Cargando…

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

The Scottish verdict of not proven represents a second acquittal verdict which is not legally defined. Existing research into the influence of the not proven verdict on jury decision making is modest. The main aim of the current study was therefore to investigate the influence of verdict systems (tw...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Curley, Lee J., Murray, Jennifer, MacLean, Rory, Munro, James, Lages, Martin, Frumkin, Lara A., Laybourn, Phyllis, Brown, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Routledge 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9310652/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35898612
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2021.1904450
_version_ 1784753434021330944
author Curley, Lee J.
Murray, Jennifer
MacLean, Rory
Munro, James
Lages, Martin
Frumkin, Lara A.
Laybourn, Phyllis
Brown, David
author_facet Curley, Lee J.
Murray, Jennifer
MacLean, Rory
Munro, James
Lages, Martin
Frumkin, Lara A.
Laybourn, Phyllis
Brown, David
author_sort Curley, Lee J.
collection PubMed
description The Scottish verdict of not proven represents a second acquittal verdict which is not legally defined. Existing research into the influence of the not proven verdict on jury decision making is modest. The main aim of the current study was therefore to investigate the influence of verdict systems (two vs three) on juror decision making. The effect of pre-trial bias and evidence anchors on juror judgements were also examined. One-hundred and twenty-eight mock jurors listened to two homicide vignettes and were asked to rate their belief of guilt of the accused and to give a verdict in both trials. The results suggest that pre-trial bias was a significant predictor of both verdict choice and belief of guilt, whereas evidence anchors were not a significant predictor of either. Finally, both guilty and not guilty verdicts were given with increased frequency in the two-verdict system when compared to the three-verdict system.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9310652
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Routledge
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93106522022-07-26 Verdict spotting: investigating the effects of juror bias, evidence anchors and verdict system in jurors Curley, Lee J. Murray, Jennifer MacLean, Rory Munro, James Lages, Martin Frumkin, Lara A. Laybourn, Phyllis Brown, David Psychiatr Psychol Law Articles The Scottish verdict of not proven represents a second acquittal verdict which is not legally defined. Existing research into the influence of the not proven verdict on jury decision making is modest. The main aim of the current study was therefore to investigate the influence of verdict systems (two vs three) on juror decision making. The effect of pre-trial bias and evidence anchors on juror judgements were also examined. One-hundred and twenty-eight mock jurors listened to two homicide vignettes and were asked to rate their belief of guilt of the accused and to give a verdict in both trials. The results suggest that pre-trial bias was a significant predictor of both verdict choice and belief of guilt, whereas evidence anchors were not a significant predictor of either. Finally, both guilty and not guilty verdicts were given with increased frequency in the two-verdict system when compared to the three-verdict system. Routledge 2021-05-04 /pmc/articles/PMC9310652/ /pubmed/35898612 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2021.1904450 Text en © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
spellingShingle Articles
Curley, Lee J.
Murray, Jennifer
MacLean, Rory
Munro, James
Lages, Martin
Frumkin, Lara A.
Laybourn, Phyllis
Brown, David
Verdict spotting: investigating the effects of juror bias, evidence anchors and verdict system in jurors
title Verdict spotting: investigating the effects of juror bias, evidence anchors and verdict system in jurors
title_full Verdict spotting: investigating the effects of juror bias, evidence anchors and verdict system in jurors
title_fullStr Verdict spotting: investigating the effects of juror bias, evidence anchors and verdict system in jurors
title_full_unstemmed Verdict spotting: investigating the effects of juror bias, evidence anchors and verdict system in jurors
title_short Verdict spotting: investigating the effects of juror bias, evidence anchors and verdict system in jurors
title_sort verdict spotting: investigating the effects of juror bias, evidence anchors and verdict system in jurors
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9310652/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35898612
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2021.1904450
work_keys_str_mv AT curleyleej verdictspottinginvestigatingtheeffectsofjurorbiasevidenceanchorsandverdictsysteminjurors
AT murrayjennifer verdictspottinginvestigatingtheeffectsofjurorbiasevidenceanchorsandverdictsysteminjurors
AT macleanrory verdictspottinginvestigatingtheeffectsofjurorbiasevidenceanchorsandverdictsysteminjurors
AT munrojames verdictspottinginvestigatingtheeffectsofjurorbiasevidenceanchorsandverdictsysteminjurors
AT lagesmartin verdictspottinginvestigatingtheeffectsofjurorbiasevidenceanchorsandverdictsysteminjurors
AT frumkinlaraa verdictspottinginvestigatingtheeffectsofjurorbiasevidenceanchorsandverdictsysteminjurors
AT laybournphyllis verdictspottinginvestigatingtheeffectsofjurorbiasevidenceanchorsandverdictsysteminjurors
AT browndavid verdictspottinginvestigatingtheeffectsofjurorbiasevidenceanchorsandverdictsysteminjurors