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: 98415 Find in a Library
Title: Evaluating the Prejudicial Effect of Evidence - Cna Judges Identify the Impact of Improper Evidence on Juries?
Journal: Wisconsin Law Review  Volume:1983  Issue:5  Dated:(1983)  Pages:1147-1201
Author(s): L E Teitelbaum; G Sutton-Barbere; P Johnson
Date Published: 1983
Page Count: 55
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This empirical assessment of the validity of the premise that judges can routinely and accurately determine the prejudicial effect of evidence upon a jury found that this premise is doubtful.
Abstract: Some types of judicial decisions requiring an evaluation of the prejudicial effect of evidence are (1) prospective determinations regarding the admission of evidence and the effect of inadmissible evidence, (2) retrospective determinations regarding the effect of evidence, and (3) the appellate review of judgments. The accuracy of such judicial judgments depends on the validity of three underlying assumptions. First, jurors must share a common view of the significance of matters brought to their attention; second, judges must generally accurately perceive the jurors' evaluation of information and arguments that arise during trial; and third, judges themselves must hold a common view of the jurors' perceptions of prejudicial evidence and argument. The validity of these assumptions was assessed with a pretest designed to measure the prejudicial significance of various items of stricken evidence in a particular case. Members of the community, the bar, and the bench were asked to evaluate, from a summarized trial, the prejudice associated with 40 evidentiary items. Four measures of agreement within and across respondent groups indicate a level of disagreement about the prejudicial effects of evidence that undermines the assumptions underlying the use of judicial discretion in this area. The study concludes with a discussion of the implications of the findings for the harmless-error doctrine, which holds that reversal of a trial verdict is proper only when the trial error has affected a 'substantial' right of the litigant. A total of 123 footnotes are provided.
Index Term(s): Harmless error doctrine; Judicial discretion; Jury decisionmaking; Rules of evidence
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.