Trial Phase Decision-Making

Part III - Trial Phase Decision-Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 February 2024

Edited by

Matthew T. Huss and

Monica K. Miller: Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Reno
Logan A. Yelderman: Affiliation:
Prairie View A & M University, Texas
Matthew T. Huss: Affiliation:
Creighton University, Omaha
Jason A. Cantone: Affiliation:
George Mason University, Virginia

Book contents

Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making , pp. 307 - 424

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009119375 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aimone, J. A., North, C., & Rentschler, L. (2019). Priming the jury by asking for donations: An empirical and experimental study. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 160, 158–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2019.01.022.Google Scholar

Alicke, M. (2008). Blaming badly. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 8(1–2), 179–186. https://doi.org/10.1163/156770908X289279.Google Scholar

Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison Wesley.Google Scholar

Alvarez, M. J. (2018). Impact of class-based prejudice toward defendants and victims on mock jurors’ decision-making (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest. (Order Number 10815208). www.proquest.com/openview/489ceb0bfdc20fcf470c505fc5df62c7/1.pdf?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750. Full article: https://scholarworks.unr.edu/handle/11714/3391.Google Scholar

Alvarez, M. J., & Miller, M. K. (2016). Counterfactual thinking about crime control theater: Mock jurors’ decision making in an AMBER Alert trial. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(4), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000098.Google Scholar

Alvarez, M. J., & Miller, M. K. (2017). How defendants’ legal status and ethnicity and participants’ political orientation relate to death penalty sentencing decisions. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 3(3), 298–311. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000128.Google Scholar

Baptiste, N. (2019). This inmate argued he was sentenced to death because he’s gay. SCOTUS just refused to hear his case. Mother Jones, April 15. www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2019/04/scotus-wont-hear-lgbt-bias-death-pentalty-case/.Google Scholar

Blais, J., & Forth, A. E. (2014). Potential labeling effects: Influence of psychopathy diagnosis, defendant age, and defendant gender on mock jurors’ decisions. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20(2), 116–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2012.749473.Google Scholar

Bodenhausen, G. V. (1990). Second‐guessing the jury: Stereotypic and hindsight biases in perceptions of court cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20(13), 1112–1121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1990.tb00394.x.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(4), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp0704_1.Google Scholar

Bottoms, B. L., Davis, S. L., & Epstein, M. A. (2004). Effects of victim and defendant race on jurors’ decisions in child sexual abuse cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(1), 1–33.Google Scholar

Branscombe, N. R., Owen, S., Garstka, T. A., & Coleman, J. (1996). Rape and accident counterfactuals: Who might have done otherwise and would it have changed the outcome? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(12), 1042–1067. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1996.tb01124.x.Google Scholar

Bright, D. A., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2006). Gruesome evidence and emotion: Anger, blame, and jury decision-making. Law and Human Behavior, 30(2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9027-y.Google Scholar

Cantone, J. A. (2018). Counterfactual thinking, causation, and covariation in mock juror assessments of negligence: Twenty‐five years later. Psychological Reports, 123(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118816945.Google Scholar

Casper, J. D., Benedict, K., & Perry, J. L. (1989). Juror decision making, attitudes, and the hindsight bias. Law and Human Behavior, 13(3), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067031.Google Scholar

Clarkson, P. M., Emby, C., & Watt, V. W. S. (2002). Debiasing the outcome effect: The role of instructions in an audit litigation setting. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 21(2), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2002.21.2.7.Google Scholar

Cox, J., & Kopkin, M. R. (2016). Defendant and victim sex, sexism, and decision making in an ambiguous assault case. Women & Criminal Justice, 26(5), 381–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2016.1167153.Google Scholar

Crandall, C. S., & Eshleman, A. (2003). A justification-suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 414–446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.414.Google Scholar

de Vogue, A. (2019, March 18). Supreme Court declines to take up Georgia death penalty case. CNN. www.cnn.com/2019/03/18/politics/supreme-court-georgia-death-penalty/index.html.Google Scholar

Devine, D. J. (2012). Jury decision-making: The state of the science. New York University Press.Google Scholar

Dinos, S., Burrowes, N., Hammond, K., & Cunliffe, C. (2015). A systematic review of juries’ assessment of rape victims: Do rape myths impact on juror decision-making? International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 43(1), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2014.07.001.Google Scholar

Eisen, M. L., Gomes, D. M., Wandry, L., et al. (2013). Examining the prejudicial effects of gang evidence on jurors. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 13(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2012.713831.Google Scholar

Ellison, L., & Munro, V. E. (2009). Of “normal sex” and “real rape”: Exploring the use of socio-sexual scripts in (mock) jury deliberation. Social & Legal Studies, 18(3), 291–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663909339083.Google Scholar

Fahmy, W., Snook, B., Luther, K., & McCardle, M. I. (2019). Unveiling the truth: The effect of Muslim garments and face covering on the perceived credibility of a victim’s court testimony. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 51(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000116.Google Scholar

Finch, E., & Munro, V. E. (2005). Juror stereotypes and blame attribution in rape cases involving intoxicants: The findings of a pilot study. British Journal of Criminology, 45(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azh055.Google Scholar

Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight ≠ foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1(3), 288–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.1.3.288.Google Scholar

Fiske, S. T. & Taylor, S. E. (2013). Social cognition: From brains to culture (2nd ed.). Sage.Google Scholar

Gordon, R. A. (1990). Attributions for blue‐collar and white‐collar crime: The effects of subject and defendant race on simulated juror decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20(12), 971–983. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1990.tb00385.x.Google Scholar

Gordon, R. A., Bindrim, T. A., McNicholas, M. L., & Walden, T. L. (1988). Perceptions of blue-collar and white-collar crime: The effect of defendant race on simulated juror decisions. Journal of Social Psychology, 128(2), 191–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1988.9711362.Google Scholar

Hahn, P. W., & Clayton, S. D. (1996). The effects of attorney presentation style, attorney gender, and juror gender on juror decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 20(5), 533–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF014.Google Scholar

Hafdahl, R., Edwards, C. P., & Miller, M. K. (2022). Social cognitive processes of jurors. Washburn Law Review, 6(2), 305–344.Google Scholar

Hans, V. P., & Sweigart, K. (1993). Jurors’ views of civil lawyers: Implications for courtroom communication. Indiana Law Journal, 68(4), 1297–1332.Google Scholar

Harley, E. M. (2007). Hindsight bias in legal decision making. Social Cognition, 25(1), 48–63. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2007.25.1.48.Google Scholar

Hill, J. M. (2000). The effects of sexual orientation in the courtroom: A double standard. Journal of Homosexuality, 39(2), 93–111. https://doi.org/10.1300/j082v39n02_05.Google Scholar

Hodell, E. C., Wasarhaley, N. E., Lynch, K. R., & Golding, J. M. (2014). Mock juror gender biases and perceptions of self-defense claims in intimate partner homicide. Journal of Family Violence, 29(5), 495–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-014-9609-2.Google Scholar

Kamin, K. A., & Rachlinski, J. J. (1995). Ex post ≠ ex ante. Law and Human Behavior, 19(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499075.Google Scholar

Kerr, N. L., Hymes, R. W., Anderson, A. B., & Weathers, J. E. (1995). Defendant-juror similarity and mock juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 19(6), 545–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499374.Google Scholar

Lessmiller, K. (2019, March 18). Justices won’t hear death row inmates claim of racist juror. Courthouse News Service. www.courthousenews.com/justices-wont-hear-death-row-inmates-claim-of-racist-juror/.Google Scholar

Livingston, T. N., Rerick, P. O., & Miller, M. K. (2019). Psychology explains how gender relates to perceptions and outcomes at trial. In Bornstein, B. H. & Miller, M. K. (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law (Vol. 4, pp. 136–173). Springer.Google Scholar

Mackie, D. M., Devos, T., & Smith, E. R. (2000). Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(4), 602–615. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.4.602.Google Scholar

MacLeod, C., Mathews, A., & Tata, P. (1986). Attentional bias in emotional disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95(1), 15–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.95.1.15.Google Scholar

Maeder, E. M., & Burdett, J. (2013). The combined effect of defendant race and alleged gang affiliation on mock juror decision-making. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 20(2), 188–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2011.633330.Google Scholar

Maeder, E. M., Dempsey, J., & Pozzulo, J. (2012). Behind the veil of juror decision making: Testing the effects of Muslim veils and defendant race in the courtroom. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(5), 666–678.Google Scholar

Malavanti, K. F., Johnson, M. K., Rowatt, W. C., & WeaverIII, C. A. (2012). Subtle contextual influences on racial bias in the courtroom. The Jury Expert, 24(3), 1–15.Google Scholar

Maurer, T. W., & Robinson, D. W. (2008). Effects of attire, alcohol, and gender on perceptions of date rape. Sex Roles, 58(5–6), 423–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9343-9.Google Scholar

McDermott, C. M., Miller, M. K., & DeVault, A. D. (2020). They should have known: Hindsight and outcome biases in child abduction cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 50(7), 430–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12671.Google Scholar

McKimmie, B. M., Masters, J. M., Masser, B. M., Schuller, R. A., & Terry, D. J. (2013). Stereotypical and counterstereotypical defendants: Who is he and what was the case against her? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19(3), 343–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030505.Google Scholar

Miller, M. K., Adya, M., Chamberlain, J., & Jehle, A. (2010). The effects of counterfactual thinking on reactions to victimization. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 6(1), 17–30.Google Scholar

Miller, M. K., & Bornstein, B. H. (2006). The use of religion in death penalty sentencing trials. Law and Human Behavior, 30(6), 675–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9056-6.Google Scholar

Miller, M. K., Clark, J., & Alvarez, M. J. (2020). Exploring the boundaries of societally acceptable bias expression toward Muslim and atheist defendants in four mock-juror experiments. The Social Science Journal, 59(3), 439–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.09.004.Google Scholar

Miller, M. K., Maskaly, J., Green, M., & Peoples, C. D. (2011). The effects of deliberations and religious identity on mock jurors’ verdicts. Group Process & Intergroup Relations, 14(4),517–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210377458.Google Scholar

Minero, L. P., & Espinoza, R. E. (2016). The influence of defendant immigration status, country of origin, and ethnicity on juror decisions: An aversive racism explanation for juror bias. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 38(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986315620374.Google Scholar

Moskowitz, G. B. (2005). Social cognition: Understanding self and others. Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Nuñez, N., McCrea, S. M., & Culhane, S. E. (2011). Jury decision making research: Are researchers focusing on the mouse and not the elephant in the room? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29(3), 439–451. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.967.Google Scholar

Pronin, E., Lin, D. Y., & Ross, L. (2002). The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(3), 369–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202286008.Google Scholar

Ragatz, L. L., & Russell, B. (2010). Sex, sexual orientation, and sexism: What influence do these factors have on verdicts in a crime-of-passion case? The Journal of Social Psychology, 150(4), 341–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540903366677.Google Scholar

Raitt, F. E., & Zeedyk, M. S. (1997). Rape trauma syndrome: Its corroborative and educational roles. Journal of Law and Society, 24(4), 552–568.Google Scholar

Rerick, P. O., Livingston, T. N., & Miller, M. K. (2021). Guilt by association: The effects of criminal family members on mock jurors’ perceptions of victims and defendants. Psychology, Crime & Law, 27(3), 282–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2020.1798428.Google Scholar

Robbennolt, J. K., & Sobus, M. S. (1997). An integration of hindsight bias and counterfactual thinking: Decision-making and drug courier profiles. Law and Human Behavior, 21(5), 539–560. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024879824307.Google Scholar

Rye, B. J., Greatrix, S. A., & Enright, C. S. (2006). The case of the guilty victim: The effects of gender of victim and gender of perpetrator on attributions of blame and responsibility. Sex Roles, 54(9–10), 639–649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9034-y.Google Scholar

Sommers, S. R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2000). Race in the courtroom: Perceptions of guilt and dispositional attributions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(11), 1367–1379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200263005.Google Scholar

Starr, S. B. (2015). Estimating gender disparities in federal criminal cases. American Law and Economics Review, 17(1), 127–159. https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahu010.Google Scholar

Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In Oskamp, S. (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23–45). Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Stuart, S. M., McKimmie, B. M., & Masser, B. M. (2019). Rape perpetrators on trial: The effect of sexual assault-related schemas on attributions of blame. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(2), 310–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516640777.Google Scholar

Sweeney, L. T., & Haney, C. (1992). The influence of race on sentencing: A meta‐analytic review of experimental studies. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 10(2), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2370100204.Google Scholar

Tillyer, R., Hartley, R. D., & Ward, J. T. (2015). Differential treatment of female defendants: Does criminal history moderate the effect of gender on sentence length in federal narcotics cases? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(7), 703–721. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814560624.Google Scholar

Trahan, A., & Stewart, D. M. (2011). Examining capital jurors’ impressions of attorneys’ personal characteristics and their impact on sentencing outcomes. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 7(2), 93–105.Google Scholar

Vrij, A., & Firmin, H. R. (2001). Beautiful thus innocent? The impact of defendants’ and victims’ physical attractiveness and participants’ rape beliefs on impression formation in alleged rape cases. International Review of Victimology, 8(3), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/026975800100800301.Google Scholar

Weiner, B. (2006). Social motivation, justice, and the moral emotions: An attributional approach. Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Wiley, T. R., & Bottoms, B. L. (2009). Effects of defendant sexual orientation on jurors’ perceptions of child sexual assault. Law and Human Behavior, 33(1), 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9131-2.Google Scholar

Wolf, S. (2010). Counterfactual thinking in the jury room. Small Group Research, 41(4), 474–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496410369562.Google Scholar

Yelderman, L. A., & Miller, M. K. (2017). Religious fundamentalism, religiosity, and priming: Effects on attitudes, perceptions, and mock jurors’ decisions in an insanity defense case. Psychology, Crime & Law, 23(2), 147–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2016.1239097.Google Scholar

References

Abwender, D. A., & Hough, K. (2001). Interactive effects of characteristics of defendant and mock juror on US participants’ judgment and sentencing recommendations. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141(5), 603–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540109600574.Google Scholar

Baer, E. L. (2008). Juror reactions to attorney characteristics: A look to gender, age, and presentation style. PhD Dissertation, Alliant International University, Fresno CA.Google Scholar

Ballew v. Georgia, 435 US 223 (1978).Google Scholar

Bandes, S. (1996). Empathy, narrative, and victim impact statements. The University of Chicago Law Review, 63(2), 361–412. https://doi.org/10.2307/1600234.Google Scholar

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 US 79 (1986).Google Scholar

Beck, C. R. (1998). The current state of the peremptory challenge. William & Mary Law Review, 39(3), 961–1001.Google Scholar

Blandón-Gitlin, I., Sperry, K., & Leo, R. (2011). Jurors believe interrogation tactics are not likely to elicit false confessions: Will expert witness testimony inform them otherwise? Psychology, Crime & Law, 17(3), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160903113699.Google Scholar

Boatright, R. G. (2001). Generational and age-based differences in attitudes towards jury service. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 19(2), 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.440.Google Scholar

Bornstein, B. H., Golding, J. L., Neuschatz, J., et al. (2017). Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 41(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000223.Google Scholar

Bornstein, B. H., & Greene, E. (2017). The jury under fire: Myth, controversy, and reform. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bornstein, B. H., Miller, M. K., Nemeth, R. J., Page, G. L., & Musil, S. (2005). Juror reactions to jury duty: Perceptions of the system and potential stressors. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23(3), 321–346. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.635.Google Scholar

Bowers, W. J., Steiner, B. D., & Sandys, M. (2001). Death sentencing in black and white: An empirical analysis of the role of jurors’ race and jury racial composition. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 3(1), 171–275.Google Scholar

Cohen, D. L., & Peterson, J. L. (1981). Bias in the courtroom: Race and sex effects of attorneys on juror verdicts. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 9(1), 81–87. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.1981.9.1.81.Google Scholar

de Villiers, M. (2010). The impartiality doctrine: Constitutional meaning and judicial impact. American Journal of Trial Advocacy, 34(1), 71–104.Google Scholar

Devine, D. J. (2012). Jury decision making: The state of the science. New York University Press.Google Scholar

Diamond, S. S. (1989). Scientific jury selection: What social scientists know and do not know. Judicature, 73(4), 178–183.Google Scholar

Diamond, S. S. (1993). What jurors think: Expectations and reactions of citizens who serve. In Litan, Robert E. (Ed.), Verdict: Assessing the Civil Jury System, pp. 290—300. The Brookings Institute, 1993.Google Scholar

Diamond, S. Casper, J. D., Heiert, C. L., & Marshall, A. (1996). Juror reactions to attorneys at trial. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 87(1), 17–47.Google Scholar

Diamond, S. S., Peery, D., Dolan, F. J., & Dolan, E. (2009). Achieving diversity on the jury: Jury size and the peremptory challenge. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 6(3), 425–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2009.01149.x.Google Scholar

Espinoza, R. K. E., & Willis-Esqueda, C. (2008). Defendant and defense attorney characteristics and their effects on juror decision making and prejudice against Mexican Americans. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14(4), 364–371. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012767.Google Scholar

Evans, A. D., Lee, K., & Lyon, T. D. (2009). Complex questions asked by defense lawyers but not prosecutors predicts convictions in child abuse trials. Law and Human Behavior, 33(3), 258–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9148-6.Google Scholar

Federal Rule of Evidence 28 U.S.C. 403.Google Scholar

Feigenson, N. (2010). Emotional influences on judgments of legal blame: How they happen, whether they should, and what to do about it. In Bornstein, B. H & Wiener, R. L (Eds.), Emotion and thel law: Psychological perspectives (pp. 45–96). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0696-0_3.Google Scholar

Forell, C. (2011). McTorts: The social and legal impact of McDonald’s role in tort suits. Loyola Consumer Law Review, 24(2), 105–155.Google Scholar

Fry, R. (2018). Millennials are largest generation in the US labor force. Pew Research Center. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/11/millennials-largest-generation-us-labor-force/.Google Scholar

Galanter, M. (1998). An oil strike in hell: Contemporary legends about the civil justice system. Arizona Law Review, 40, 717–752.Google Scholar

Garfield Tenzer, L. Y. (2020). The Gen Z juror. Tennessee Law Review, 88(1), 173–218.Google Scholar

Greene, E., & Bornstein, B. H. (2000). Precious little guidance: Jury instruction on damage awards. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(3), 743–768. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.6.3.743.Google Scholar

Greene, E., Sturm, K. A., & Evelo, A. J. (2016). Affective forecasting about hedonic loss and adaptation: Implications for damage awards. Law and Human Behavior, 40(3), 244–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000181.Google Scholar

Hans, V. P., & Lofquist, W. S. (1992). Jurors’ judgments of business liability in tort cases: Implications for the litigation explosion debate. Law and Society Review, 26(1), 85–115. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053837.Google Scholar

Helm, R. K., Hans, V. P., Reyna, V. F., & Reed, K. (2019). Numeracy in the jury box: Numerical ability, meaningful anchors, and damage award decision making. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34(2), 434–448. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3629.Google Scholar

Henderson, K. S., & Levett, L. M. (2016). Can expert testimony sensitize jurors to variations in confession evidence? Law and Human Behavior, 40(6), 638–649. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000204.Google Scholar

Higginbotham, P. E., Rosenthal, L. H., & Gensler, S. S. (2020). Better by the dozen: Bringing back the twelve-person jury. Judicature, 104(2), 46–57.Google Scholar

Higgins, P. L., Heath, W. P., & Grannemann, B. D. (2007). How type of excuse defense, mock juror age, and defendant age affect mock jurors’ decisions. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147(4), 371–392. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.147.4.371-392.Google Scholar

Horowitz, I. A., & Bordens, K. S. (2002). The effects of jury size, evidence complexity, and note taking on jury process and performance in a civil trial. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.121.Google Scholar

J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B., 511 US 127 (1994). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/511/127/.Google Scholar

Jones, A. M., & Penrod, S. (2016). Can expert testimony sensitize jurors to coercive interrogation tactics? Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 16(5), 393–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2016.1232029.Google Scholar

Kassin, S. M., Meissner, C. A., & Norwick, R. J. (2005). “I’d know a false confession if I saw one”: A comparative study of college students and police investigators. Law and Human Behavior, 29(2), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-2416-9.Google Scholar

Kassin, S. M., & Neumann, K. (1997). On the power of confession evidence: An experimental test of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Law and Human Behavior, 21(5), 469–484. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024871622490.Google Scholar

Keene, D. L., & Handrich, R. R. (2013). Values, priorities, and decision-making: Intergenerational law offices, intergenerational juries. Jury Expert, 25(1), 23–36.Google Scholar

Kovera, M. B. (2012). Voir dire and jury selection. In Otto, R. K. (Ed.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology, volume 11: Forensic psychology (2nd ed., pp. 630–647). John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar

Kovera, M. B., Gresham, A. W., Borgida, E., Gray, E., & Regan, P. C. (1997). Does expert psychological testimony inform or influence juror decision making? A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 178–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.178.Google Scholar

Leo, R. A., & Liu, B. (2009). What do potential jurors know about police interrogation techniques and false confessions? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27(3), 381–399. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.872.Google Scholar

Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants, 1995 WL 360309 (1994).Google Scholar

Liptak, A. (2015, August 16). Exclusion of Blacks from juries raises renewed scrutiny. The New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2015/08/17/us/politics/exclusion-of-blacks-from-juries-raises-renewed-scrutiny.html.Google Scholar

Macaulay, S. (1987). Presidential address: Images of law in everyday life: The lessons of school, entertainment, and spectator sports. Law & Society Review, 21(2), 185–218. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053519.Google Scholar

McDonalds settles lawsuit over burn from coffee (1994, Dec. 2). The Wall Street Journal, B6.Google Scholar

Matsuo, K., & Itoh, Y. (2016). Effects of emotional testimony and gruesome photographs on mock jurors’ decisions and negative emotions. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 23(1), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2015.1032954.Google Scholar

Myers, L. W. (1965). The battle of the experts: A new approach to an old problem in medical testimony. Nebraska Law Review, 44(3), 539–598.Google Scholar

Myers, B., Johnson, S., & Nuñez, N. (2018). Victim impact statements in capital sentencing: 25 years post-Payne. In Miller, M. K. & Bornstein, B. H. (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law (Vol. 3, pp. 41–76). Springer.Google Scholar

Pearle, L. (2007). “I’m Being Sued for WHAT?” ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3121086&page=1.Google Scholar

Pozzulo, J. D., Dempsey, J., Maeder, E., & Allen, L. (2010). The effects of victim gender, defendant gender, and defendant age on juror decision making. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809344173.Google Scholar

Pyszczynski, T. A., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1981). The effects of opening statements on mock jurors’ verdicts in a simulated criminal trial. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11(4), 301–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1981.tb00826.x.Google Scholar

Rebein, P. W., Schwartz, V. E., & Silverman, C. (2003). Jury dis(service): Why people avoid jury duty and what Florida can do about it. Nova Law Review, 28(1), 143–156.Google Scholar

Reed, K. (2020). The experience of a legal career: Attorneys’ impact on the system and the system’s impact on attorneys. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 16(1), 385–404. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-051120-014122.Google Scholar

Reed, K., Hans, V. P., & Reyna, V. F. (2018). Accounting for awards: An examination of juror reasoning behind pain and suffering damage award decisions. Denver Law Review, 96(4), 841–868.Google Scholar

Reed, K., Rodriguez, A., & Groscup, J. (in preparation) Hot or not? The role of attorney attractiveness on juror decisions.Google Scholar

Saks, M. J., & Marti, M. W. (1997). A meta-analysis of the effects of jury size. Law and Human Behavior, 21(5), 451–467. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024819605652.Google Scholar

Salerno, J. M. (2017). Seeing red: Disgust reactions to gruesome photographs in color (but not in black and white) increase convictions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23(3), 336–350. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000122.Google Scholar

Salerno, J. M., & Bottoms, B. L. (2009). Emotional evidence and jurors’ judgments: The promise of neuroscience for informing psychology and law. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27(2), 273–296. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.861.Google Scholar

Salerno, J. M., Campbell, J. C., Phalen, H. J., Bean, S. R., et al. (2021). The impact of minimal versus extended voir dire and judicial rehabilitation on mock jurors’ decision in civil cases. Law and Human Behavior, 45(4), 336–355. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000455.Google Scholar

Salerno, J. M., Najdowski, C. J., Bottoms, B. L., et al. (2015). Excusing murder? Conservative jurors’ acceptance of the gay-panic defense. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21(1), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000024.Google Scholar

Salerno, J. M., Phalen, H. J., Reyes, R. N., & Schweitzer, N. J. (2018). Closing with emotion: The differential impact of male versus female attorneys expressing anger in court. Law and Human Behavior, 42(4), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000292.Google Scholar

Scheflin, A. W. (1972). Jury nullification: The right to say no. Southern California Law Review, 45(1), 168–227.Google Scholar

Seron, C., Frankel, M., Muzzio, D., & Pereira, J. (1997). A report of the perceptions and experiences of lawyers, judges, and court employees concerning gender, racial and ethnic fairness in the federal courts of the second circuit of the United States gender, racial, and ethnic fairness in the courts. Annual Survey of American Law, 1997(1), 415–528.Google Scholar

Skalon, A., San Roque, M., & Beaudry, J. L. (2020). An interdisciplinary and cross-national analysis of legal safeguards for eyewitness evidence. In Miller, M. K. & Bornstein, B. H. (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law (Vol. 5, pp. 137–178). Springer.Google Scholar

Sommers, S. R. (2006). On racial diversity and group decision making: Identifying multiple effects of racial composition on jury deliberations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 597–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.597.Google Scholar

Sundby, S. E. (1997). The jury as critic: An empirical look at how capital juries perceive expert and lay testimony. Virginia Law Review, 83(6), 1109–1188. https://doi.org/10.2307/1073729.Google Scholar

Truett, K. R. (1993). Age differences in conservatism. Personality and Individual Differences, 14(3), 405–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(93)90309-Q.Google Scholar

Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Carter, N. T. (2014). Declines in trust in others and confidence in institutions among American adults and late adolescents, 1972–2012. Psychological Science, 25(10), 1914–1923. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614545133.Google Scholar

Warshawsky, K. D. (1993). The judicial canons: A first step in addressing gender bias in the courtroom symposium. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 7(4), 1047–1082.Google Scholar

Wevodau, A. L., Cramer, R. J., Clark, J. W., & Kehn, A. (2014). The role of emotion and cognition in juror perceptions of victim impact statements. Social Justice Research, 27(1), 45–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-014-0203-9.Google Scholar

Williams v. Florida, 399 US 78 (1970).Google Scholar

Woody, W. D., & Forrest, K. D. (2009). Effects of false-evidence ploys and expert testimony on jurors’ verdicts, recommended sentences, and perceptions of confession evidence. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27(3), 333–360. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.865.Google Scholar

Zeisel, H. (1971). … And then there were none: The diminution of the federal jury. The University of Chicago Law Review, 38(4), 710–724. https://doi.org/10.2307/1598870.Google Scholar

Zeisel, H. & Diamond, S. S. (1978). The effect of peremptory challenges on jury and verdict: An experiment in a federal district court. Stanford Law Review, 30, 491–531.Google Scholar

References

Baguley, C. M., McKimmie, B. M., & Masser, B. M. (2017). Deconstructing the simplification of jury instructions: How simplifying the features of complexity affects jurors’ application of instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 41(3), 284–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000234 Google Scholar

Bentele, U., & Bowers, W. (2001). How jurors decide on death: Guilt is overwhelming; aggravation requires death; and mitigation is no excuse. Brooklyn Law Review, 66(1), 1011–1079.Google Scholar

Boyde v. California, 949 US 370 (1990).Google Scholar

CA Penal Code § 1096 (1995). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1096.&lawCode=PEN.Google Scholar

Brewer, N., Harvey, S., & Semmler, C. (2004). Improving comprehension of jury instructions with audio-visual presentation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(6), 765–776. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1036.Google Scholar

Cecil, J. S. (1988). Jury service in lengthy civil trials (Vol. 87, No. 6). Federal Judicial Center.Google Scholar

Charrow, R. P., & Charrow, V. (1979). Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review, 79(7), 1306–1374. https://doi.org/10.2307/1121842.Google Scholar

Davis, J. P., Wheatman, S., & Stephansky, C. (2016). Writing better jury instructions: Antitrust as an example. West Virginia Law Review, 119(1), 235–296.Google Scholar

Dhami, M. K., Lundrigan, S., & Mueller-Johnson, K. (2015). Instructions on reasonable doubt: Defining the standard of proof and the juror’s task. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21(2), 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000038.Google Scholar

Diamond, S. (2003). Truth, justice, and the jury. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 26(1), 143–155.Google Scholar

Ede, T., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2013). Question trails in trials: Structured versus unstructured juror decision-making. Criminal Law Journal, 37(2), 114–136.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(2), 163–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01053437.Google Scholar

Elwork, A., Sales, B. D., & Alfini, J. J. (1982). Making jury instructions understandable. Michie.Google Scholar

Finkel, N. J. (2000). Commonsense justice and jury instructions: Instructive and reciprocating connections. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(3), 591–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.6.3.591.Google Scholar

Gallup (2022, April 30). Confidence in institutions. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.aspx.Google Scholar

Greene, E. (1988). Judge’s instruction on eyewitness testimony: Evaluation and revision. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(3), 252–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb00016.x.Google Scholar

Greene, E. (2009). Psychological issues in civil trials. In Lieberman, J. D. & Krauss, D. A. (Eds.), Jury psychology: Social aspects of the trial process (pp. 183–205). Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar

Greene, E., & Johns, M. (2001). Jurors’ use of instructions on negligence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(4), 840–859. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb01416.x.Google Scholar

Gregg v. Georgia, 428 US 153 (1976).Google Scholar

Halverson, A. M., Hallahan, M., Hart, A. J., & Rosenthal, R. (1997). Reducing the biasing effects of judges’ nonverbal behavior with simplified jury instruction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(4), 590–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.4.590.Google Scholar

Haney, C., & Lynch, M. (1997). Clarifying life and death matters: An analysis of instructional comprehension and penalty phase closing arguments. Law and Human Behavior, 21(6), 575–595. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024804629759.Google Scholar

Hans, V., & Ermann, M. (1989). Responses to corporate versus individual wrongdoing. Law and Human Behavior, 13(2), 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01055921.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

Kagehiro, D. (1990). Defining the standard of proof. Psychological Science, 1(3), 194–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00197.x.Google Scholar

Kazalyn v. State, 108 Nev. 67, 825 P.2d 578 (1992).Google Scholar

Kramer, G., & Koening, D. (1990). Do jurors understand criminal jury instructions? Analyzing the results of the Michigan juror comprehension project. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 23, 401–437.Google Scholar

Landsman, S., Diamond, S., Dimitropoulos, L., & Saks, M. (1998). Be careful what you wish for: The paradoxical effects of bifurcating claims for punitive damages. Wisconsin Law Review, 1998(1), 297–342.Google Scholar

Leipold, A. D., & Abbasi, H. A. (2006). The impact of joinder and severance on federal criminal cases: An empirical study. Vanderbilt Law Review, 5(2), 349–404.Google Scholar

Lieberman, J. D. (2009). The psychology of jury instructions. In Lieberman, J. D. & Krauss, D. (Eds.), Psychology in the courtroom: Volume 1 – jury psychology: Social aspects of the trial process (pp. 129–155). Ashgate Publishing Limited.Google Scholar

Lieberman, J. D., & Sales, B. D. (1997 ). What social science teaches us about the jury instruction process. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3(4), 589–644. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.3.4.589.Google Scholar

Lockett v. Ohio, 438 US 586 (1978).Google Scholar

Lynch, M. (2009). The social psychology of capital cases. In Lieberman, J. D. & Krauss, D. A. (Eds.), Jury psychology: Social aspects of the trial process (pp. 157–181). Ashgate Publishing Limited.Google Scholar

Lynch, M. & Haney, C. (2011). Mapping the racial bias of the white male capital juror: Jury composition and the “empathetic divide.” Law and Society Review, 45(1), 69–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2011.00428.x.Google Scholar

Nieland, R. G. (1979). Pattern jury instructions: A critical look at the modern movement to improve the jury system. American Judicature Society.Google Scholar

Ogloff, J. R. P., & Rose, V. G. (2005). The comprehension of judicial instructions. In Brewer, N. & Williams, K. D. (Eds.), Psychology and law: An empirical perspective (pp. 407–444). Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Praeger, I. G., Deckelbaum, G., & Cutler, B. L. (1989). Improving juror understanding for intervening causation instructions. Forensic Reports, 3, 187–193.Google Scholar

Ramirez, G., Zemba, D., & Geiselman, R. E. (1996). Judges’ cautionary instructions on eyewitness testimony. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 14(1), 31–66.Google Scholar

Reed, K., & Bornstein, B. H. (2015). Juries, joinder, and justice. The Jury Expert, 27(3), 1–5.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(5), 539–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044622.Google Scholar

Robbennolt, J. (2002). Punitive damage decision making: The decisions of citizens and trial court judges. Law and Human Behavior, 26(3), 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015376421813.Google Scholar

Semmler, C., & Brewer, N. (2002). Using a flow-chart to improve comprehension of jury instructions. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 9(2), 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1375/pplt.2002.9.2.262.Google Scholar

Shaffer, D. R., & Wheatman, S. R. (2000). Does personality influence reactions to judicial instructions? Some preliminary findings and possible implications. Psychology, Public Policy & Law, 6(3), 655–676. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.6.3.655.Google Scholar

Skalon, A., & Beaudry, J. L. (2020). The effectiveness of judicial instructions on eyewitness evidence in sensitizing jurors to suggestive identification procedures captured on video. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 16(4), 565–594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-019-09381-2.Google Scholar

Smith, A. E., & Haney, C. (2011). Getting to the point: Attempting to improve juror comprehension of capital penalty phase instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 35(5), 339–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9246-0.Google Scholar

Smith, V. L. (1991). Prototypes in the courtroom: Lay representations of legal concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(6), 857–872. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.6.857.Google Scholar

Steele, W. W., & Thornburg, E. G. (1988). Jury instructions: A persistent failure to communicate. North Carolina Law Review, 67(1), 77–119.Google Scholar

Tiersma, P. (2009). Communicating with Juries: How to draft more understandable jury instructions. Loyola-LA Legal Studies Paper (2009-44), 1–37.Google Scholar

Tiersma, P. (2020). Instructions to jurors: Redrafting California’s jury instructions. In Coulthard, M. & Johnson, A. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 267–280). Routledge.Google Scholar

Wiener, R. L., Pritchard, C. C., & Weston, M. (1995). Comprehensibility of approved jury instructions in capital murder cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 455–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.4.455.Google Scholar

Wiener, R., Rogers, M., Winter, R., et al. (2004). Guided jury discretion in capital murder cases: The role of declarative and procedural knowledge. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 10(4), 516–576. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.10.4.516.Google Scholar

Wright, D. B., & Hall, M. (2007). How a “reasonable doubt” instruction affects decisions of guilt. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(1), 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530701331254.Google Scholar

References

American Psychological Association [APA]. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology, American Psychologist, 68, 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029889.Google Scholar

American Psychological Association [APA]. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. https://apa.org/ethics/code/.Google Scholar

Blackwell, S., & Seymour, F. (2015) Expert evidence and jurors’ views on expert witnesses. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 22(5), 673–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2015.1063181.Google Scholar

Chorn, A. C., & Kovera, M. B. (2019). Variations in reliability and validity do not influence judge, attorney, and mock juror decisions about psychological expert evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 43(6), 542–557. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000345.Google Scholar

Costanzo, M., Blandón-Gitlin, I., & Davis, D. (2016). The purpose, content, and effects of expert testimony on interrogations and confessions. In Bornstein, B. H. and Miller, M. K. (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law (pp. 141–178). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43083-6_5.Google Scholar

Cutler, B., & Krauss, D. (2023). Expert psychological testimony. In DeMatteo, D. & Scherr, K. C. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of psychology and law (pp. 56–68). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197649138.001.0001.Google Scholar

Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 14(2), 185–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01062972.Google Scholar

Dahir, V. B., Richardson, J. T., Ginsburg, G. P., et al. (2005). Judicial application of Daubert to psychological syndrome and profile evidence: A research note. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(1), 62–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.1.62.Google Scholar

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579 (1993).Google Scholar

Dhami, M. K., & Belton, I. K. (2017). On getting inside the judge’s mind. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 3(2), 214–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000115.Google Scholar

Eastwood, J., & Caldwell, J. (2015). Educating jurors about forensic evidence: Using an expert witness and judicial instructions to mitigate the impact of invalid forensic science testimony. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 60(6), 1523–1528. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12832.Google Scholar

Federal Rules of Evidence. (1975). www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/federal_rules_of_evidence_-_december_2020_0.pdf.Google Scholar

Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).Google Scholar

Gatowski, S. I., Dobbin, S. A., Richardson, J. T., et al. (2001). Asking the gatekeepers: A national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 433–458. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012899030937.Google Scholar

General Electric v. Joiner, 522 US 136 (1997).Google Scholar

Gkotsi, G. M., Gasser, J., & Moulin, V. (2019). Neuroimaging in criminal trials and the role of psychiatrist expert witnesses: A case study. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 65, 101359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.05.007.Google Scholar

Konecni, V., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1982). An analysis of the sentencing decision. In Konecni, V. & Ebbesen, E. (Eds.), The criminal justice system (pp. 177–194). W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar

Kovera, M. B., & McAuliff, B. (2000). The effects of peer review and evidence quality on evaluations of psychological science: Are judges effective gatekeepers? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 574–586. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.574.Google Scholar

Legal Information Institute (2021a). Notes of Advisory Committee on proposed rules, Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses. https://law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702.Google Scholar

Legal Information Institute (2021b). Standard of care. www.law.cornell.edu/wex/standard_of_care.Google Scholar

McAuliff, B. D., & Duckworth, T. D. (2010). I spy with my little eye: Jurors’ detection of internal validity threats in expert evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 489–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010–9219-3.Google Scholar

McAuliff, B. D., Kovera, M. B., & Nuñez, G. (2009). Can jurors recognize missing control groups, confounds, and experimenter bias in psychological science? Law and Human Behavior, 33, 247–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9133-0.Google Scholar

Means, R. F., Heller, L. D., & Janofsky, J. S. (2012). Transferring juvenile defendants from adult to juvenile court: How Maryland forensic evaluators and judges reach their decisions. Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 40(3), 333–340.Google Scholar

Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., et al. (2018). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (4th ed.). Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Mitchell, G., & Garrett, B. L. (2021). Battling to a draw: Defense expert rebuttal can neutralize prosecution fingerprint evidence. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35, 976–987. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3824.Google Scholar

NBC News. (2021). First Chauvin trial juror to speak out about deliberations. https://nbcnews.com/news/us-news/first-chauvin-trial-juror-speak-out-about-deliberations-evidence-was-n1265627.Google Scholar

Neal, T. M., Slobogin, C., Saks, M. J., Faigman, D. L., & Geisinger, K. F. (2019). Psychological assessments in legal contexts: Are courts keeping “junk science” out of the courtroom? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 20, 134–163. http://doi.org/10.1177/1529100619888860.Google Scholar

Robbennolt, J. K., MacCoun, R. J., & Darley, J. M. (2010). Multiple constraint satisfaction in judging. In Klein, D. E. & Mitchell, G. (Eds.), The psychology of judicial decision making (pp. 27–39). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195367584.003.0002.Google Scholar

Shapiro, D. L., Mixon, L., Jackson, M., & Shook, J. (2015). Psychological expert witness testimony and judicial decision-making trends. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 43, 149–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.08.020.Google Scholar

Vidmar, N. (2011). The psychology of trial judging, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(1), 58–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410397283.Google Scholar

Vidmar, N., & Hans, V. P. (2007). American juries: The verdict. Prometheus Books.Google Scholar

Wells, G. L., Kovera, M. B., Douglass, A. B., et al. (2020). Policy and procedure recommendations for the collection and preservation of eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 44(1), 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000359.Google Scholar

Young, G., & Goodman‑Delahunty, J. (2021). Revisiting Daubert: Judicial gatekeeping and expert ethics in court. Psychological Injury and Law, 14, 304–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-021-09428-8.Google Scholar

References

Abramson, J. (1994). We, the jury: The jury system and the ideal of democracy. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Anderson, N. H. (1971). Integration theory and attitude change. Psychological Review, 78, 171–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030834.Google Scholar

Bayer, D., Neumann, C., & Ranadive, A. (2016). Communication of statistically based conclusions to jurors – A pilot study. Journal of Forensic Identification, 66(5), 405–427. https://treadforensics.com/index.php/publications/peer-reviewed/25-communication-of-statistically-based-conclusions-to-jurors-a-pilot-study.Google Scholar

Booth v. Maryland, 482 US 496 (1987).Google Scholar

Bornstein, B., & Greene, E. (2017). The jury under fire: Myth, controversy, and reform. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Carlson, K. A., & Russo, J. E. (2001). Biased interpretation of evidence by mock jurors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-898X.7.2.91.Google Scholar

Chaiken, S., & Ledgerwood, A. (2012). A theory of heuristic and systematic processing. In Van Lange, P., Kruglanski, A., & Higgins, E. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 246–266). Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Darley, J. M., Carlsmith, K. M., & Robinson, P. H. (2000). Incapacitation and just deserts as motives for punishment. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 659–683. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005552203727.Google Scholar

Devine, D. J., & Caughlin, D. E. (2014). Do they matter? A meta-analytic investigation of individual characteristics and guilt judgments. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 109–134. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000006.Google Scholar

Devine, D. J., Krouse, P. C., Cavanaugh, C. M., & Basora, J. C. (2016). Evidentiary, extraevidentiary, and deliberation process predictors of real jury verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 40(6), 670–682. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000209.Google Scholar

Diamond, S. S., Vidmar, N., Rose, M., & Ellis, L. (2003). Inside the jury room: Evaluating juror discussions during trial. Judicature, 87(2), 54–59. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/judica87&i=56.Google Scholar

Eberhardt, J. L., Davies, P. G., Purdie-Vaughns, V. J., & Johnson, S. L. (2006). Looking deathworthy: Perceived stereotypicality of Black defendants predicts capital-sentencing outcomes. Psychological Science, 17(5), 383–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01716.x.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 and 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

Eldridge, H. (2019). Juror comprehension of forensic expert testimony: A literature review and gap analysis. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 1, 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2019.03.001.Google Scholar

Finkelstein, R., & Bastounis, M. (2010). The effect of the deliberation process and jurors’ prior legal knowledge on the sentence: The role of psychological expertise and crime scene photo. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 28, 426–441. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.914.Google Scholar

ForsterLee, R., ForsterLee, L., Horowitz, I. A., & King, E. (2006). The effects of defendant race, victim race, and juror gender on evidence processing in a murder trial. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 24, 179–198. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.675.Google Scholar

Garrett, B. L., Crozier, W. E., & Grady, R. (2020). Error rates, likelihood ratios, and jury evaluation of forensic evidence. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 65(4), 1199–1209. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14323.Google Scholar

Garrett, B. L., & Mitchell, G. (2016). Forensics and fallibility: Comparing the views of lawyers and jurors. West Virginia Law Review, 119(2), 621–650. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/3874.Google Scholar

Georges, L. C., Wiener, R. L., & Keller, S. R. (2013). The angry juror: Sentencing decisions in first-degree murder. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2880.Google Scholar

Greene, E. (1999). The many guises of victim impact evidence and effects on jurors’ judgments. Psychology, Crime & Law, 5, 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683169908401776.Google Scholar

Hofstein Grady, R., Reiser, L., Garcia, R. J., Koeu, C., & Scurich, N. (2018). Impact of gruesome photographic evidence on legal decisions: A meta-analysis. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 25, 503–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2018.1440468.Google Scholar

Holstein, J. A. (1985). Jurors’ interpretations and jury decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 9(1), 83–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01044291.Google Scholar

Ingriselli, E. (2014). Mitigating jurors’ racial biases: The effects of content and timing of jury instructions. Yale Law Journal, 124, 1690–1745. www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/g.1690.Ingriselli.1745_umeqnauw.pdf.Google Scholar

Kadane, J. B., & Koehler, J. J. (2018). Certainty & uncertainty in reporting fingerprint evidence. Daedalus, 147(4), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_00524.Google Scholar

Kadish, M. (1997). Behind the locked door of an American grand jury: Its history, its secrecy, and its process. Florida State University Law Review, 24, 1–77. https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol24/iss1/1.Google Scholar

Kassin, S. M., & Garfield, D. A. (1991). Blood and guts: General and trial-specific effects of videotaped crime scenes on mock jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1459–1472. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1991.tb00481.x.Google Scholar

Kunst, M., de Groot, G., Meester, J., & van Doorn, J. (2021). The impact of victim impact statements on legal decisions in criminal proceedings: A systematic review of the literature across jurisdictions and decision types. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 56, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2020.101512.Google Scholar

Leippe, M. R., Bergold, A. N., Despodova, N., Gettings, C., & Eisenstadt, D. (2021). Decision importance and Black and Hispanic jurors’ judgments of outgroup and ingroup defendants in a trial simulation. Psychology, Crime & Law, 28(10), 1024–1043. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2021.1984481.Google Scholar

Maeder, E. M., Ewanation, L. A., & Monnink, J. (2017). Jurors’ perceptions of evidence: The relative influence of DNA and eyewitness testimony when presented by opposing parties. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 32(1), 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-016-9194-9.Google Scholar

Marder, N. S., & Hans, V. P. (2015). Introduction to juries and lay participation: American perspectives and global trends. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 90, 789–824. https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol90/iss3/3.Google Scholar

Martire, K. A., Kemp, R. I., Watkins, I., Sayle, M. A., & Newell, B. R. (2013). The expression and interpretation of uncertain forensic science evidence: Verbal equivalence, evidence strength, and the weak evidence effect. Law and Human Behavior, 37(3), 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000027.Google Scholar

Mazzella, R., & Feingold, A. (1994). The effects of physical attractiveness, race, socioeconomic status, and gender of defendants and victims on judgments of mock jurors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1315–1344. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb01552.x.Google Scholar

McQuiston-Surrett, D., & Saks, M. J. (2009). The testimony of forensic identification science: What expert witnesses say and what factfinders hear. Law and Human Behavior, 33(5), 436–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9169-1.Google Scholar

Miller, M. K., Pfeifer, J., Bornstein, B. H., & Kaplan, T. (2020). Trust in the jury system: A comparison of Australian and US samples. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 28(6), 823–840. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1862002.Google Scholar

Mitchell, K., Myers, B., & Broszkiewicz, N. (2016). Good or essential? The effects of victim characteristics and family significance on sentencing judgments and perceptions of harm. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 23, 651–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2015.1084662.Google Scholar

Mitchell, T. L., Haw, R. M., Pfeifer, J. E., & Meissner, C. A. (2005). Racial bias in mock juror decision-making: A meta-analytic review of defendant treatment. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 621–637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-8122-9.Google Scholar

Motivans, M. (2020). Federal Justice Statistics, 2016 – Statistical Tables. Bureau of Justice Statistics. www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fjs16st.pdf.Google Scholar

Myers, B, Nuñez, N., Wilkowski, B., Kehn, A., & Dunn, K. (2018). The heterogeneity of victim impact statements: A content analysis of capital trial sentencing penalty phase transcripts. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24, 474–488. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000185.Google Scholar

National Research Council. (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. National Academies Press.Google Scholar

Nuñez, N., Myers, B., Wilkowski, B. M., & Schweitzer, K. (2017). The impact of angry versus sad victim impact statements on mock jurors’ sentencing decisions in a capital trial. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44, 862–886. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816689809.Google Scholar

Nuñez, N., Schweitzer, K., Chai, C. A., & Myers, B. (2015). Negative emotions felt during trial: The effect of fear, anger, and sadness on juror decisions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29, 200–209. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3094.Google Scholar

Ostrom, T. M., Werner, C., & Saks, M. J. (1978). An integration theory analysis of jurors’ presumptions of guilt or innocence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 436–450. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.4.436.Google Scholar

Payne v. Tennessee, 501 US 808 (1991).Google Scholar

Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 242–258. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.2.242.Google Scholar

Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence: Tests of the Story Model for juror decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.189.Google Scholar

Pozzulo, J. D., Dempsey, J., Maeder, E., & Allen, L. (2010). The effects of victim gender, defendant gender, and defendant age on juror decision making. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809344173.Google Scholar

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). (2016, September). Report to the President, Forensic science in criminal courts: Ensuring scientific validity of feature comparison methods. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf.Google Scholar

Robbers, M. L. (2008). Blinded by science: The social construction of reality in forensic television shows and its effect on criminal jury trials. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19(1), 84–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403407305982.Google Scholar

Salerno, J. M., & Peter-Hagene, L. C. (2013). The interactive effect of anger and disgust on moral outrage and judgments. Psychological Science, 10, 2069–2078. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613486988.Google Scholar

Schweitzer, K., Estrada-Reynolds, V. C., Ferguson, E., & Nuñez, N. (2016, March 12). Disgust, anger, and cats: The role of emotions in jurors’ verdicts. Paper presented at the annual American Psychological – Legal Society conference. Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar

Schweitzer, K., & Nuñez, N. (2017). Victim impact statements: How victim social class affects juror decision making. Violence and Victims, 32, 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-15-00187.Google Scholar

Simon, D. (2019). On juror decision making: An empathic inquiry. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 15, 415–435. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-042658.Google Scholar

Sommers, S. R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2000). Race in the courtroom: Perceptions of guilt and dispositional attributions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1367–1379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200263005.Google Scholar

Sommers, S. R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2001). White juror bias: An investigation of prejudice against Black defendants in the American courtroom. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 201–229. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-8971.7.1.201.Google Scholar

South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 US 805 (1989).Google Scholar

Swofford, H. J., & Cino, J. G. (2018). Lay understanding of “identification”: How jurors interpret forensic identification testimony. Journal of Forensic Identification, 68(1), 29–41. https://treadforensics.com/index.php/publications/peer-reviewed/113-lay-understanding-of-identification-how-jurors-interpret-forensic-identification-testimony.Google Scholar

Tetlock, P. E. (2002). Social functionalist frameworks for judgment and choice: Intuitive politicians, theologians, and prosecutors. Psychological Review, 109, 451–471. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.451.Google Scholar

Tetlock, P. E., Self, W. T., & Singh, R. (2010). The punitiveness paradox: When is external pressure exculpatory – And when a signal just to spread blame? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 388–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.11.013.Google Scholar

Tetlock, P. E., Visser, P. S., Singh, R., et al. (2007). People as intuitive prosecutors: The impact of social-control goals on attributions of responsibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(2), 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.02.009.Google Scholar

Thomas, S. A. (2017). What happened to the American jury. Litigation, 43(3), 25–30. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26402056.Google Scholar

Thompson, W. C., & Newman, E. J. (2015). Lay understanding of forensic statistics: Evaluation of random match probabilities, likelihood ratios, and verbal equivalents. Law and Human Behavior, 39(4), 332–349. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000134.Google Scholar

Tiedens, L. Z., & Linton, S. (2001). Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: The effects of specific emotions on information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 973–988. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.973.Google Scholar

US Census Bureau. (2019). QuickFacts. www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219.Google Scholar

US Courts. (2019). Federal judicial caseload statistics 2019. www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/federal-judicial-caseload-statistics-2019.Google Scholar

Vidmar, N., & Hans, V. P. (2007). American juries: The verdict. Prometheus Books.Google Scholar

Williams, M. R., Demuth, S., & Holcomb, J. E. (2007). Understanding the influence of victim gender in death penalty cases: The importance of victim race, sex-related victimization, and jury decision making. Criminology, 45, 865–891. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2007.00095.x.Google Scholar

References

Angermeyer, M. C., & Matschinger, H. (2003). The stigma of mental illness: Effects of labelling on public attitudes towards people with mental disorder. Acta PsychiatricaScandinavica, 108, 304–309. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0447.2003.00150.x.Google Scholar

Bloechl, A. L., Vitacco, M. J., Neumann, C. S., & Erickson, S. E. (2007). An empirical investigation of insanity defense attitudes: Exploring factors related to bias. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 30(2), 153–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2006.03.007.Google Scholar

Bray, R. M., & Kerr, N. L. (1982). Methodological considerations in the study of the psychology of the courtroom. In Kerr, N. L. & Bray, R. M. (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 287–323). Academic Press, Inc.Google Scholar

Breheney, C., Groscup, J., & Galietta, M. (2007). Gender matters in the insanity defense. Law and Psychology Review, 31, 93–124.Google Scholar

Chan, J. Y. N., Mak, W. W. S., & Law, L. S. C. (2009). Combining education and video-based contact to reduce stigma of mental illness: “The same or not the same” anti-stigma program for secondary schools in Hong Kong. Social Science & Medicine, 68, 1521–1526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.02.016.Google Scholar

Corrigan, P. W., Larson, J., Sells, M., Nieseen, N., & Watson, A. C. (2007). Will filmed presentations of education and contact diminish mental illness stigma? Community Mental Health Journal, 42(2), 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-006–9061–8.Google Scholar

Crocker, C. B., & Kovera, M. B. (2010). The effects of rehabilitative voir dire on juror biasand decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 34(3), 212–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9193-9.Google Scholar

Daftary-Kapur, T., Groscup, J. L., O’Connor, M., Coffaro, F., & Galietta, M. (2011). Measuring knowledge of the insanity defense: Scale construction and validation. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29(1), 40–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.938.Google Scholar

Day, E. N., Edgren, K., & Eshelman, A. (2007). Measuring stigma toward mental illness: Development and application of the mental illness stigma scale. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(10), 2191–2219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00255.x.Google Scholar

Doerner, J. K., & Demuth, S. (2014). Gender and sentencing in the federal courts: Are women treated more leniently? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25(2), 242–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403412466877.Google Scholar

Dressler, J. (2018). Understanding Criminal Law (8th ed.). Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar

Dunn, K. F., Cowan, G., & Downs, D. (2006). Effects of sex and race of perpetrator and method of killing on outcome judgments in a mock filicide case. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(10), 2395–2416. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00109.x.Google Scholar

Eberhardt, J. L., Goff, P. A., Purdie, V. J., & Davies, P. G. (2004). Seeing Black: Race, crime and visual processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6), 876–893. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.876.Google Scholar

Ellsworth, P., Bukaty, R., Cowan, C., & Thompson, W. (1984). The death-qualified jury and the defense of insanity. Law and Human Behavior, 8(1–2), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044352.Google Scholar

Faulstich, M. E. (1984). Effects upon social perceptions of the insanity plea. Psychological Reports, 55(1), 183–187. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1984.55.1.183.Google Scholar

Finkel, N. (1988). Insanity on Trial. Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-1665-7.Google Scholar

Finkel, N. (1989). The insanity defense reform act of 1984: Much ado about nothing. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 7(3), 403–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2370070309.Google Scholar

Finkel, N., & Handel, S. (1988). Jurors and insanity: Do test instructions instruct? Forensic Reports, 1, 65–79.Google Scholar

Finkel, N., & Handel, S. (1989). How jurors construe “insanity.” Law and Human Behavior, 13(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01056162.Google Scholar

Finkel, N., Shaw, R., Bercaw, S., & Kock, J. (1985). Insanity defenses: From the jurors’ perspective. Law and Psychology Review, 9, 77–92.Google Scholar

Franklin, C. A., & Fearn, N. E. (2008). Gender, race, and formal court decision-making outcomes: Chivalry/paternalism, conflict theory or gender conflict? Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(3), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2008.04.009.Google Scholar

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In Dovidio, J. F. & Gaertner, S. L. (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 61–89). Academic Press.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Simon & Schuster Inc.Google Scholar

Grabe, M. E., Trager, K. D., Lear, M., Rauch, J. (2006) Gender in crime news: A case study test of the chivalry hypothesis. Mass Communication & Society 9(2), 137–163. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327825mcs0902_2.Google Scholar

Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293(5537), 2105–2108. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1062872.Google Scholar

Grekin, P. M., Jemelka, R., & Trupin, E. W. (1994). Racial differences in the criminalization of the mentally ill. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law, 22(3), 411–420.Google Scholar

Gruhl, J., Welch, S., & Spohn, C. (1984). Women as criminal defendants: A test for paternalism. Political Research Quarterly, 37(3), 456–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591298403700308.Google Scholar

Hans, V. P. (1986). An analysis of public attitudes toward the insanity defense. Criminology, 4(2), 393–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1986.tb01502.x.Google Scholar

Hans, V., & Slater, D. (1984). “Plain crazy”: Lay definitions of legal insanity. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 7, 105–114.Google Scholar

Herzog, S., & Oreg, S. (2008). Chivalry and the moderating effect of ambivalent sexism: Individual differences in crime seriousness judgments. Law & Society Review, 42(1), 45–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2008.00334.x.Google Scholar

Jäggi, L. J., Mezuk, B., Watkins, D. C., & Jackson, J. S. (2016). The relationship between trauma, arrest, and incarceration history among Black Americans. Society and Mental Health, 6(3), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156869316641730.Google Scholar

Jeffrey, R., & Pasewark, R. (1983). Altering opinions about the insanity plea. The Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 11(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/009318538301100.Google Scholar

Kahler v. Kansas – 140 S. Ct. 1021 (2020).Google Scholar

Kivisto, A. J., & Swan, S. A. (2011). Attitudes toward the insanity defense in capital cases: (Im)partiality from Witherspoon to Witt. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 11(4), 311–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2011.562811.Google Scholar

Kruttschnitt, C., & Green, D. E. (1984). The sex-sanctioning issue: Is it history? American Sociological Review, 49(4), 541–551. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095467.Google Scholar

Kvaale, E. P., Gottdiener, W. H., & Haslam, N. (2013). Biogenetic explanations and stigma: A meta-analytic review of associations among laypeople. Social Science & Medicine, 96, 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.07.017.Google Scholar

Laufer, W. S. (1995). Review of M. L Perlin’s “The jurisprudence of the insanity defense.” Journal of Legal Medicine, 16, 453–459.Google Scholar

Leland v. Oregon, 343 US 790 (1952).Google Scholar

Loughman, A., & Haslam, N. (2018). Neuroscientific explanations and the stigma of mental disorder: A meta-analytic study. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 3, 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-018-0136-1.Google Scholar

Maeder, E. M., Yamamoto, S., & Fenwick, K. L. (2015). Educating Canadian jurors about the not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder defense. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 47(3), 226–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000016.Google Scholar

Maeder, E. M., Yamamoto, S., & McLaughlin, K. M. (2020). The influence of defendant race and mental disorder type on mock juror decision-making in insanity trials. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 68, 101536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2019.101536.Google Scholar

Maeder, E. M., Yamamoto, S., & Zanella, L. (2016). Putting negative attitudes on the agenda? Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act publicity and juror decision-making. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 49(Pt A), 154–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2016.08.010.Google Scholar

Martin, J. K., Pescosolido, B. A., & Tuch, S. A. (2000). Of fear and loathing: The role of “disturbing behavior,” labels, and causal attributions in shaping public attitudes toward people with mental illness. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41, 208–223. https://doi.org/10.2307/2676306.Google Scholar

McGlynn, R. P., Megas, J. C., & Benson, D. H. (1976). Sex and race as factors affecting the attribution of insanity in a murder trial. The Journal of Psychology Interdisciplinary and Applied, 93(1), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1976.9921378.Google Scholar

Model Penal Code §4.01 (1) (2000).Google Scholar

Mossière, A., & Maeder, E. M. (2016). Juror decisionmaking in not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder trials: Effects of defendant gender and mental illness type. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 49, 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2016.05.008.Google Scholar

Nagel, I. H., & Hagen, J. (1983). Gender and crime: Offense patterns and criminal court sanctions. Crime and Justice, 4, 91–144. https://doi.org/10.1086/449087.Google Scholar

Nagel, I. H., & Johnson, B. L. (1994) The role of gender in a structured sentencing system: Equal treatment, policy choices, and the sentencing of female offenders under the United States sentencing guidelines. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 85(1), 181–221.Google Scholar

Ogloff, J. (1991). A comparison of insanity defense standards on juror decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 509–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01650292.Google Scholar

Pasewark, R. A., Randolph, R. L., & Bieber, S. (1984). Insanity plea: Statutory language and trial procedures. The Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 12(3), 399–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/009318538401200307.Google Scholar

Pasewark, R. A., & Seidenzahl, D. (1979). Opinions concerning the insanity plea and criminality among mental patients. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 7(2), 199–202.Google Scholar

Perlin, M. L. (1994). The jurisprudence of the insanity defense. Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar

Perlin, M. (1996). Myths, realities, and the political world: The anthropology of insanity defense attitudes. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 24, 5–26.Google Scholar

Perlin, M. L. (2017). The insanity defense: Nine myths that will not go away. In White, M. D. (Ed.), The insanity defense: Multidisciplinary views on its history, trends, and controversies (pp. 3–22). Praeger/ABC-CLIO.Google Scholar

Pinfold, V., Toulmin, H., Thornicroft, G., et al. (2003). Reducing psychiatric stigma and discrimination: Evaluation of educational interventions in UK secondary schools. British Journal of Psychiatry, 182(4), 342–346. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.182.4.342.Google Scholar

Poulson, R. L. (1990). Mock juror attribution of criminal responsibility: Effects of race and the guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) verdict option. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20(19), 1596–1611. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1990.tb01495.x.Google Scholar

Prins, S. J., (2014). Prevalence of mental illnesses in US state prisons: A systematic review. Psychiatric Services, 65(7), 862–872. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201300166.Google Scholar

Queen v. M’Naghten. 8 Eng. Rep. 718 (1843).Google Scholar

Rendell, J. A., Huss, M. T., & Jensen, M. L. (2010). Expert testimony and the effects of a biological approach, psychopathy, and juror attitudes in cases of insanity. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28(3), 411–425. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.913.Google Scholar

Robinson, P. H., & Williams, T. S. (2017). Mapping American criminal law variations across the fifty states: Ch 14 insanity defense. Faculty Scholarship at Penn Carey Law. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1718.Google Scholar

Rogers, J. L., Sack, W. H., Bloom, J. D., & Manson, S. M. (1983). Women in Oregon’s insanity defense system. The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 11(4), 515–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/009318538301100407.Google Scholar

Rosch, E. (1988). Principles of categorization. In Collins, A. M., & Smith, E. E. (Eds.), Readings in cognitive science: A perspective from psychology and artificial intelligence (pp. 312–322). Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar

Roytman, K. (2020). Kahler v. Kansas: The end of the insanity defense? Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar, 15, 43–58.Google Scholar

Salerno, J. M., & Diamond, S. S. (2010). The promise of a cognitive perspective on jury deliberation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(2), 174–179. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.2.174.Google Scholar

Schmetzer, A. D., Lafuze, J. E., & Jack, M. E. (2008). Overcoming stigma: Involving families in medical student and psychiatric residency education. Academic Psychiatry, 32(2), 127–131. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ap.32.2.127.Google Scholar

Schweitzer, N. J., & Saks, M. J. (2011). Neuroimage evidence and the insanity defense. Behavioral sciences and the Law, 29, 592–607. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.995.Google Scholar

Shannon v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 2419 (1994).Google Scholar

Silver, E., Cirincione, C., & Steadman, H. J. (1994). Demythologizing inaccurate perceptions of the insanity defense. Law and Human Behavior, 18(1), 63–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499144.Google Scholar

Skeem, J., & Golding, S. (2001). Describing jurors’ personal conceptions of insanity and their relationship to case judgments. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(3), 561–621. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-8971.7.3.561.Google Scholar

Skeem, J. L., Louden, J. E., & Evans, J. (2004). Venireperson’s attitudes toward the insanity defense: Developing, refining, and validating a scale. Law and Human Behavior, 28(6), 623–648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-004-0487-7.Google Scholar

Sloat, L. M., & Frierson, R. L. (2005). Juror knowledge and attitudes regarding mental illness verdicts. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 33, 208–213.Google Scholar

Sygel, K., Sturup, J., Fors, U., et al. (2017). The effect of gender on the outcome of forensic psychiatric assessment in Sweden: A case vignette study. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 27(2), 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.1987.Google Scholar

Tate, B., & Yelderman, L. A. (2022). Examining the effect of religiosity, moral disengagement, personal attribution, comprehension and proximity on juror decision making regarding insanity pleas. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 29(6), 809–831. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2021.1982789.Google Scholar

United States v. Neavill, 868, F.2d 1000 (1989).Google Scholar

Wainwright v. Witt, 469 US 412 (1985).Google Scholar

Weiner, B., Graham, S., & Reyna, C. (1997). An attributional examination of retributive versus utilitarian philosophies of punishment. Social Justice Research, 10, 431–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02683293.Google Scholar

Weiner, B., Perry, R. P., & Magnusson, J. (1988). An attributional analysis of reactions to stigmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(5), 738–748. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.5.738.Google Scholar

Wheatman, S. R., & Shaffer, D. R. (2001). On finding for defendants who plead insanity: The crucial impact of dispositional instructions and opportunity to deliberate. Law and Human Behavior, 25(2), 167–183. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005645414992.Google Scholar

Whittemore, K. E. & Ogloff, J. R. (1995). Factors that influence jury decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 19(3), 283–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01501661.Google Scholar

Witherspoon v. Illinois – 391 US 510, 88 S. Ct. 1770 (1968).Google Scholar

Wood, E. F., Trescher, S. A., Miller, M. K., & McDermott, C. M. (2018). Individual differences relate to support for insanity and postpartum depression legal defenses: The mediating role of moral disengagement. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 25, 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2017.1351905.Google Scholar

Yamamoto, S., & Maeder, E. M. (2021). What’s in the box? Punishment and insanity in the Canadian jury deliberation room. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.689128.Google Scholar

Yamamoto, S., Maeder, E. M., & Fenwick, K. L. (2017). Criminal responsibility in Canada: Mental disorder stigma education and the insanity defense. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 16(4), 313–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2017.1391357.Google Scholar

Yelderman, L. A. (2018). Cognitive rigidity explains the relationship between religious fundamentalism and insanity defence attitudes. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 21(7), 686–697. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2018.1551340.Google Scholar

Yelderman, L. A., & Miller, M. K. (2016). Religious fundamentalism and attitudes toward the insanity defense: The mediating roles of criminal attributions and attitudes toward the mentally ill. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 23(6), 872–884. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2016.1160005.Google Scholar

Yourstone, J., Lindholm, T., Grann, M., & Svenson, O. (2008). Evidence of gender bias in legal insanity evaluations: A case vignette study of clinicians, judges and students. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 62(4), 273–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/08039480801963135.Google Scholar

References

Baer, M. H. (2015). Timing Brady. Columbia Law Review, 115, 1–67.Google Scholar

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

Bellin, J. (2017). The silence penalty. Iowa Law Review, 103, 395–434.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

Fisher, G. (2013). Evidence (3rd ed.). Foundation Press.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. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus & Giroux.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

References

Agnew-Brune, C., Moracco, K. E., Person, C. J., & Bowling, J. M. (2017). Domestic violence protective orders: A qualitative examination of judges’ decision-making processes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(13), 1921–1942. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515590126.Google Scholar

Barrett, L. F. (2017). How emotions are made: The secret life of the brain. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar

Barry, C. L., McGinty, E. E., Pescosolido, B. A., & Goldman, H. H. (2014). Stigma, discrimination, treatment effectiveness, and policy: Public views about drug addiction and mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 65(10), 1269–1272. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201400140.Google Scholar

Blumenthal, J. A. (1993). A wipe of the hands, a lick of the lips: The validity of demeanor evidence in assessing witness credibility. Nebraska Law Review, 72(4), 1157–1164.Google Scholar

Brennen, T., & Magnussen, S. (2020). Research on non-verbal signs of lies and deceit: A blind alley. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.613410.Google Scholar

Brower, T. (2017). What judges need to know: Schemas, implicit bias, and empirical research on LGBT parenting and demographics. DePaul Journal of Women, Gender and the Law, 7(1), 19–44.Google Scholar

Budd, J. C. (2010). Pledge your body for your bread: Welfare, drug testing, and the inferior fourth amendment. William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 19(3), 751–772.Google Scholar

Bushway, S. D., & Piehl, A. M. (2001). Judging judicial discretion: Legal factors and racial discrimination in sentencing. Law & Society Review, 35(4), 733–764. https://doi.org/10.2307/3185415.Google Scholar

Charlow, A. (1986). Awarding custody: The best interests of the child and other fictions. Yale Law & Policy Review, 5(2), 267–290.Google Scholar

Curci, A., Lanciano, T., Battista, F., Guaragno, S., & Ribatti, R. M. (2019). Accuracy, confidence, and experiential criteria for lie detection through a videotaped interview. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 9, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00748.Google Scholar

DeCamp v. Hein, 541 So. 2d 708, 710 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989).Google Scholar

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2000). Aversive racism and selection decisions: 1989 and 1999. Psychological Science, 11(4), 315–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00262.Google Scholar

Elek, J. K. (2021). The evolving science on implicit bias: An updated resource for the state court community. National Center for State Courts (NCSC), 1–45. https://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/accessfair/id/911.Google Scholar

Engel, C., & Glöckner, A. (2013). Role‐induced bias in court: An experimental analysis. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(3), 272–284. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1761.Google Scholar

Epstein, D., & Goodman, L. A. (2018). Discounting women: Doubting domestic violence survivors’ credibility and dismissing their experiences. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 167, 399–461.Google Scholar

Feinberg, J. (2016). Consideration of genetic connections in child custody disputes between same-sex parents: Fair or foul. Missouri Law Review, 81(2), 331.Google Scholar

Johnson, J. D., Whitestone, E., Jackson, L. A., & Gatto, L. (1995). Justice is still not colorblind: Differential racial effects of exposure to inadmissible evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(9), 893–898. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295219003.Google Scholar

Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E., & Kukucka, J. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(1), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001.Google Scholar

King, B. R., & Black, K. N. (1999). College students’ perceptual stigmatization of the children of lesbian mothers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 69(2), 220–227.Google Scholar

Klein, L. (2010). Report on the survey of judges on the impact of the economic downturn on representation in the courts. ABA Coalition for Justice.Google Scholar

Kroeper, K. M., Quintanilla, V. D., Frisby, M., et al. (2020). Underestimating the unrepresented: Cognitive biases disadvantage pro se litigants in family law cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 26(2), 198–212. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000229.Google Scholar

Kukucka, J., Kassin, S. M., Zapf, P. A., & Dror, I. E. (2017). Cognitive bias and blindness: A global survey of forensic science examiners. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 452–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.09.001.Google Scholar

Lewandowska, K., Wachowicz, B., Marek, T., Oginska, H., & Fafrowicz, M. (2018). Would you say “yes” in the evening? Time-of-day effect on response bias in four types of working memory recognition tasks. Chronobiology International, 35(1), 80–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/07420528.2017.1386666.Google Scholar

Lipari, R. N., & Van Horn, S. L. (2017). Children living with parents who have a substance use disorder. The CBHSQ report. https://permanent.fdlp.gov/gpo133856/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK464590/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK464590.pdf.Google Scholar

Maldonado, S. (2017). Bias in the family: Race, ethnicity, and culture in custody disputes. Family Court Review, 55(2), 213–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12274.Google Scholar

Massachusetts General Laws, ch. 208, § 31 (n.d.).Google Scholar

McLeod, A. C., Crawford, I., & Zechmeister, J. (1999). Heterosexual undergraduates’ attitudes toward gay fathers and their children. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 11(1), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v11n01_03.Google Scholar

Moore, T. (2021). Suggestions to improve outcomes for male victims of domestic abuse: A review of the literature. SN Social Sciences 1(10), 252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-021-00263-x.Google Scholar

Neitz, M. B. (2013). Socioeconomic bias in the judiciary. Cleveland State Law Review, 61(1), 137–165.Google Scholar

Nugent, D. C. (1994). Judicial bias. Cleveland State Law Review, 42(1), 1–59.Google Scholar

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644, 661 (2015).Google Scholar

Patterson, C., & Goldberg, A. E. (2016). Lesbian and gay parents and their children. National Council on Family Relations.Google Scholar

Payne, B. K. (2006). Weapon bias: Split-second decisions and unintended stereotyping. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(6), 287–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00454.x.Google Scholar

Pennington v. Pennington, 711 Utah.P.2d 254 (1985).Google Scholar

Pope, J. C., & Silva-Risso, J. (2014). The psychological effect of weather on car purchases. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1(44), 377–414. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju033.Google Scholar

Rachlinski, J. J. & Wistrich, A. J. (2021). Benevolent sexism in judges. San Diego Law Review, 58, 101–140.Google Scholar

Reyes, R. (2011). The fading Free Exercise Clause. The William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 19(3), 773.Google Scholar

Robson, R. (1992). Lesbian (out)law: Survival under the rule of law. Firebrand Books.Google Scholar

Southern Poverty Law Center. (2020) The Year in Hate and Extremism. 2020. Report from the Southern Poverty Law Center. 1–64. www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/yih_2020-21_final.pdf.Google Scholar

Stepanikova, I. (2012). Racial-ethnic biases, time pressure, and medical decisions. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 53(3), 329–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146512445807.Google Scholar

Subcommittee on Judicial Guidelines of the Supreme Judicial Court Steering Committee on Self-Represented Litigants (n.d.). Judicial guidelines for civil hearings involving self-represented litigants (with commentary). www.Mass.gov.https://www.mass.gov/guides/judicial-guidelines-for-civil-hearings-involving-self-represented-litigants-with-commentary.Google Scholar

Tenuta, C. M. (2011). Can you really be a good role model to your child if you can’t braid her hair? The unconstitutionality of factoring gender and sexuality into custody determinations. City of University New York Law Review 14(2), 351–392.Google Scholar

Torres, E. E. (2002). Power, politics, and pleasure: Class differences and the law. Rutgers Law Review, 54(4), 853.Google Scholar

Villicana, A. J., Garcia, D. M., & Biernat, M. (2017). Gender and parenting: Effects of parenting failures on evaluations of mothers and fathers. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(6), 867–878. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430215615683.Google Scholar

Wald, A. (1997). A pedagogy of unlearning. In Kumar, A. (Ed.), Class issues: Pedagogy, cultural studies, and the public sphere (pp. 125–147). New York University Press.Google Scholar

Wixted, J. T., & Wells, G. L. (2017). The relationship between eyewitness confidence and identification accuracy: A new synthesis. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 18(1), 10–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616686966.Google Scholar

Book contents

Part III - Trial Phase Decision-Making

Summary

Access options

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive