skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 156498 Find in a Library
Title: Inducing Jurors to Disregard Inadmissible Evidence: A Legal Explanation Does Not Help
Journal: Law and Human Behavior  Volume:19  Issue:4  Dated:(August 1995)  Pages:407-424
Author(s): K L Pickel
Date Published: 1995
Page Count: 18
Type: Research (Applied/Empirical)
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: Three experiments investigated the ability of mock jurors to disregard inadmissible prior conviction evidence and hearsay.
Abstract: In the first two experiments, college students listened to an audiotape enacting a theft trial. Critical evidence favored the prosecution and was objected to by the defense. In three different conditions, the judge either ruled the evidence admissible, ruled it inadmissible, or ruled it inadmissible and explained the legal basis for the ruling. In a fourth condition, no critical evidence was presented. Critical witness credibility was also manipulated. The legal explanation backfired with prior conviction evidence but not with hearsay evidence. In addition, critical witness credibility did not affect the ability of subjects to disregard inadmissible evidence. The hypothesis of the third experiment was that participants held different views about prior conviction and hearsay evidence. Results of this experiment suggested that the legal explanation may have affected the use of hearsay and prior conviction evidence differently because of subjects' dissimilar preconceptions of the fairness of using the two evidence items to assess guilt. 18 references and 2 tables
Main Term(s): Courts
Index Term(s): Convictions; Hearsay evidence; Jury decisionmaking; Prior act evidence; Rules of evidence; Witness credibility
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.