skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

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: 76613 Find in a Library
Title: Inadmissible Evidence and Juror Verdicts
Journal: Personality and Social Psychology  Volume:40  Issue:3  Dated:(March 1981)  Pages:453-463
Author(s): W C Thompson; G T Fong; D L Rosenhan
Date Published: 1981
Page Count: 11
Sponsoring Agency: Montgomery (Kenneth and Harle) Fund

National Science Foundation
Arlington, VA 22230
Stanford Legal Research Fund
Type: Report (Study/Research)
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: A simulation study was conducted to determine whether jurors can ignore inadmissible evidence in the deliberation and decision process.
Abstract: A total of 120 male and 168 female students at a junior college were paid $5 each to take part in the 2-hour study. These mock jurors watched video tapes of a realistic simulated trial. They rendered verdicts individually before deliberation and as groups after deliberation in six-member groups. The simulated trial was a felony-murder case in which the defendant was alleged to have robbed a liquor store and murdered the female proprietor. The trial contained inadmissible evidence supporting conviction, inadmissible evidence supporting acquittal, or no inadmissible evidence. The judge's instructions emphasized the importance either of protecting the defendant's due process rights or of reaching an accurate verdict. Results showed that the variation in judges' instructions had no effect. However, jurors who received inadmissible evidence supporting acquittal were less likely to convict than were those who received either proconviction inadmissible evidence or no inadmissible evidence. The conviction rates in the latter two conditions did not differ significantly. Paradoxically, jurors who received inadmissible evidence supporting conviction thought that their verdicts had been influenced by it, whereas those who received inadmissible evidence supporting acquittal thought that their verdicts had not been influenced by it. The presence of inadmissible evidence did not affect jurors' evaluations of the strength of admissible evidence. The reason for asymmetry regarding effects of evidence supporting conviction and evidence supporting acquittal was not known. This gap in understanding and the study's reliance on mock jurors point to the need for caution in generalizing the study's findings. Tables, reference notes, and 20 references are included.
Index Term(s): Behavioral science research; Evidence; Jury decisionmaking; Jury instructions; Rules of evidence; Simulation
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=76613

*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.