Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Juries

The Current State of the Empirical Literature

  • Chapter
Psychology and Law

Part of the book series: Perspectives in Law & Psychology ((PILP,volume 10))

Abstract

In 1908, when Hugo Munsterberg, then director of the Harvard Psychological Laboratory, published On the Witness Stand, he claimed that experimental psychology surpassed existing legal processes as a method for assessing a host of forensic claims. Showing the exuberance with which he repeatedly managed to annoy his contemporaries, Munsterberg charged “The psychological inspirations of the bench are often directly the opposite of demonstrable facts” (p. 19). Claims like these did little to forge a good working alliance between litigators and psychologists during the first half of the 20th century (Loh, 1984) despite occasional calls from both quarters for a rapprochement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Adler, S. J. (1994). The jury: Trial and error in the American courtroom. New York: Times Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordens, K. S., & Horowitz, I. A. (1986). Prejudicial joinder of multiple offenses: Relative effects of cognitive processing and criminal schema. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 243–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brekke, N., & Borgida, E. (1988). Expert psychological testimony in rape trials: A social-cognitive analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 372–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, M., & Tanford, S. (1989). An alternative method of capital jury selection. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 167–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. (1989). Psychology and law: The last 15 years. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 199–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J., Bray, R., & Holt, R. (1977). The empirical study of decision process in juries: A critical review. In J. Tapp & F. Levine (Eds.), Law, justice and the individual in society (pp. 326–362). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, S. S., & Caspar, J. D. (1992). Blindfolding the jury to verdict consequences: Damages, experts, and the civil jury. Law and Society Review, 26, 513–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillehay, R. C., & Nietzel, M. T. (1980). Conceptualizing mock jury/juror research: Critique and illustrations. In K. S. Larsen (Ed.), Social psychology: Crisis or failure. Monmouth, OR: Institute for Theoretical History.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, R. (1991). Social science data and the APA: The Lockhart brief as a case in point. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 59–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellsworth, P. C. (1991). To tell what we know or wait for Godot? Law and Human Behavior, 15, 77–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finch, M., & Ferraro, M. (1986). The empirical challenge to death qualified juries: On further examination. Nebraska Law Review, 65, 21–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 34 A.L.R. 145 (CD. Cir. 1923).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gacy v. Welborn, 994 F. 2d 305 (7th Cir. 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerbasi, K. C., Zuckerman, M., & Reis, H. T. (1977). Justice needs a new blindfold: A review of mock jury research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 323–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geyelin, M. (1994, July 12). Legal beat. The Wall Street Journal, p. B2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haney, C. (1984). On the selection of capital juries: The biasing effects of the death qualification process. Law and Human Behavior, 8,121–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hans, V. P., & Vidmar, N. (1986). Judging the jury. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. (1994). Juror notetaking and question asking during trials: A national field experiment. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 121–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Dichotomization of continuous variables: The implications for meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 334–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M., & Wiggins, E. C. (1994). Drawing on the experiences of alternative decision makers: Can we preserve the jury in complex civil litigation? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 12, 161–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konecni, V. J., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1979). External validity of research in legal psychology. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 39–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 48, 1181–1209. Lockhart v. McCree, 106 S. Ct. 1758 (1986).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Loh, W. D. (1984). Social research in the judicial process. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mauro, R. (1991). Tipping the scales toward death: The biasing effects of death qualification. In P. Suedfeld & P. Tetlock (Eds.), Psychology and social policy (pp. 243–254). New York: Hemisphere Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, M., & Egeth, H. E. (1983). Eyewitness identification: What can a psychologist tell a jury? American Psychologist, 38, 550–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monahan, J., & Loftus, E. (1982). The psychology of law. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 441–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, S. J. (1978). Law and mental health professionals: The limits of expertise. Professional Psychology, 9, 389–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munsterberg, H. (1908). On the witness stand: Essays on psychology and crime. New York: Clark Boardman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neises, M. L., & Dillehay, R. C. (1987). Death qualification and conviction proneness: Witt and Witherspoon compared. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5, 479–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nietzel, M. T., Dillehay, R. C., & Himelein, M. J. (1987). Effects of voir dire variations in capital trials: A replication and extension. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5, 467–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 242–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1988). Explanation-based decision making: Effects of memory structure on judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 14, 521–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrod, S., & Hastie, R. (1979). Models of jury decision making: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 462–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyszczynski, T., & Wrightsman, L. (1981). The effects of opening statements on mock jurors’ verdicts in a simulated criminal trial. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11, 301–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R. (1992). Effect size estimation, significance testing, and the file-drawer problem. Journal of Parapsychology, 56, 57–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R. (1994). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1982). A simple, general purpose display of magnitude of experimental effect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 166–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saks, M. J., & Hastie, R. (1978). Social psychology in court. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saks, M. J., & Wissler, R. L. (1984). Legal and psychological bases of expert testimony: Surveys of the law and of jurors. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuller, R. A. (1992). The impact of battered woman syndrome on jury decision processes. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 597–620.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shuman, D. W., Whitaker, E., & Champagne, A. (1994). An empirical examination of the use of expert witnesses in the courts: Part II. A three city study. Jurimetrics Journal, 193–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snedecor, G. W., & Cochran, W. G. (1989). Statistical methods (8th ed.). Ames: Iowa State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanford, J. A. (1991). Law reforms by courts, legislatures, and commissions following empirical research on jury instructions. Law and Society Review, 25, 155–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanford, S. (1985). Decision-making processes in joined criminal trials. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12, 367–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanford, S., Penrod, S., & Collins, R. (1985). Decision making in joined criminal trials: The influence of charge similarity, evidence similarity, and limiting instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 319–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tapp, J. L. (1976). Psychology and the law: An overture. Annual Review of Psychology, 27, 359–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidmar, N. (1994). Making inferences about jury behavior from jury verdict statistics: Cautions about the Lorelei’s Lied. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 599–617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wainwright v. Witt, 105 S. Ct. 884 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  • Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S. Ct. 1770, 20 L. Ed. 2d 776 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wrightsman, L. S. (1978). The American trial jury on trial: Empirical evidence and procedural modifications. Journal of Social Issues, 34, 137–164.

    Google Scholar 

Appendix A: Death Qualification References

  • Bernard, J. L., & Dwyer, W. O. (1984). Witherspoon v. Illinois: The court was right. Law and Psychology Review, 8, 105–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bronson, L. (1970). On the conviction proneness and the representativeness of the death qualified jury: An empirical study of Colorado veniremen. Colorado Law Review, 42, 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, C. L., Thompson, W. C, & Ellsworth, P. C. (1984). The effects of death qualification on jurors’ predisposition to convict and on the quality of deliberation. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 53–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, M., & Tanford, S. (1989). An alternative method of jury selection. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 167–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, F. T., Clark, G. A., Cullen, J. B., & Mathers, R. A. (1985). Attribution, salience and attitudes towards criminal sanctioning. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12, 305–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, R., & Robinson, R. J. (1991). Death penalty attitudes and the tendency to acquit or convict: Some data. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 389–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellsworth, P. C., Bukaty, R. M., Cowan, C. L., & Thompson, W. C. (1984). The death qualified jury and the defense of insanity. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 81–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellsworth, P. C., & Ross, L. (1983). Public opinion and capital punishment: A close examination of the views of abolitionists and retentionists. Crime and Delinquency, 29, 116–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1984). Due process versus crime control: Death qualification and jury attitudes. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 31–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, F. (1970). Towards expansion of Witherspoon: Capital scruples, jury bias and the use of psychological presumptions in the law. Harvard Civil Rights Law Journal, 5, 53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haney, C. (1984). On the selection of capital juries: The biasing effects of the death qualification process. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 121–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haney, C., Hurtado, A., & Vega, L. (1994). “Modern” death qualification: New data on its biasing effects. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 619–634.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, L., & Associates. (1971). Study number 2016. In W. White, The constitutional invalidity of convictions imposed by death qualified juries. Cornell Law Review, 58, 1176–1220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, I. A., & Seguin, D. G. (1986). The effects of bifurcation and death qualification on assignment of penalty in capital crimes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 165–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jurow, G. (1971). New data on the effect of a death qualified jury on the guilt determination process. Harvard Law Review, 84, 567–611.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luginbuhl, J., & Middendorf, K. (1988). Death penalty beliefs and juror’s responses to aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 263–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moran, G., & Comfort, J. C. (1986). Neither “tentative” nor “fragmentary”: Verdict preference of impaneled felony jurors as a function of attitude towards capital punishment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 146–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neapolitan, J. (1983). Support for and opposition to capital punishment: Some associated social psychological factors. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 10, 195–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neises, M. L., & Dillehay, R. C. (1987). Death qualification and conviction proneness: Witt and Witherspoon compared. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5, 479–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nietzel, M. T., Dillehay, R. C., & Himelein, M. J. (1987). Effects of voir dire variations in capital trials: A replication and extension. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5, 467–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rokeach, M., & McClellan, D. D. (1969). Dogmatism and the death penalty: A reinterpretation of the Duquesne Poll data. Duquesne Law Review, 8, 125–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, W. C., Cowan, C. L., Ellsworth, P. C., & Harrington, J. D. (1984). Death penalty attitudes and conviction proneness. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 95–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeisel, H. (1968). Some data on juror attitudes towards capital punishment. Monograph. Center for Studies in Criminal Justice, University of Chicago Law School.

    Google Scholar 

Appendix B: Instructions References Definitional Instructions

  • Cornish, W. R., & Sealy, A. P. (1973). Juries and the rules of evidence. Criminal Law Review, 29, 209–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruse, D., & Browne, B. A. (1987). Reasoning in a jury trial: The influence of instructions. The Journal of General Psychology, 114, 129–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elwork, A., Sales, B. D., & Alfini, J. J. (1977). Juridic decisions: In ignorance of the law or in light of it? Law and Human Behavior, 1, 163–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegelson, V. S., & Shaver, K. G. (1990). Presumption of innocence: Congruence bias induced and overcome. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 276–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. D. (1989). Instructing jurors: A field experiment with written and preliminary instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 409–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1979). On the requirements of proof: The timing of judicial instruction and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1877–1887.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luginbuhl, J. (1992). Comprehension of judges’ instructions in the penalty phase of a capital trial. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 203–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeifer, J. E., & Ogloff, J. R. (1991). Ambiguity and guilt determinations: A modern racism perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1713–1725.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prager, L G., Deckelbaum, G., & Cutler, B. L. (1989). Improving juror understanding from intervening causation instructions. Forensic Reports, 3, 187–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, R. (1980). Jury simulation: The impact of judge’s instructions and attorney tactics on decision making. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 71, 68–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reifman, A., Gusick, S. M., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1992). Real jurors’ understanding of the law in real cases. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 539–554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Severance, L. J., Greene, E., & Loftus, E. F. (1984). Toward criminal jury instructions that jurors can understand. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 75, 198–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Severance, L. J., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). Improving the ability of jurors to comprehend and apply criminal jury instructions. Law and Society Review, 17, 172–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V. L. (1993). When prior knowledge and the law collide. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 507–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V. L. (1991). Impact of pretrial instruction on jurors’ information processing and decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 220–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V. L. (1991). Prototypes in the courtroom: Lay representations of legal concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 857–872.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiten, W. (1980). The attraction-leniency effect in jury research: An examination of external validity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 340–347.

    Google Scholar 

Pretrial Publicity Instructions

  • Kramer, G. P., Kerr, N. L., & Carroll, J. S. (1990). Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies, and jury bias. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 409–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sue, S., Smith, R. E., & Gilbert, R. (1974). Biasing effects of pretrial publicity on judicial decisions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 2, 163–171.

    Google Scholar 

Nullification Instructions

  • Hill, E. L., & Pfeifer, J. E. (1992). Nullification instructions and juror guilt ratings: An examination of modern racism. Contemporary Social Psychology, 16, 6–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, I. A. (1985). The effect of jury nullification instruction on verdicts and jury functioning in criminal trials. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 25–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, I. A. (1988). Jury nullification: The impact of judicial instructions, arguments, and challenges on jury decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 403–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerwin, J., & Shaffer, D. (1991). The effects of jury dogmatism on reactions to jury nullification instructions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 140–146.

    Google Scholar 

Disregard or Limited Use of Evidence Instructions

  • Carretta, T. R., & Moreland, R. L. (1983). The direct and indirect effects of inadmissible evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 291–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavoukian, A., & Heslegrave, R. J. (1980). The admissibility of polygraph evidence in court: Some empirical findings. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 117–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doob, A. N., & Kirshenbaum, H. M. (1972). Some empirical evidence on the effects of s.12 of the Canada Evidence Act upon the accused. Criminal Law Quarterly, 14, 88–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, R. J. (1978). The effect of jury size and judge’s instructions on memory for pragmatic implications from courtroom testimony. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 11, 129–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerwin, J., & Shaffer, D. R. (1994). Mock jurors versus mock juries: The role of deliberations in reactions to inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 153–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenehan, G. E., & O’Neill, P. (1981). Reactance and conflict as determinants of judgment in a mock jury experiment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11, 231–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sue, S., Smith, R. E., & Caldwell, C. (1973). Effects of inadmissible evidence on the decisions of simulated jurors: A moral dilemma. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 345–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanford, S., & Cox, M. (1987). Decision processes in civil cases: The impact of impeachment evidence on liability and credibility judgments. Social Behavior, 2, 165–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanford, S., & Cox, M. (1988). The effects of impeachment evidence and limiting instructions on individual and group decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 477–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, W. C., Fong, G. T., & Rosenhan, D. L. (1981). Inadmissible evidence and juror verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 453–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner, C. M., Kagehiro, D. K., & Strube, M. J. (1982). Conviction proneness and the authoritarian juror: Inability to disregard information or attitudinal bias? Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 629–636.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, S., & Montgomery, D. A. (1977). Effects of inadmissible evidence and level of judicial admonishment to disregard on the judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 205–219.

    Google Scholar 

Eyewitness Testimony Instructions

  • Cutler, E. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. D. (1990). Nonadversarial methods for sensitizing jurors to eyewitness evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1197–1207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, E. (1988). Judge’s instruction on eyewitness testimony: Evaluation and revision. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 252–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffheimer, M. H. (1982). Effect of particularized instructions on evaluation of eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Psychology Review, 13, 43–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katzev, R. D., & Wishart, S. S. (1985). The impact of judicial commentary concerning eyewitness identifications on jury decision making. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 76, 733–745.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, T. D., & Haygood, R. C. (1992). The discrediting effect in eyewitness testimony. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 70–82.

    Google Scholar 

Joinder of Offenses Instructions

  • Greene, E., & Loftus, E. F. (1985). When crimes are joined at trial. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 193–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanford, S. (1985). Decision-making processes in joined criminal trials. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12, 367–385. (Data also found in Tanford and Penrod, 1984, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanford, S., Penrod, S., & Collins, R. (1985). Decision making in joined criminal trials: The influence of charge similarity, evidence similarity, and limiting instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 319–337.

    Google Scholar 

Confession Evidence

  • Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1981). Coerced confessions, judicial instructions and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11, 489–506.

    Google Scholar 

Miscellaneous

  • Archer, R. L., Foushee, H. C., & Davis, M. H. (1979). Emotional empathy in a courtroom simulation: A person-situation interaction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 9, 275–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, J. P., Tomkins, A. J., Kenning, M., & Zavodny, D. (1990). Psychological self-defense jury instructions: Influence on verdicts for battered women defendants. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 8, 171–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S. M., Smith, V. L., & Tulloch, W. F. (1990). The dynamite charge: Effects on the perceptions and deliberation behavior of mock jurors. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 523–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, v. L., & Kassin, S. M. (1993). The effects of the dynamite charge on the deliberations of deadlocked mock juries. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 625–644.

    Google Scholar 

Appendix C: Expert Testimony References Eyewitness Reliability

  • Blonstein, R., & Geiselman, E. (1990). Effects of witnessing conditions and expert witness testimony on creditability of an expert witness. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 8, 11–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. D. (1989). Expert testimony and jury decision making: An empirical analysis. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 7, 215–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. D. (1990). Nonadversarial methods for sensitizing jurors to eyewitness evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1197–1207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1989). The eyewitness, the expert psychologist and the jury. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 311–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, S. G., & Walters, H. A. (1986). The impact of general versus specific expert testimony and eyewitness confidence upon mock juror judgment. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 215–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosch, H. M., Beck, E. L., & McIntyre, P. (1980). Influence of expert testimony regarding eyewitness accuracy on jury decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 287–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, E. F. (1980). Impact of expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 9–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maas, A., Brigham, J. C., & West, S. G. (1985). Testifying on eyewitness reliability: Expert advice is not always persuasive. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 207–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, M., & Egeth, H. E. (1983). Eyewitness identification: What can a psychologist tell a jury? American Psychologist, 38, 550–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. L., Lindsay, R. C. L., & Tousignant, J. P. (1980). Effect of expert psychological advice on human performance in judging the validity of eyewitness testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 275–286.

    Google Scholar 

Child Testimony

  • Crowley, M. J., O’Callaghan, M. G., & Ball, P. J. (1994). The juridical impact of psychological expert testimony in a simulated child sexual abuse trial. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 89–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabora, N. J., Spanos, N. P., & Joab, A. (1993). The effects of complainant age and expert psychological testimony in a simulated child sexual abuse trial. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 103–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulero, S. M., & Finkel, N. J. (1991). Barring ultimate issue testimony: An “insane” rule? Law and Human Behavior, 15, 495–507.

    Google Scholar 

Insanity Defense

  • Brekke, N., & Borgida, E. (1988). Expert psychological testimony in rape trials: A social-cognitive analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 372–386.

    Google Scholar 

Other Criminal Topics

  • Kasian, M., Spanos, N. P., Terrance, C. A., & Peebles, S. (1993). Battered women who kill: Jury simulation and legal defenses. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 289–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kovera, M. B., Levy, R. J., Borgida, E., & Penrod, S. (1994). Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases: Effects of expert evidence type and cross-examination. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 653–674.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuller, R. A. (1992). The impact of battered woman syndrome evidence on jury decision processes. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 597–620.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spanos, N. P., Dubreuil, S. C., & Gwynn, M. I. (1991–92). The effects of expert testimony concerning rape on the verdicts and beliefs of mock jurors. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 11, 37–51.

    Google Scholar 

Other Information

  • Brekke, N. J., Enko, P. J., Clavet, G., & Seelau, E. (1991). Of juries and court appointed experts: The impact of nonadversarial versus adversarial expert testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 451–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raitz, A., Greene, E., Goodman, J., & Loftus, E. F. (1990). Determining damages: The influence of expert testimony on jurors’ decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 385–396.

    Google Scholar 

Hypnosis

  • Diamond, S. S., & Caspar, J. D. (1992). Blindfolding the jury to verdict consequences: Damages, experts and the civil jury. Law and Society Review, 26, 513–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spanos, N. P., Gwynn, M. I., & Terrade, K. (1989). Effects on mock jurors of experts favorable and unfavorable toward hypnotically elicited eyewitness testimony. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 922–926.

    Google Scholar 

Appendix D: Joinder References

  • Bordens, K. S., & Horowitz, I. A. (1983). Information processing in joined and severed trials. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 351–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordens, K. S., & Horowitz, I. A. (1986). Prejudicial joinder of multiple offenses: Relative effects of cognitive processing and criminal schema. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 243–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, E., & Loftus, E. F. (1985). When crimes are joined at trial. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 193–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, I. A., Bordens, K. S., & Feldman, M. S. (1980). A comparison of verdicts obtained in severed and joined criminal trials. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 444–456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanford, S. (1985). Decision-making processes in joined criminal trials. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12, 367–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanford, S., & Penrod, S. (1982). Biases in trials involving defendants charged with multiple offenses. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12, 453–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanford, S., Penrod, S., & Collins, R. (1985). Decision making in joined criminal trials: The influence of charge similarity, evidence similarity, and limiting instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 319–337.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, 40506-0027, USA

    Michael T. Nietzel, Denis M. McCarthy & Monica J. Kern

Authors
  1. Michael T. Nietzel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Denis M. McCarthy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Monica J. Kern
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology and the Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, V5A 1S6, Canada

    Ronald Roesch , Stephen D. Hart  & James R. P. Ogloff ,  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nietzel, M.T., McCarthy, D.M., Kern, M.J. (1999). Juries. In: Roesch, R., Hart, S.D., Ogloff, J.R.P. (eds) Psychology and Law. Perspectives in Law & Psychology, vol 10. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4891-1_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4891-1_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-306-45950-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-4891-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation