The biasing nature of gang evidence: inducing memory errors for evidence of past criminal behavior

References

• Abwender, D. A., & Hough, K. (2001). Interactive effects of characteristics of defendant and mock juror on US participants’ judgment and sentencing recommendations. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141(5), 603–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540109600574
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baldus, D. C., Pulaski, C., & Woodworth, G. (1983). Comparative review of death sentences: An empirical study of the Georgia experience. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 74(3), 661–753. https://doi.org/10.2307/1143133
   Google Scholar
• Bartlett, F. C. (1933). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1933.tb02913.x
   Google Scholar
• Belli, R. F. (1989). Influences of misleading postevent information: Misinformation interference and acceptance.. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118(1), 72–85. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.118.1.72
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bjerregaard, B. E., Smith, M. D., Cochran, J. K., & Fogel, S. J. (2015). A further examination of the liberation hypothesis in capital murder trials. Crime & Delinquency, 63(8), 1017–1038. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128715574454
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bodenhausen, G. V. (1988). Stereotypic biases in social decision making and memory: Testing process models of stereotype use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(5), 726–737. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.5.726
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornstein, B. H., & Rajki, M. (1994). Extra-legal factors and product liability: The influence of mock jurors’ demographic characteristics and intuitions about the cause of an injury. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 12(2), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2370120204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• California Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act, Cal. Penal Code § 186.20-186.35. (1988).
   Google Scholar
• Curley, L. J., Munro, J., & Dror, I. E. (2022). Cognitive and human factors in legal layperson decision making: Sources of bias in juror decision making. Medicine, Science and the Law, 62(3), 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/00258024221080655
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devine, D. J., Buddenbaum, J., Houp, S., Studebaker, N., & Stolle, D. (2009). Strength of evidence, extraevidentiary influence, and the liberation hypothesis: Data from the field. Law and Human Behavior, 33(2), 136–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9144-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devine, D. J., & Caughlin, D. E. (2014). Do they matter? A meta-analytic investigation of individual characteristics and guilt judgments. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(2), 109–134. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dukes, R. L., & Valentine, J. (2019). Gang membership and bias against young people who break the law. The Social Science Journal, 35(3), 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0362-3319(98)90004-0
   Google Scholar
• Efran, M. G. (1974). The effect of physical appearance on the judgment of guilt, interpersonal attraction, and severity of recommended punishment in a simulated jury task. Journal of Research in Personality, 8(1), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(74)90044-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisen, M. L. (2009). The biasing effect of gang evidence on juror decisions. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1436222
   Google Scholar
• Eisen, M. L., Dotson, B., & Dohi, G. (2014). Probative or prejudicial: Can gang evidence trump reasonable doubt? UCLA Law Review Discourse, 62. https://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/discourse/62-1.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Eisen, M. L., Dotson, B., & Olaguez, A. (2014). Exploring the prejudicial effect of gang evidence: Under what conditions will jurors ignore reasonable doubt. Criminal Law Practitioner. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3567.7603
   Google Scholar
• Eisen, M. L., Gomes, D. M., Wandry, L., Drachman, D., Clemente, A., & Groskopf, C. (2013). Examining the prejudicial effects of gang evidence on jurors. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 13(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2012.713831
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elek, J., & Hannaford-Agor, P. (2014). Can explicit instructions reduce expressions of implicit bias? New questions following a test of a specialized jury instruction. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2430438
   Google Scholar
• Federal Rules of Evidence. 28 U.S.C. App. Fed. R. Evid. Rule 404(b) (2020).
   Google Scholar
• Gardiner, J. M., & Java, R. I. (1993). Recognition memory and awareness: An experiential approach. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 337–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541449308520122
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holst, V. F., & Pezdek, K. (1992). Scripts for typical crimes and their effects on memory for eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6(7), 573–587. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350060702
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horowitz, I. A., & Willging, T. E. (1991). Changing views of jury power: The nullification debate, 1787–1988. Law and Human Behavior, 15(2), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044616
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• In re I.M., 125 Cal. Ct. App. 4th 1995, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 375. (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Jones, C. S., & Kaplan, M. F. (2003). The effects of racially stereotypical crimes on juror decision-making and information-processing strategies. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324834BASP2501_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions. (2017). CALCRIM No. 101.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics of intuitive judgment: Extensions and applications. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2005). A model of heuristic judgment. In K. J. Holyoak, & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 267–293). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kleider, H. M., Goldinger, S. D., & Knuycky, L. (2008). Stereotypes influence false memories for imagined events. Memory (Hove, England), 16(2), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210801895948
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleider, H. M., Knuycky, L. R., & Cavrak, S. E. (2012). Deciding the fate of others: The cognitive underpinnings of racially biased juror decision making. The Journal of General Psychology, 139(3), 175–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2012.686462
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazzella, R., & Feingold, A. (1994). The effects of physical attractiveness, race, socioeconomic status, and gender of defendants and victims on judgments of mock jurors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(15), 1315–1338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb01552.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miethe, T. D., & McCorkle, R. C. (1997). Gang membership and criminal processing: A test of the “Master Status” concept. Justice Quarterly, 14(3), 407–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829700093411
   Google Scholar
• Miller, M. K., Clark, J. D., & Alvarez, M. J. (2022). Exploring the boundaries of societally acceptable bias expression toward Muslim and atheist defendants in four mock-juror experiments. The Social Science Journal, 59(3), 439–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.09.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, T. L., Haw, R. M., Pfeifer, J. E., & Meissner, C. A. (2005). Racial bias in mock juror decision-making: A meta-analytic review of defendant treatment. Law and Human Behavior, 29(6), 621–637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-8122-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(4), 250–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.4.250
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1988). Explanation-based decision making: Effects of memory structure on judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(3), 521–533. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.14.3.521
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.189
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pizarro, D. A., Laney, C., Morris, E. K., & Loftus, E. F. (2006). Ripple effects in memory: Judgments of moral blame can distort memory for events. Memory & Cognition, 34(3), 550–555. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193578
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pozzulo, J. D., Dempsey, J., Maeder, E., & Allen, L. (2010). The effects of victim gender, defendant gender, and defendant age on juror decision making. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809344173
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reskin, B. F., & Visher, C. A. (1986). The impacts of evidence and extralegal factors in jurors’ decisions. Law & Society Review, 20(3), 423–438. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053582
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruva, C. L., & Guenther, C. C. (2015). From the shadows into the light: How pretrial publicity and deliberation affect mock jurors’ decisions, impressions, and memory. Law and Human Behavior, 39(3), 294–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000117
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Tuckey, M. R., & Brewer, N. (2003). How schemas affect eyewitness memory over repeated retrieval attempts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17(7), 785–800. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.906
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tulving, E. (1985). Memory and consciousness. Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne, 26(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0080017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar