Verdict spotting: investigating the effects of juror bias, evidence anchors and verdict system in jurors

Lee J. Curley*, Jennifer Murray, Rory MacLean, James Munro, Martin Lages, Lara A. Frumkin, Phyllis Laybourn, David Brown

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

6 Citations (Scopus)
14 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The Scottish verdict of not proven represents a second acquittal verdict which is not legally defined. Existing research into the influence of the not proven verdict on jury decision making is modest. The main aim of the current study was therefore to investigate the influence of verdict systems (two vs three) on juror decision making. The effect of pre-trial bias and evidence anchors on juror judgements were also examined. One-hundred and twenty-eight mock jurors listened to two homicide vignettes and were asked to rate their belief of guilt of the accused and to give a verdict in both trials. The results suggest that pre-trial bias was a significant predictor of both verdict choice and belief of guilt, whereas evidence anchors were not a significant predictor of either. Finally, both guilty and not guilty verdicts were given with increased frequency in the two-verdict system when compared to the three-verdict system.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)323-344
Number of pages22
JournalPsychiatry, Psychology and Law
Volume29
Issue number3
Early online date4 May 2021
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2022
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • anchoring and adjustment
  • decision science
  • heuristics
  • juror decision-making
  • not proven verdict
  • pre-trial biases
  • verdict systems

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Psychology (miscellaneous)
  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Law

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Verdict spotting: investigating the effects of juror bias, evidence anchors and verdict system in jurors'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this