Matching Items (3)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Jury instructions
- Creators: Schweitzer, Nicholas
Description
Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) evidence has been shown to have a strong effect on juror decision-making when presented in court. While DNA evidence has been shown to be extremely reliable, fingerprint evidence, and the way it is presented in court, has come under much scrutiny. Forensic fingerprint experts have been working on a uniformed way to present fingerprint evidence in court. The most promising has been the Probabilistic Based Fingerprint Evidence (PBFE) created by Forensic Science Services (FSS) (G. Langenburg, personal communication, April 16, 2011). The current study examined how the presence and strength of DNA evidence influenced jurors' interpretation of probabilistic fingerprint evidence. Mock jurors read a summary of a murder case that included fingerprint evidence and testimony from a fingerprint expert and, in some conditions, DNA evidence and testimony from a DNA expert. Results showed that when DNA evidence was found at the crime scene and matched the defendant other evidence and the overall case was rated as stronger than when no DNA was present. Fingerprint evidence did not cause a stronger rating of other evidence and the overall case. Fingerprint evidence was underrated in some cases, and jurors generally weighed all the different strengths of fingerprint testimony to the same degree.
ContributorsArthurs, Shavonne (Author) / McQuiston, Dawn (Thesis advisor) / Hall, Deborah (Committee member) / Schweitzer, Nicholas (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
Description
The purpose of this study was to examine mock jurors’ decision making in insanity cases. Specific instructions (vs. typical) juror instructions were tested to increase jurors’ comprehension of verdict options and reduce the effects of preexisting attitudes and reliance on cognitively biased thought processes in their legal decision making.
The specific instructions in this study were inspired by Fuzzy Trace Theory, which holds that simple language and visual aids that convey the ‘gist’ of complex information can help people make better decisions (Reyna & Brainerd, 1995). Participants (N= 496) were randomly assigned to one of two juror instruction conditions (specific vs. typical). All participants read a 10-page insanity defense case vignette, and were tasked with reaching a verdict. They were provided with 5 verdict options: Not Guilty, Guilty, and three different insanity options (Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity, Guilty but Mentally Ill, Guilty Except Insane). Results supported the hypothesis that jurors who received specific (vs. typical) instructions would comprehend more information about the available verdicts, and would be more likely to choose an insanity defense verdict. As expected, jurors’ preexisting attitudes toward the insanity defense influenced their verdicts. Although it was hypothesized that increasing jurors’ understanding would result in them relying less on their attitudes and motivated reasoning processes in reaching their legal judgments, the evidence did not support this. Results suggest more specific instructions that includes information about outcomes is preferred by jurors, and that they are better able to understand and perform their duties when provided with more useful information. However, further research is needed to identify methods for helping jurors rely less on biased reasoning processes in their legal judgments.
The specific instructions in this study were inspired by Fuzzy Trace Theory, which holds that simple language and visual aids that convey the ‘gist’ of complex information can help people make better decisions (Reyna & Brainerd, 1995). Participants (N= 496) were randomly assigned to one of two juror instruction conditions (specific vs. typical). All participants read a 10-page insanity defense case vignette, and were tasked with reaching a verdict. They were provided with 5 verdict options: Not Guilty, Guilty, and three different insanity options (Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity, Guilty but Mentally Ill, Guilty Except Insane). Results supported the hypothesis that jurors who received specific (vs. typical) instructions would comprehend more information about the available verdicts, and would be more likely to choose an insanity defense verdict. As expected, jurors’ preexisting attitudes toward the insanity defense influenced their verdicts. Although it was hypothesized that increasing jurors’ understanding would result in them relying less on their attitudes and motivated reasoning processes in reaching their legal judgments, the evidence did not support this. Results suggest more specific instructions that includes information about outcomes is preferred by jurors, and that they are better able to understand and perform their duties when provided with more useful information. However, further research is needed to identify methods for helping jurors rely less on biased reasoning processes in their legal judgments.
ContributorsHight, Morgan Leigh (Author) / Neal, Tess M (Thesis advisor) / Schweitzer, Nicholas (Committee member) / Salerno, Jessica (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
A substantial amount of research has been dedicated to understanding how and why innocent people confess to crimes that they did not commit. Unfortunately, false confessions occur even with the best possible interrogation practices. This study aimed to examine how different types of false confession (voluntary, compliance, and internalization) and the use of jury instructions specific to confessions influences jurors’ verdicts. A sample of 414 participants read a criminal trial case summary that presented one of four reasons why the defendant falsely confessed followed by either the standard jury instruction for confessions or a clarified version. Afterwards, participants completed several items assessing the perceived guilt of the defendant, their attitudes on confessions in general, and their opinions on jury instructions. Although the three confession reasons did not differ among one another, jurors who were given no explanation for the false confession tended to more harshly judge the defendant. Further, the clarified jury instructions did not influence the participants’ judgments. Future research should focus on how expert witness testimonies affect verdicts regarding each type of false confession reason and whether the media may influence a juror’s knowledge of factors that could provoke false confessions.
ContributorsPollack, Andrew Christian (Author) / Schweitzer, Nicholas (Thesis advisor) / Salerno, Jessica (Committee member) / Neal, Tess (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017