Objectives: Firearms experts traditionally have testified that a weapon leaves "unique" toolmarks, so bullets or cartridge casings can be visually examined and conclusively matched to a particular firearm. Recently, due to scientific critiques, Department of Justice policy, and judges' rulings, firearms experts have tempered their conclusions. In two experiments, we tested whether this ostensibly more cautious language has its intended effect on jurors (Experiment 1), and whether cross-examination impacts jurors' perception of firearm testimony (Experiment 2).

Hypotheses: Four hypotheses were tested. First, jurors will accord significant weight to firearm testimony that declares a "match" compared to testimony that does not (Experiments 1 and 2). Second, variations to "match" language will not affect guilty verdicts (Experiment 1). Third, only the most cautious language ("cannot exclude the gun") would lower guilty verdicts (Experiment 1). Fourth, cross-examination will reduce guilty verdicts depending on specific language used (Experiment 2).

Method: In two preregistered, high-powered experiments with 200 mock jurors per cell, participants recruited from Qualtrics Panels were presented with a criminal case containing firearms evidence, which varied the wording of the examiner's conclusion and whether cross-examination was present. These variations include conclusion language used by practitioners, language advised by government organizations, and language required by judges in several cases. Participants gave a verdict, rated the evidence and expert in all conditions.

Results: Guilty verdicts significantly increased when a match was declared compared to when a match was not declared. Variation in conclusion language did not affect guilty verdicts nor did it affect jurors' estimates of the likelihood the defendant's gun fired the bullet recovered at the crime scene. In contrast, however, a more cautious conclusion that an examiner "cannot exclude the defendant's gun" did significantly reduce guilty verdicts and likelihood estimates alike. The presence of cross-examination did not affect these findings.

Conclusion: Apart from the most limited language ("cannot exclude the defendant's gun"), judicial intervention to limit firearms conclusion language is not likely to produce its intended effect. Moreover, cross-examination does not appear to affect perceptions or individual juror verdicts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000423DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

guilty verdicts
24
"cannot exclude
12
conclusion language
12
language
10
firearms experts
8
cautious language
8
firearm testimony
8
affect guilty
8
verdicts experiment
8
language "cannot
8

Similar Publications

Inadmissible evidence generally biases jurors toward guilty verdicts; jurors who hear inadmissible evidence are more likely to convict than jurors not exposed to inadmissible evidence-even when evidence is constant. When inadmissible evidence is introduced, the common legal remedy is judicial instructions to jurors to disregard it. Appeals courts repeatedly affirm instructions to disregard as a sufficient safeguard of defendants' constitutional rights, despite research finding that jurors do not disregard when instructed.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Tolerance on trial.

Science

December 2024

H. Holden Thorp Editor-in-Chief, Science journals.

Next year will mark the 100th anniversary of the Scopes trial, a 1925 court case in the US state of Tennessee on the teaching of evolution in public schools. John Scopes was tried for violating the Butler Act, a state rule that declared unlawful any teaching that denied the creation of man according to the Bible. The highly publicized event put an intense spotlight on William Jennings Bryan, a populist presidential candidate and religious fundamentalist who was counsel for the government, and on Clarence Darrow, a liberal agnostic and social justice advocate who defended Scopes.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

When being unattractive is an advantage: effects of face perception on intuitive culpability judgments.

Psychiatr Psychol Law

January 2024

Department of Psychology, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogota, Colombia.

This experiment explored the influence of facial attractiveness and trustworthiness on guilty judgments. We recruited 128 participants, randomly assigned to high and low time pressure conditions to act as judges in a simulated case. Participants judged nine male faces from the Chicago Face Database with three attractiveness levels (unattractive, neutral and attractive), featuring a 2 × 3 mixed factorial design, with consistent standardized average levels of face trustworthiness.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF
Article Synopsis
  • - The study examined how child and expert witness testimonies influence mock jurors' views on a self-defense case involving a woman who killed her husband during a fight, using a 3x3 design with different expert witness types and child witness ages.
  • - Mock jurors who heard expert testimony on Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) perceived the defendant as more guilty, especially when an 8-year-old child testified, leading to harsher sentencing compared to cases with a younger child or no child witness.
  • - Despite jurors viewing the defendant as more fearful in the BWS condition, this did not affect their sentencing decisions, highlighting the complex dynamics of expert testimony and child witnesses in domestic violence cases.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Introduction: Evidence in child abuse cases can be scarce and is often centred around the child's testimony. However, child testimony varies with the child's development. Here, an overview of suspects, case decisions and court verdicts from a cohort of children is presented, stratified across children aged 0-3, 4-7, 8-11, and 12-15 years.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!