Persuading a Jury
- Created by: Catherine
- Created on: 02-06-14 15:44
View mindmap
- Persuading the Jury
- Order Of Testimony - Pennington & Hastie
- Murdock- Found that participants recall at the beginning of a list ( Primacy Effect ). This means that the prosecution has an advantage over the defence as they always go first
- Glanzer & Cunitz- Similar experiment which had an interrupted task before recall. This increased primacy effect. The judges summing up, which might wipe out any regency effect for the defence
- whether or not story evidence summaries are true causes of the final verdict decisions and the extent to which story order affects confidence in those decisions
- In story-order, evidence was arranged in its natural order. In the witness-order condition, evidence items were arranged in the order closest to the original trial
- story evidence was better. Indeed when the witness were prepared to take advantage of primacy and regency effects, the jury tended to rearrange witness evidence into a story themselves
- In story-order, evidence was arranged in its natural order. In the witness-order condition, evidence items were arranged in the order closest to the original trial
- Persuasion-Loftus
- Expert Witnesses: someone who by education, training, skill or experience is believed to have a expertise and specialised knowledge in a particular subject beyond that of the average person
- Investigated whether the influence on jurors of expert testimony about eyewitness identification
- Experiment 1: Expert Testimony was more effective in reducing guilty verdicts. Fewer guilty verdicts in the non-violent version than the violent version
- Expert Testimony reduced guilty verdicts and more time is spent discussing expert witness
- Experiment 2: When expert testimony was heard, conviction was lower. The presence of an expert testimony caused juries to spend more time talking
- Experiment 1: Expert Testimony was more effective in reducing guilty verdicts. Fewer guilty verdicts in the non-violent version than the violent version
- Expert Testimony reduced guilty verdicts and more time is spent discussing expert witness
- Experiment 2: When expert testimony was heard, conviction was lower. The presence of an expert testimony caused juries to spend more time talking
- Experiment 2: When expert testimony was heard, conviction was lower. The presence of an expert testimony caused juries to spend more time talking
- Expert Testimony reduced guilty verdicts and more time is spent discussing expert witness
- Experiment 1: Expert Testimony was more effective in reducing guilty verdicts. Fewer guilty verdicts in the non-violent version than the violent version
- Experiment 2: When expert testimony was heard, conviction was lower. The presence of an expert testimony caused juries to spend more time talking
- Expert Testimony reduced guilty verdicts and more time is spent discussing expert witness
- Experiment 1: Expert Testimony was more effective in reducing guilty verdicts. Fewer guilty verdicts in the non-violent version than the violent version
- Investigated whether the influence on jurors of expert testimony about eyewitness identification
- Expert Witnesses: someone who by education, training, skill or experience is believed to have a expertise and specialised knowledge in a particular subject beyond that of the average person
- Inadmissible Evidence- Pickel
- Admissible Evidence: evidence that be used in court to persuade the jury
- Inadmissible Evidence: Hearsay:-gossip, speculation and rumour. This might prejudice jury, but doesn't prove anything. Prior Convictions: Letting a jury know of their previous convictions. Improper Evidence: illegal ways of gathering evidence e.g Phone tapping
- To investigate the influence on jurors of testimony ruled inadmissible by a judge. The participants listened of an audio recording of a fictional trial for theft.
- Those who heard the evidence ruled inadmissible and who were given the explanation were more likely to find the defendant guilty and were clearly not able to disregard it. None of the participants believed that the evidence about prior convictions had influenced their verdicts
- The jury may react to the order to ignore evidence as they perceive that their freedom to take in all evidence is being undermined- reactance theory
- Those who heard the evidence ruled inadmissible and who were given the explanation were more likely to find the defendant guilty and were clearly not able to disregard it. None of the participants believed that the evidence about prior convictions had influenced their verdicts
- Admissible Evidence: evidence that be used in court to persuade the jury
- Order Of Testimony - Pennington & Hastie
Comments
No comments have yet been made