Verdict spotting: investigating the effects of juror bias, evidence anchors and verdict system in jurors

References

• Allison, M., Jung, S., Sweeney, L., & Culhane, S. E. (2014). The impact of illegal alibi activities, corroborator involvement and corroborator certainty on mock juror perceptions. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 21(2), 191–204. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2013.803275
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arkes, H. R., & Mellers, B. A. (2002). Do juries meet our expectations? Law and Human Behavior, 26(6), 625–639. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020929517312
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ask, K., Rebelius, A., & Granhag, P. A. (2008). The “elasticity” of criminal evidence: A moderator of investigator bias. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(9), 1245–1259. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1432
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbato, J. M. (2004). Scotland's bastard verdict: Intermediacy and the unique three-verdict system. Indiana International & Comparative Law Review, 15, 543–581.
   Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BBC News. (2019, May 1st). Miss M case: Rape victim who sued attacker condemns bankruptcy move. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-48117100
   Google Scholar
• Carlson, K. A., & Russo, J. E. (2001). Biased interpretation of evidence by mock jurors. Journal of experimental psychology: Applied, 7(2), 91–103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chapman, G. B., & Bornstein, B. H. (1996). The more you ask for, the more you get: Anchoring in personal injury verdicts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(6), 519–540. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199612)10:6 < 519::AID-ACP417 > 3.0.CO;2-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Criminal Proceedings in Scotland. (2011). Statistical bulletin: Crime and justice series: Criminal proceedings in Scotland, 2010–11. https://www.gov.scot/publications/statistical-bulletin-crime-justice-series-criminal-proceedings-scotland-2010-11/pages/5/
   Google Scholar
• Curley, L. J., MacLean, R., Murray, J., Laybourn, P., & Brown, D. (2019). The bastard verdict and its influence on jurors. Medicine, Science and the Law, 59(1), 26–35. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0025802418811740
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curley, L. J., Munro, J., Frumkin, L., & Turner, J. (2021). Informing Reform: The views of legal professionals on the unique aspects of Scottish Law. Medicine, Science and the law. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0025802421992913
   Google Scholar
• Curley, L. J., Murray, J., MacLean, R., Laybourn, P., & Brown, D. (2018). Faith in thy threshold. Medicine, Science and the Law, 58(4), 239–250. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0025802418791062
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De La Fuente, L., De La Fuente, I., & García, J. (2003). Effects of pretrial juror bias, strength of evidence and deliberation process on juror decisions: New validity evidence of the Juror Bias Scale scores. Psychology, Crime & Law, 9(2), 197–209. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316031000116283
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duff, P. (1999). The Scottish criminal jury: A very peculiar institution. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62(2), 173–201. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/1192256
   Google Scholar
• Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2006). The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic why the adjustments are insufficient. Psychological Science, 17(4), 311–318. http://journals.sagepub.com/home/pss https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01704.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Estrada-Reynolds, V., Gray, J., & Nuñez, N. (2015). Information integration theory, juror bias, and sentence recommendations captured over time in a capital trial. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29(5), 713–722. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3155
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer, G. (1991). How to make cognitive illusions disappear: Beyond “heuristics and biases. European Review of Social Psychology, 2(1), 83–115. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779143000033
   Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review, 102(4), 684–704. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.4.684
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gliem, J. A., Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales [Paper presentation]. Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, The Ohio State University. 1–7. http://hdl.handle.net/1805/344
   Google Scholar
• Greene, E., & Bornstein, B. H. (2003). Determining damages: The psychology of jury awards. The American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/10464-000
   Google Scholar
• Greene, E., & Bornstein, B. H. (2013). Nudging the justice system toward better decisions. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 103(4), 1155–1170. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43895390
   Google Scholar
• Greene, E., & Loftus, E. F. (1985). When crimes are joined at trial. Law and Human Behavior, 9(2), 193–2017. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. J., & Wistrich, A. J. (2002). Judging by heuristic-cognitive illusions in judicial decision making. Judicature, 86(1), 44–50. https://home.heinonline.org/
   Google Scholar
• Hope, L., Greene, E., Memon, A., Gavisk, M., & Houston, K. (2008). A third verdict option: Exploring the impact of the Not Proven verdict on mock juror decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 32(3), 241–252. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9106-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hope, L., Memon, A., & McGeorge, P. (2004). Understanding pretrial publicity: Predecisional distortion of evidence by mock jurors. Journal of experimental psychology. Applied, 10(2), 111–119. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.10.2.111
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson, B. S. (1998). Truth or proof?: The criminal verdict. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 11(3), 227–273. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01110409
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan, M. F., & Miller, L. E. (1978). Reducing the effects of juror bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(12), 1443–1455. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.12.1443
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lecci, L., & Myers, B. (2008). Individual differences in attitudes relevant to juror decision making: Development and validation of the pretrial juror attitude questionnaire (PJAQ) 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(8), 2010–2038. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00378.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lecci, L., & Myers, B. (2009). Predicting guilt judgements and verdict change using a measure of pretrial bias in a videotaped mock trial with deliberating jurors. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15(7), 619–634. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160802477757
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundrigan, S., Dhami, M. K., & Mueller‐Johnson, K. (2016). Predicting verdicts using pre‐trial attitudes and standard of proof. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 21(1), 95–110. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12043
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maeder, E., Yamamoto, S., & Saliba, P. (2015). The influence of defendant race and victim physical attractiveness on juror decision-making in a sexual assault trial. Psychology, Crime & Law, 21(1), 62–79. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2014.915325
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall, C. R., & Wise, J. A. (1975). Juror decisions and the determination of guilt in capital punishment cases. In D. Wendt & C. Vlek (Eds.), Utility, probability, and human decision making (pp. 257–270). Reidel.
   Google Scholar
• McKenzie, J. P. (1985). The Editorial Notebook; Between guilt and innocence.
   Google Scholar
• Mobely, S. (2007). Identifying juror bias: Using the pretrial juror attitude questionnaire for more effective voir dire. ProQuest.
   Google Scholar
• Neuschatz, J. S., Wilkinson, M. L., Goodsell, C. A., Wetmore, S. A., Quinlivan, D. S., & Jones, N. J. (2012). Secondary confessions, expert testimony, and unreliable testimony. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 27(2), 179–192. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-012-9102-x
   Google Scholar
• Ormston, R., Chalmers, J., Leverick, F., Munro, V., Murray, L. (2019). Scottish Jury Research: findings from a large-scale mock jury study. Crime and Justice. https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/research-and-analysis/2019/10/scottish-jury-research-fingings-large-mock-jury-study/documents/scottish-jury-research-findings-large-scale-mock-jury-study/scottish-jury-research-findings-large-scale-mock-jury-study/govscot%3Adocument/scottish-jury-research-findings-large-scale-mock-jury-study.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Orr, D., & Guthrie, C. (2005). Anchoring, information, expertise, and negotiation: New insights from meta-analysis. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 21, 597–628. https://home.heinonline.org/
   Google Scholar
• Ostrom, T. M., Werner, C., & Saks, M. J. (1978). An integration theory analysis of jurors’ presumption of guilt or innocence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(4), 436–450. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.4.436
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, K. (2011). Estimating juror accuracy, juror ability, and the relationship between them. Law and human behavior, 35(4), 288–305. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9240-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(2), 242–258. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.2.242
   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/https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.189
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Posey, A. J., & Wrightsman, L. S. (2005). Trial consulting. In American Psychology-Law Society series (pp. 157–172). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rape Crisis Scotland. (2019). End not proven. Retrieved November 13, 2019, from https://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/not-proven/
   Google Scholar
• Ross, S. (2019). Sottish rape victim says most jurors ‘don’t’ even know what the not proven verdict means. The Scotsman. https://www.scotsman.com/news/uk-news/scottish-rape-victim-says-most-jurors-dont-even-know-what-not-proven-means-1405876
   Google Scholar
• Schklar, J., & Diamond, S. S. (1999). Juror reactions to DNA evidence: Errors and expectancies. Law and Human Behavior, 23(2), 159–184. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022368801333
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scottish Government. (2021). Not proven verdicts delivered from 2011 to 2016: FOI release [online]. https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-17-02213/
   Google Scholar
• Severance, L. J., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). Improving the ability of jurors to comprehend and apply criminal jury instructions. Law & Society Review, 17(1), 153–197. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/3053535
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, D., Stenstrom, D. M., & Read, S. J. (2015). The coherence effect: Blending cold and hot cognitions. Journal of personality and social psychology, 109(3), 369–394. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000029
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129–111. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042769
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context – tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 281–295. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379202900301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, L., & Bull, R. (2012). Identifying and measuring juror pre-trial bias for forensic evidence: Development and validation of the forensic evidence evaluation bias scale. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18(9), 797–815. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2011.561800
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smithson, M., Deady, S., Gracik, L. (2007). Guilty, not guilty, or…? Multiple options in jury verdict choices. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20(5), 481–498. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.572
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sommers, S. R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2000). Race in the courtroom: Perceptions of guilt and dispositional attributions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(11), 1367–1379. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200263005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thaman, S. C. (1999). Europe's new jury systems: The cases of Spain and Russia. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62(2), 233–259. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/1192258
   Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, New Series, 185(9), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tyler, T. R. (2006). Viewing CSI and the threshold of guilt: Managing truth and justice in reality and fiction. The Yale Law Journal, 115(5), 1050–1085. https://home.heinonline.org/ https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/20455645
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Wurff, A. W. G., Chan, Y. L., Van Straalen, N. M., & Schouten, J. (2000). TE-AFLP: combining rapidity and robustness in DNA fingerprinting. Nucleic Acids Research, 28(24), E105–105. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/28.24.e105
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiten, W., & Diamond, S. S. (1979). A critical review of the jury simulation paradigm. Law and Human Behavior, 3(1–2), 71–93. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01039149
   Google Scholar
• Williams, M. R., Demuth, S., & Holcomb, J. E. (2008). Understanding the influence of victim gender in death penalty cases: The importance of victim race, sex‐related victimization, and jury decision making. Criminology, 45(4), 865–891. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j1745-9125.2007.00095.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willmott, D. (2016). Is jury bias preventing justice for rape victims. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/is-jury-bias-preventing-justice-for-rape-victims-60090
   Google Scholar
• Willmott, D., Boduszek, D., Debowska, A., & Woodfield, R. (2018). Introduction and validation of the juror decision scale (JDS): An empirical investigation of the story model. Journal of Criminal Justice, 57, 26–34. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.03.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar