Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Editors
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction Chapters
- Part II Pretrial Phase Decision-Making
- Part III Trial Phase Decision-Making
- 20 Social Cognition of Jury Decision-Making
- 21 Beliefs About Juror Decision-Making and the Jury Process
- 22 Deciphering Directives
- 23 Decisions Surrounding the Use of Expert Testimony
- 24 Legal and Extralegal Factors that Affect Jurors’ Decisions
- 25 Decisions Regarding Insanity
- 26 Decision-Making in the Shadow of Evidence Law
- 27 Decision-Making in Contested Divorce Child Custody Cases
- Part IV Postconviction Phase Decisions
- Part V Other Legal Decision-Making
- Part VI Perspectives from the Field
- Part VII Conclusion
- Index
- References
26 - Decision-Making in the Shadow of Evidence Law
from Part III - Trial Phase Decision-Making
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 February 2024
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Editors
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction Chapters
- Part II Pretrial Phase Decision-Making
- Part III Trial Phase Decision-Making
- 20 Social Cognition of Jury Decision-Making
- 21 Beliefs About Juror Decision-Making and the Jury Process
- 22 Deciphering Directives
- 23 Decisions Surrounding the Use of Expert Testimony
- 24 Legal and Extralegal Factors that Affect Jurors’ Decisions
- 25 Decisions Regarding Insanity
- 26 Decision-Making in the Shadow of Evidence Law
- 27 Decision-Making in Contested Divorce Child Custody Cases
- Part IV Postconviction Phase Decisions
- Part V Other Legal Decision-Making
- Part VI Perspectives from the Field
- Part VII Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
Evidence law controls what information will be admissible in court and when, how, and by whom it may be presented. It shapes not only the trial decisions of lawyers, judges, and juries, but also many other pretrial and trial decisions and behaviors – for example, by police (whether to initiate a search) and defendants (whether to take a plea deal). Even when the relevant evidence law is known, these decisions are made under great uncertainty. Parties often do not know whether key evidence will be admissible at trial, cannot know how jurors will react to evidence, and, particularly in the criminal context, may not know what evidence their adversary possesses. With all these applications and uncertainties, understanding how legal decisions are made depends on understanding both evidence law itself and the human reasoning processes that created and use it. This chapter thus describes the interplay of evidence law and decision-making across a variety of legal settings and, accordingly, makes frequent references to other chapters in this book.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making , pp. 395 - 411Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Baldwin v. New York, 399 US 66 (1970). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/399/66/.Google Scholar
Bandes, S. (2005). Loyalty to one’s convictions: The prosecutor and tunnel vision. Howard Law Journal, 49, 475–494.Google Scholar
Baughman, S. (2020). How effective are police? The problem of clearance rates and criminal accountability. Alabama Law Review, 72, 48–130.Google Scholar
Bibas, S. (2004). Plea bargaining outside the shadow of trial. Harvard Law Review, 117, 2463–2547.Google Scholar
Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/373/83/.Google Scholar
Diamond, S. S., Rose, M. R., Murphy, B., & Smith, S. (2006). Juror questions during trial: A window into juror thinking. Vanderbilt Law Review, 59, 1925–1972.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, T., Hannaford‐Agor, P. L., Hans, V. P., et al. (2005). Judge‐jury agreement in criminal cases: A partial replication of Kalven & Zeisel’s The American Jury. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2(1), 171–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2005.00035.x.Google Scholar
Franks v. Delaware, 438 US 154 (1978). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/438/154/.Google Scholar
Hessick, C. B. (2021). Punishment without trial: Why plea bargaining is a bad deal. Abrams.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree. American Psychologist, 64(6), 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016755.Google Scholar
Kalven, H., Zeisel, H., Callahan, T., & Ennis, P. (1966). The American jury. Little, Brown.Google Scholar
King, N., & Heise, M. (2018). Appeals by the prosecution. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 15, 482–538.Google Scholar
Krishnamurthi, G. (2022). The constitutional right to bench trial. North Carolina Law Review, 100, 1621–1682.Google Scholar
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612451018.Google Scholar
Macleod, J. A. (in press). Evidence law’s blind spots. Iowa Law Review. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4545448.Google Scholar
Mapp v. Ohio (1961), 367 US 643 (1961). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/643/.Google Scholar
Mincey v. Arizona, 437 US 385 (1978). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/437/385/.Google Scholar
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/.Google Scholar
Mnookin, R. H., & Kornhauser, L. (1979). Bargaining in the shadow of the law: The case of divorce. Yale Law Journal, 88, 950–997.Google Scholar
Nickerson, R. S. (1999). How we know – and sometimes misjudge – what others know: Imputing one’s own knowledge to others. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 737–759. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.737.Google Scholar
Old Chief v. United States, 519 US 172 (1997). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/519/172/.Google Scholar
Poulin, A. (2008). Government appeals in criminal cases: The myth of asymmetry. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 77, 1–62.Google Scholar
Pozner, L. S., & Dodd, R. J. (2012). Cross-examination: Science and techniques. LexisNexis.Google Scholar
Pronin, E. (2007). Perception and misperception of bias in human judgment. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(1), 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.001.Google Scholar
Redlich, A. D., Wilford, M. M., & Bushway, S. (2017). Understanding guilty pleas through the lens of social science. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23, 458–471. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000142.Google Scholar
Robbennolt, J. K. (2004). Evaluating juries by comparison to judges: A benchmark for judging. Florida State University Law Review, 32, 469–510.Google Scholar
Saks, M. J., & Spellman, B. A. (2016). The psychological foundations of evidence law. New York University Press.Google Scholar
Salerno, J. M. (2021). The impact of experienced and expressed emotion on legal factfinding. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 17, 181–203. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-021721-072326.Google Scholar
Spellman, B. A., & Tenney, E. R. (2010). Credible testimony in and out of court. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 168–173. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.2.168.Google Scholar
Steblay, N., Hosch, H. M., Culhane, S. E., & McWethy, A. (2006). The impact on juror verdicts of judicial instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 30(4), 469–492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9039-7.Google Scholar
Stein, A. (2015). The new doctrinalism: Implications for evidence theory. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 163, 2085–2108.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. (2007). Procedural justice and the courts. Court Review: The Journal of the American Judges Association, 44(1/2), 26–31. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ajacourtreview/217.Google Scholar
Weeks v. United States, 232 US 383 (1914). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/232/383/.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. J. W., Spellman, B. A., & York, R. (2014). Beyond instructions to disregard: When objections backfire and interruptions distract. Saint Louis University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2014-11. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2432527.Google Scholar
Wistrich, A. J., Guthrie, C., & Rachlinski, J. J. (2005). Can judges ignore inadmissible information? The difficulty of deliberately disregarding. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 153, 1251–1345.Google Scholar
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 US 471 (1963). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/371/471/.Google Scholar