Factors Influencing Jury-Decision Making

Characteristics of the Defendant

ATTRACTIVENESS

David Abwender & Kenyatta Hough 2001

Considered number of factors on jury decision making - including physical attractiveness

Aim was to investigate the Attractiveness Leniency Hypothesis (ALE), that attractive Ds treated more favourably by juries than less attractive ones

However, researchers also wanted to examine whether this effect was dependent on sex of the jurors

207 participants in the study of which 129 women & 78 men

All participants asked to judge the guilt of & recommend sentence for imaginary case of drunk driver who recklessly drove & killed pedestrian

Found female participants more lenient towards attractive female Ds & less lenient towards unattractive D

Male participants displayed the opposite tendency

RACE

Mark Bradbury & Marian Williams 2013

Researchers analysed data from real criminal cases in the US & found juries comprised if predominantly white jurors were more likely to convict black Ds, as were jurors made up of mostly Hispanic jurors

More marked for certain crimes e.g. drug offences

Jeffrey Pfeifer & James Ogloff 1991

Participants read transcript of a trial in which race of victim & D were varied Then asked to rate the guilt of D

Results replicated earlier studies which found participants overwhelmingly rate black Ds guiltier than white Ds especially where the victim = white

ACCENT

John Dixon et al 2002

Investigated the effect of a regional accent on the attribution of guilt

Recorded conversation between male suspect & male policeman was played to 119 participants

Accent of suspect varied so participants either heard Birmingham accent or a 'standard' British one

Ratings of guilt significantly higher in relation to the Birmingham accent - suggestign this is further factor that may influence jury decision-making

Evaluation

Pre-trial Publicity

Job of the jury is to determine guilt or innocence of D based on evidence presented in courtroom alone

Nancy Steblay et al 1999

Reviewed past research & concluded pre-trial publicity may have negative influence of jurors' judgements of D guilt

Procedure

  • Meta-analysis made of 44 studies involving 5,755 participants in mock-jury trial or questionnaires
  • -ve info given to experimental group participants & were then asked to decide on whether D was guilty or innocent - control groups weren't given such info

Findings

  • Those who were exposed to -ve pre-trial publicity were significantly more likely to return a guilty verdict (59%) than control groups who weren't (45%)
  • Number of variables were identified which enhanced the effect (e.g. if the delay between judgement & PTP bigger, or type of crime - PTP strongest for murder or sexual abuse)
  • Other variables diminished effect (e.g. type of crime such as disorderly conduct, or using students as participants)

Conclusions

  • Data analysed supports the belief that PTP leads people to be more likely to reach a guilty judgement, especially related to certain conditions
  • Researchers suggest 1 possible remedy would be to hold trials that attract extensive PTP in foreign locations
  • Offer an explanation for the effect of PTP, that it creates schemas in the minds of jurors which then become difficult to shift, more publicity there is, more these schemas become entrenched

Strength

Ethical

Most studies of jury decision-making & PTP involve mock juries & imaginary cases

Is issues from validity perspective - allows researchers to manipulate variables in ways that wouldn't be practical or ethical in a real trial

Weakness

Untested factors may affect real juries

Could be factors like whether jury has personal experience with the offence, whether charismatic leaders on the jury who are able to sway the opinion, whether the characteristics of jurors match characteristics of the D (greater empathy?)

Failure to recognise factors such as these may limit usefulness of mock or even real jury research

Results often inconsistent

Marc Patry 2008

Mock jurors who discussed case were more likely to find attractive D guilty whilst those discussed less more likely to find plain D guilty