The effect of ambiguous question wording on jurors’ presumption of innocence

References

• Allen, R. J., Balding, D. J., Donnelly, P., Kaye, D. H., & Friedman, R. D. (1994). Probability and proof in State v. Skipper: An internet exchange. Jurimetrics, 35(3), 277–310.
   Google Scholar
• Ashworth, A. (2006). Four threats to the presumption of innocence. South African Law Journal 123, 63–97.
   Google Scholar
• Bayles, M. D. (2012). Procedural justice: Allocating to individuals. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Bell v. Wolfish. (1979). 441 U.S. 520, 533.
   Google Scholar
• Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23(1), 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). Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 41(1), 13–28. doi:10.1037/lhb0000223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornstein, B. H., & McCabe, S. G. (2004). Jurors of the absurd? The Role of Consequentiality in Jury Simulation Research. Florida State University Law Review, 32, 443–467.
   Google Scholar
• Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432, 453 [1895].
   Google Scholar
• Committee on Federal Criminal Jury Instructions. (1998). Pattern criminal federal jury instructions for the seventh circuit. Parliamentary Debates. Retrieved 21 September, 2019 from http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/pjury.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Crump, M. J. C., McDonnell, J. V., & Gureckis, T. M. (2013). Evaluating Amazon’s Mechanical Turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research. PloS one, 8, e57410. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057410
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlman, C. (2017). Determining the base rate for guilt. Law, Probability and Risk, 17(1), 15–28. doi: 10.1093/lpr/mgx009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Jong, F., & van Lent, L. (2016). The presumption of innocence as a counterfactual principle. Utrecht Law Review, 12, 32–49. doi: 10.18352/ulr.324
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2006). Playing dice with criminal sentences: The influence of irrelevant anchors on experts’ judicial decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(2), 188–200. doi: 10.1177/0146167205282152
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman, R. D. (2000). A presumption of innocence, not of even odds. Stanford Law Review, 52, 873–887. doi: 10.2307/1229432
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26, 213–224. doi: 10.1002/bdm.1753
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helgeson, V. S., & Shaver, K. G. (1990). Presumption of innocence: Congruence bias induced and overcome. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 276–302. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1990.tb00412.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunter, J., Henning, T., Edmond, G., McMahon, R., Metzger, J., & San Roque, M. (2015). The trial: Principles, process and evidence. Sydney: The Federation Press.
   Google Scholar
• Koehler, J. J. (2001). When are people persuaded by DNA match statistics? Law and Human Behavior, 25(5), 493–513. doi: 10.1023/a:1012892815916
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koehler, J. J., & Macchi, L. (2004). Thinking about low-probability events an exemplar-cuing theory. Psychological Science, 15, 540–546. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00716.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laudan, L. (2005). The presumption of innocence: Material or probatory? Legal Theory, 11, 333–361. doi: 10.1017/S1352325205050184
   Google Scholar
• Lieberman, J. D., Krauss, D. A., Heen, M., & Sakiyama, M. (2016). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Professional perceptions of jury decision-making research practices. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 34, 495–514. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2246
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindley, D. V. (1977). Probability and the law. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series D (TheStatistician), 26(3), 203–212.
   Google Scholar
• Lippke, R. L. (2015). The presumption of innocence in the trial setting. Ratio Juris, 28, 159–179. doi: 10.1111/raju.12074
   Google Scholar
• Martin, A. W., & Schum, D. A. (1986). Quantifying burdens of proof: A likelihood ratio approach. Jurimetrics, 27, 383–420.
   Google Scholar
• 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(4), 436–450. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.36.4.436
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Posner, R. A. (1999). An economic approach to the law of evidence. Stanford Law Review, 51(6), 1477–1546. doi: 10.2307/1229527
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, P. (2002). Double jeopardy law reform: A criminal justice commentary. The Modern Law Review, 65, 393–424. doi: 10.1111/1468-2230.00386
   Google Scholar
• Saks, M. J., Werner, C. M., & Ostrom, T. M. (1975). The presumption of innocence and the American juror. Journal of Contemporary Law, 2, 46–54.
   Google Scholar
• Scurich, N., John, R. S. (2017). Jurors’ presumption of innocence. The Journal of Legal Studies, 46, 187–206. doi: 10.1086/690450
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scurich, N., Nguyen, K. D., & John, R. S. (2016). Quantifying the presumption of innocence. Law, Probability and Risk, 15, 71–86. doi: 10.1093/lpr/mgv016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stuckenberg, C.-F. (2014). Who is presumed innocent of what by whom? Criminal Law and Philosophy, 8(2), 301–316. doi: 10.1007/s11572-013-9230-0
   Google Scholar
• Thaler, J. (1978). Punishing the innocent: The need for due process and the presumption of innocence prior to trial. Wisconsin Law Review, 2, 441–484.
   Google Scholar
• UN General Assembly. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights (2nd edition) (Vol. 302). Paris: United Nations.
   Google Scholar
• Von Ahn, L., Blum, M., Hopper, N. J., & Langford, J. (2003). CAPTCHA: Using hard AI problems for security. In International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques (pp. 294–311). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Weigend, T. (2013). There is only one presumption of innocence. Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, 42(3), 193–204. doi: 10.5553/njlp/221307132013042003003
   Google Scholar
• Wells, G. L. (1992). Naked statistical evidence of liability: Is subjective probability enough? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(5), 739–752. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.62.5.739
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiener, R. L., Krauss, D. A., & Lieberman, J. D. (2011). Mock jury research: Where do we go from here? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29(3), 467–479. doi: 10.1002/bsl.989
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woolmington V DPP. (1935). 462 482 (AC).
   Google Scholar