Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T18:28:11.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part III - Trial Phase Decision-Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2024

Edited by
Monica K. Miller ,
Logan A. Yelderman ,
Matthew T. Huss  and
Jason A. Cantone
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
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
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

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
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
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
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
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/lhb0000234Google 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
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
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

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×