320.47112.d3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.3.515
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Severance, L. J., Greene, E., & Loftus, E. F. (1984). Toward criminal jury instructions that jurors can understand. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 75, 198–233. doi:10.2307//1143210
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanford, S., & Penrod, S. D. (1982). Biases in trials involving defendants charged with multiple offenses. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12, 453–480. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1982.tb00879.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanford, S., & Penrod, S. D. (1984). Social inference processes in juror judgments of multiple-offense trials. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(4), 749–765. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.47.749
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanford, S., Penrod, S. D., & Collins, R. (1985). Decision-making in joined criminal trials: The influence of charge similarity, evidence similarity, and limiting instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 319–337. doi: 10.1007/bf01044474
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turtle, J., Read, D. J., Lindsay, S. D., & Brimacombe, E. C. A. (2008). Toward a more informative psychological science of eyewitness evidence. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(6), 769–778. doi: 10.1002/acp.1481
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United States v. Bledsoe, 674 F.2d 647. (1982).
   Google Scholar
• United States v. Woody, 130 F.3d 1257. (1995).
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure. (2016). Federal rules of criminal procedure. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office. Retrieved from http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/rules-of-criminal-procedure.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Van Wallendael, L. R., Cutler, B. L., Devenport, J., & Penrod, S. D. (2007). Mistaken identification = erroneous conviction? Assessing and improving legal safeguards. In R. C. L. Lindsay, D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), The handbook of eyewitness psychology, volume II: Memory for people (pp. 557–572). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar