Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Impact on Simulated Jurors of Testimony as a Function of Non-Evidential Characteristics of Witness and Defendant
View through CrossRef
The impact on jurors' decision making of the non-evidential characteristics of witnesses' and defendant's attractiveness and the agreement of their testimony was explored in a 2 × 2 × 2 between-subjects factorial design. 48 undergraduates read a summary of a courtroom trial in which an eyewitness, who was either a professional (High Attractive) or laborer (Low Attractive), either agreed or disagreed with the testimony of a defendant whose character had been assessed positively (High Attractive) or negatively (Low Attractive). Dependent variables were subjects' verdicts and confidence in the witnesses' and defendant's testimony. Conflict in testimony between the witness and defendant led to higher ratings of guilt but lowered the subject's confidence in the testimony of both. A significant interaction of witness × defendant × testimony showed that ratings of guilt decreased when a witness testified against a defendant who was dissimilar in attractiveness; an unattractive witness supporting an attractive defendant also reduced assessment of guilt but an attractive witness who testified for an unattractive defendant increased findings of guilt. Results were discussed in the context of relevant research involving simulated jurors.
Title: Impact on Simulated Jurors of Testimony as a Function of Non-Evidential Characteristics of Witness and Defendant
Description:
The impact on jurors' decision making of the non-evidential characteristics of witnesses' and defendant's attractiveness and the agreement of their testimony was explored in a 2 × 2 × 2 between-subjects factorial design.
48 undergraduates read a summary of a courtroom trial in which an eyewitness, who was either a professional (High Attractive) or laborer (Low Attractive), either agreed or disagreed with the testimony of a defendant whose character had been assessed positively (High Attractive) or negatively (Low Attractive).
Dependent variables were subjects' verdicts and confidence in the witnesses' and defendant's testimony.
Conflict in testimony between the witness and defendant led to higher ratings of guilt but lowered the subject's confidence in the testimony of both.
A significant interaction of witness × defendant × testimony showed that ratings of guilt decreased when a witness testified against a defendant who was dissimilar in attractiveness; an unattractive witness supporting an attractive defendant also reduced assessment of guilt but an attractive witness who testified for an unattractive defendant increased findings of guilt.
Results were discussed in the context of relevant research involving simulated jurors.
Related Results
Sobering truths: The influence of victim intoxication status and expert testimony on mock jury decision-making
Sobering truths: The influence of victim intoxication status and expert testimony on mock jury decision-making
Objectives: Victims are often intoxicated with alcohol during crimes and jurors must evaluate their testimony at trial. This study investigated the impact of (1) a victim’s intoxic...
Sobering truths: The influence of victim intoxication status and expert testimony on mock jury decision-making
Sobering truths: The influence of victim intoxication status and expert testimony on mock jury decision-making
Objectives: Victims are often intoxicated with alcohol during crimes and jurors must evaluate their testimony at trial. This study investigated the impact of (1) a victim’s intoxic...
Brief for John Monahan, David Faigman, Christopher Slobogin, Edward Imwinkelried, Jennifer Mnookin, Roger Park, Paul Rothstein, and 15 other Evidence Professors as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondent (Diaz v. United States, Supreme Court No. 23-14)
Brief for John Monahan, David Faigman, Christopher Slobogin, Edward Imwinkelried, Jennifer Mnookin, Roger Park, Paul Rothstein, and 15 other Evidence Professors as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondent (Diaz v. United States, Supreme Court No. 23-14)
Amici are twenty-two current and emeritus law professors who teach and research Evidence law. Some of us authored the most frequently cited textbooks and treatises. Among us are fo...
Addressing Witness Coaching by Cross-Examination
Addressing Witness Coaching by Cross-Examination
In preparing a witness, may a lawyer script the testimony by taking the witness through repeated rehearsals to fabricate a narrative in the form directed by the lawyer and to use w...
Analisis Peran Alat Bukti dan Keterangan Saksi dalam Menentukan Keputusan Pengadilan Pidana
Analisis Peran Alat Bukti dan Keterangan Saksi dalam Menentukan Keputusan Pengadilan Pidana
One of the essential aspects of the criminal justice process is evidence, in which both physical evidence and witness testimony play a central role in shaping the judge's convictio...
TELAAH NILAI PEMBUKTIAN DAN KEKUATAN PEMBUKTIAN ATAS PERLUASAN KETERANGAN SAKSI TESTIMONIUM DE AUDITU
TELAAH NILAI PEMBUKTIAN DAN KEKUATAN PEMBUKTIAN ATAS PERLUASAN KETERANGAN SAKSI TESTIMONIUM DE AUDITU
<p align="center"><strong><em>ABSTRAK</em></strong></p><p><em>Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengkaji mengenai kesesuaian pembuktia...
Kajian Yuridis Kesaksian Palsu Dalam Pembuktian Tindak Pidana
Kajian Yuridis Kesaksian Palsu Dalam Pembuktian Tindak Pidana
Introduction: Evidence is a very decisive factor for judges in making decisions. Witnesses are needed in explaining a case. In giving testimony, witnesses must provide truthful inf...
Expert Witness Testimony
Expert Witness Testimony
Courts often seek testimony and opinions about case facts from expert witnesses. These witnesses are distinguished from other types of court witnesses by virtue of their knowledge,...

