Suchergebnisse

Integrating individual and group models of juror decision making / Lora M. Levett and Dennis Devine -- The effects of collaborative remembering on trial verdicts / William Hirst and Charles B. Stone -- Integrating concepts of trial advocacy into juror decision making research / Christina A. Studebaker -- Studying the effects of race, ethnicity, and culture on jury behavior / Jennifer S. Hunt -- Juries compared to what? The need for a baseline and attention to real-world complexity / Jennifer K. Robbennolt and Theodore Eisenberg -- Global juries : a plan for research / Valerie P. Hans, Hiroshi Fukurai, Sanja Kutnjak Ivkovic, and Jaihyun Park -- Jury simulation goals / Jonathan J. Koehler and John B. Meixner, Jr. -- Managing different aspects of validity in trial simulation research / Daniel A. Krauss and Joel D. Lieberman -- Jury simulation research : pros, cons, trends, and alternatives / Brian H. Bornstein -- How typical is Lockhart v. McCree? Ecological validity concerns in court opinions / Mary R. Rose -- Suggested do's and don'ts for future jury research : a swan song / Norbert L. Kerr

AbstractThis article reviews the three previously studied categories of variables that are related to eyewitness identification accuracy: estimator (characteristics of the witnessing conditions), system (characteristics of the identification procedure that are under the control of the criminal legal system), and reflector (variables that reflect the likely accuracy of a witness). Although eyewitness scholars frequently turn to these variables and models of memory to explain why eyewitnesses make mistakes, none of these variables provides a reasonable explanation for the large racial disparities in wrongful convictions based on mistaken identifications, yet problematic policing practices might. The policies and practices guiding police efforts to develop suspects as well as the decisions of officers to place a suspect at risk of misidentification determine the base‐rate of innocent suspects that appear in identification procedures. Current police practices—from developing suspects based on hunches, through facial recognition technology, or by pressuring reluctant witnesses to make identifications—increase the likelihood that innocent suspects will be placed in lineups. An increase in lineups with innocent suspects increases the ratio of mistaken to correct identifications without changes in witness performance. Requirements for evidence‐based suspicion, video recording identification procedures, and prohibiting coercive interviewing techniques with reluctant witnesses are recommended for reducing the effect of unreliable suspect development methods on eyewitness evidence.

Politicians, like others caught in embarrassing situations, often attempt to explain their actions in such a way as to mitigate the negative effects. Whether politicians involved in scandal are able to maintain their political careers depends, at least in part, on how voters respond to the public explanations that these politicians provide. Previous work that has examined responses to the accounts provided by errant politicians (e.g., those who have made unpopular roll call votes or those who have been accused of inappropriate behavior) has studied the effects of hypothetical accounts provided by fictitious politicians. The authors of the present article examined responses to the accounts provided by actual politicians who were charged with unethical behavior. Their findings suggest that politicians who made reference to moral and ethical principles in their explanations for their behavior or who focused on the benefits to be gained by their actions tended to be evaluated more positively than politicians who denied that they had committed a questionable act. The authors also examined the effects of partisanship and political expertise on respondents' evaluations of politicians accused of wrongdoing.

Bias in the Law addresses racial bias across the full roster of criminal justice actors--from legislators to community members to police officers, from prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys to judges and jurors. The result is a key entry into understanding bias in the law, how such bias impacts outcomes, and what can be done.