Persuading a jury (notes)

A table of evaluative comments from studies, refernces and statistics and summaries of the following: 

The Effect of Witness Confidence

The Effect of Shields and Videotape with Children’s Evidence

The Effect of Evidence Ruled Inadmissible

The Effect of Testimony Order

The Effect of Expert Witnesses

HideShow resource information
Preview of Persuading a jury (notes)

First 313 words of the document:

Persuading a jury
The Effect of Witness The Effect of Shields The Effect of Evidence The Effect of Testimony The Effect of Expert Witnesses
Confidence and Videotape with Ruled Inadmissible Order
Children's Evidence
Researchers such as Penrod These methods aim Much mock juror Pennington and Hastie's Krauss and Sales (2002) point
and Cutler (1987) suggested to protect children research has been (1981,1992) Story Model for out that:
that although the relationship from added trauma. conducted into the Judicial Decisions suggests a) In the USA the `Daubert
between witness confidence influence on juries of jurors spontaneously Ruling' emphasises that any
and accuracy is weak, jurors judge instructions to construct `one or more methods used by expert
are strongly influenced by disregard evidence as plausible accounts or witnesses should show
confident witnesses. inadmissible (e.g. it is stories describing "what
scientific validity and
unreliable, prejudicial happened" during events
or illegally obtained). testified to trial' and use reliability.
However, different their preferred story as a b) The US legal system
studies have found basis to interpret and assumes jurors are capable
instructions to understand the evidence to of distinguishing the value of
Details disregard inadmissible reach their verdict. The expert clinical opinion
information can theory predicts that testimony from expert
produce the desired witnesses and evidence testimony based on scientific
effect, no significant presented in a way that
evidence and that if they
effect or even the provides coherent, logical
opposite effect. and consistent story will cannot the adversary process
influence verdict outcomes (i.e. opposite lawyers) will do
more than evidence so,
presented in other ways.
But argue that research studies
on expert testimony and juror
decisionmaking suggest these
assumptions are dubious.

Other pages in this set

Page 2

Preview of page 2

Here's a taster:

Deffenbacher et al.'s (1986) Ross et al.…read more

Page 3

Preview of page 3

Here's a taster:

After watching the Kassin and Sommers
entire trial ­ the (1997) found mock
modality of child jurors disregarded
testimony had no inadmissible testimony
impact on though unreliable, but
conviction rates. were influenced by
inadmissible evidence
obtained illegally
perhaps because they
wanted a `fair' verdict
regardless of legal
technicalities.…read more


No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all resources »