Can Jurors Disregard Inadmissible Evidence? Using the Multiphase Optimization Strategy to Test Interventions Derived from Cognitive and Social Psychological Theories
Inadmissible evidence generally biases jurors toward guilty verdicts; jurors who hear inadmissible evidence are more likely to convict than jurors not exposed to inadmissible evidence—even when <i>admissible</i> evidence is constant. When inadmissible evidence is introduced, the common l...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2024-12-01
|
| Series: | Behavioral Sciences |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/15/1/7 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832589130684432384 |
|---|---|
| author | Pamela N. Sandberg Tess M. S. Neal Karey L. O’Hara |
| author_facet | Pamela N. Sandberg Tess M. S. Neal Karey L. O’Hara |
| author_sort | Pamela N. Sandberg |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Inadmissible evidence generally biases jurors toward guilty verdicts; jurors who hear inadmissible evidence are more likely to convict than jurors not exposed to inadmissible evidence—even when <i>admissible</i> evidence is constant. When inadmissible evidence is introduced, the common legal remedy is judicial instructions to jurors to disregard it. Appeals courts repeatedly affirm instructions to disregard as a sufficient safeguard of defendants’ constitutional rights, despite research finding that jurors do not disregard when instructed. The goals of this research were to (1) test the main and interactive effects of four theory-driven candidate strategies to help jurors disregard inadmissible evidence (i.e., inducing suspicion, giving a substantive reason for disregarding, committing to disregarding, advising future jurors) and identify an optimized intervention package, and (2) evaluate whether adding the optimized intervention package showed more favorable effects than judicial instructions only. Study 1 used a 2<sup>4</sup> full factorial randomized controlled trial to evaluate the four candidate intervention strategies. A synergistic interaction among the candidate components suggested an optimized intervention package comprising all four interventions. Study 2 used a parallel four-arm randomized controlled trial to compare conviction rates in the same hypothetical murder trial under four conditions: (1) no exposure to inadmissible evidence, (2) exposure to inadmissible evidence without objection, (3) exposure to inadmissible evidence + judicial instructions (“standard practice”), and (4) exposure + judicial instructions + optimized intervention package. Across both studies, mock jurors who received the optimized intervention package returned significantly lower conviction rates than comparison conditions. These findings show early promise that novel intervention strategies may assist jurors in disregarding inadmissible evidence. Interpretation, limitations, and calls to action are discussed. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-8dfd2f7801844c2787635db821576713 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2076-328X |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-12-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Behavioral Sciences |
| spelling | doaj-art-8dfd2f7801844c2787635db8215767132025-01-24T13:22:35ZengMDPI AGBehavioral Sciences2076-328X2024-12-01151710.3390/bs15010007Can Jurors Disregard Inadmissible Evidence? Using the Multiphase Optimization Strategy to Test Interventions Derived from Cognitive and Social Psychological TheoriesPamela N. Sandberg0Tess M. S. Neal1Karey L. O’Hara2New College of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, Arizona State University, Glendale, AZ 85306, USADepartment of Psychology, Iowa State University, 1347 Lagomarcino Hall, 901 Stange Rd., Ames, IA 50011, USANew College of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, Arizona State University, Glendale, AZ 85306, USAInadmissible evidence generally biases jurors toward guilty verdicts; jurors who hear inadmissible evidence are more likely to convict than jurors not exposed to inadmissible evidence—even when <i>admissible</i> evidence is constant. When inadmissible evidence is introduced, the common legal remedy is judicial instructions to jurors to disregard it. Appeals courts repeatedly affirm instructions to disregard as a sufficient safeguard of defendants’ constitutional rights, despite research finding that jurors do not disregard when instructed. The goals of this research were to (1) test the main and interactive effects of four theory-driven candidate strategies to help jurors disregard inadmissible evidence (i.e., inducing suspicion, giving a substantive reason for disregarding, committing to disregarding, advising future jurors) and identify an optimized intervention package, and (2) evaluate whether adding the optimized intervention package showed more favorable effects than judicial instructions only. Study 1 used a 2<sup>4</sup> full factorial randomized controlled trial to evaluate the four candidate intervention strategies. A synergistic interaction among the candidate components suggested an optimized intervention package comprising all four interventions. Study 2 used a parallel four-arm randomized controlled trial to compare conviction rates in the same hypothetical murder trial under four conditions: (1) no exposure to inadmissible evidence, (2) exposure to inadmissible evidence without objection, (3) exposure to inadmissible evidence + judicial instructions (“standard practice”), and (4) exposure + judicial instructions + optimized intervention package. Across both studies, mock jurors who received the optimized intervention package returned significantly lower conviction rates than comparison conditions. These findings show early promise that novel intervention strategies may assist jurors in disregarding inadmissible evidence. Interpretation, limitations, and calls to action are discussed.https://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/15/1/7jurorinadmissible evidencemental controlpsychological reactanceprejudicialmultiphase optimization strategy |
| spellingShingle | Pamela N. Sandberg Tess M. S. Neal Karey L. O’Hara Can Jurors Disregard Inadmissible Evidence? Using the Multiphase Optimization Strategy to Test Interventions Derived from Cognitive and Social Psychological Theories Behavioral Sciences juror inadmissible evidence mental control psychological reactance prejudicial multiphase optimization strategy |
| title | Can Jurors Disregard Inadmissible Evidence? Using the Multiphase Optimization Strategy to Test Interventions Derived from Cognitive and Social Psychological Theories |
| title_full | Can Jurors Disregard Inadmissible Evidence? Using the Multiphase Optimization Strategy to Test Interventions Derived from Cognitive and Social Psychological Theories |
| title_fullStr | Can Jurors Disregard Inadmissible Evidence? Using the Multiphase Optimization Strategy to Test Interventions Derived from Cognitive and Social Psychological Theories |
| title_full_unstemmed | Can Jurors Disregard Inadmissible Evidence? Using the Multiphase Optimization Strategy to Test Interventions Derived from Cognitive and Social Psychological Theories |
| title_short | Can Jurors Disregard Inadmissible Evidence? Using the Multiphase Optimization Strategy to Test Interventions Derived from Cognitive and Social Psychological Theories |
| title_sort | can jurors disregard inadmissible evidence using the multiphase optimization strategy to test interventions derived from cognitive and social psychological theories |
| topic | juror inadmissible evidence mental control psychological reactance prejudicial multiphase optimization strategy |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/15/1/7 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT pamelansandberg canjurorsdisregardinadmissibleevidenceusingthemultiphaseoptimizationstrategytotestinterventionsderivedfromcognitiveandsocialpsychologicaltheories AT tessmsneal canjurorsdisregardinadmissibleevidenceusingthemultiphaseoptimizationstrategytotestinterventionsderivedfromcognitiveandsocialpsychologicaltheories AT kareylohara canjurorsdisregardinadmissibleevidenceusingthemultiphaseoptimizationstrategytotestinterventionsderivedfromcognitiveandsocialpsychologicaltheories |