Jury decision making

How does confidence affect accuracy of a witness’ memory and thus the jurors' response?

• A common-sense view would be that the more confident a witness is, the more accurate their memory is likely to be (Pirmoradi & McKelvie, 2016; Wells & Murray, 1984)
  • Jurors rely heavily on witnesses’ confidence to infer witness accuracy (Sauer et al., 2010)

• Sauer et al. (2019) conclude that while there is increasing evidence to suggest that the confidence-accuracy relationship has some value, it is hard to
  use it to assess the validity of an individual identification

Penrod & Cutler (1995

Jurors have a tendency to ‘over-believe’ EWT
• They are not sensitive to the factors that influence accuracy (though see Neal et al., 2012)
• They rely heavily on witness confidence assessments
• This can be influenced by post-identification information (and may not be an accurate reflection of accuracy)
• However, expert testimony can reduce this reliance on confidence (e.g. Loftus, 2010)

Impacts on confidence (Wright & Skagerberg, 2007)

Eyewitness confidence is malleable
• 134 real eyewitnesses attending a UK police identification suite
• Rate their confidence
• The witness was then told the outcome of their identification decision
• The witness again rated their confidence
• Feedback about the identification decision affected witness confidence
• Those told they had picked out the suspect became more confident following feedback

What is the role of attractiveness?

• Is what is beautiful good? The halo effect (Thorndike, 1920)

• Sigall & Ostrove (1975): Physically attractive defendants received lower sentences (mock cases using photographs) unless the crime was related to attractiveness and then there was an increase in punishment

Saladin et al. (1988)

• Using 8 photographs, attractive males were considered less likely to commit a serious crime than unattractive males

How do jurors reach a verdict?

Pennington & Hastie (1986, 1992)- The story model:
• Jurors construct “story-like” accounts to organise and interpret the evidence they hear
• These “stories” fit with the juror’s general knowledge about the structure of stories (e.g. coherence and consistency) and their beliefs and expectations of how the legal system works
• The juror’s decision is based upon an evaluation of how plausible and complete the story is

What theories help jurors reach a verdict?

Dual-process theory (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993)
Systematic processing
• slower, more effortful thinking
• the juror closely scrutinises and analyses the evidence
Heuristic processing
• Faster, more automatic thinking which involves less detailed
scrutiny of the evidence
• e.g. “There is no smoke without fire”
• e.g. “Experts can be trusted”

When is dual process theory used?

Heuristic processing is favoured when people are tired, pressured for time, the evidence is complex, or they lack knowledge about the topic
• People may still rely upon heuristic short-cuts even when making highly consequential judgements
• However, there is evidence of systematic processing taking place, with careful consideration of expert testimony as well as detailed deliberation in jury discussions (Vidmar and Diamond, 2001)

When is heuristic processing used?

Used when the presentation of evidence is highly complex
• jurors tend to be more persuaded by expert witnesses with strong credentials when the testimony they present is highly complex (Cooper et al., 1996), known as the ‘persuasion heuristic’

When is systematic processing used?

the presentation of evidence is simplified
• summing up may be designed to do this, but it may be too late by this point…?

Stereotypes

Gordon, Bindrim, McNicholas, and Walden (1988): defendants are dealt with more harshly when their crime is ‘stereotypical’ of their ethnicity
• Singh & Sprott (2017): still reporting ethnicity effects on sentencing in mock studies

Bornstein et al., (2002)

Participants exposed to negative pre-trial publicity are more likely to judge the defendant guilty than participants exposed to less or no negative pre-trial publicity
• Undergraduate ‘mock’ jurors were presented with a lawsuit against a chemical company for causing cancer. Participants either received:
• 1. factual information (46% found chemical company liable)
• 2. negative information about the plaintiff (25% found chemical company liable)
• 3. negative information about the defendant - the chemical company (75% found chemical company liable)

Duke & Gaither (2017)

Manipulated the ethnicity of shooters and victims (Black vs White) in altercations, and provided positive counter-stereotype or negative stereotype information about the victim
• Information released about the victim influenced attitudes towards both the victim and the shooter
• They discussed their findings in relation to victims of police
shootings in the US and how victims are portrayed pre-trial

What decision-making rules do jurors follow?

• unanimity – discussion puts pressure on deviant to conform
  • majority wins – discussion confirms the majority position, which becomes the group decision
  • truth wins – discussion reveals the position that is demonstrably correct
  • two-thirds majority – discussion establishes a two-thirds majority, which becomes the group decision

(Miller, 1989)

Unanimity may create a pleasant atmosphere but may make decision making very slow
• Majority wins may make many group members feel dissatisfied but can speed up decision making.

Groupthink (Janis, 1972)

Where a group adopts a way of thinking in which the desire for consensus overrides all else
• Individuals are pressured to change their opinion or suppress the voicing of minority opinion to create a consensus
• It may lead to jurors ignoring evidence which is inconsistent with that consensus
• It is likely to happen when groups are highly isolated, under stress and when they lack an open-minded leader
• Groupthink can lead to: ignoring contradictory information, pressure to conform and the use of stereotyping

Why may a foreman be chosen?

Research (e.g. Devine et al., 2001) has shown that a foreman may be chosen because:
• They are of a higher economic-status
• They have prior experience of jury service
• Or they simply sit in the seat at the head of the table when the jurors first meet
• The also tend to be male and white
• The foreman may not be the best person for the job and may not provide impartial leadership