NCJ Number
156498
Journal
Law and Human Behavior Volume: 19 Issue: 4 Dated: (August 1995) Pages: 407-424
Date Published
1995
Length
18 pages
Annotation
Three experiments investigated the ability of mock jurors to disregard inadmissible prior conviction evidence and hearsay.
Abstract
In the first two experiments, college students listened to an audiotape enacting a theft trial. Critical evidence favored the prosecution and was objected to by the defense. In three different conditions, the judge either ruled the evidence admissible, ruled it inadmissible, or ruled it inadmissible and explained the legal basis for the ruling. In a fourth condition, no critical evidence was presented. Critical witness credibility was also manipulated. The legal explanation backfired with prior conviction evidence but not with hearsay evidence. In addition, critical witness credibility did not affect the ability of subjects to disregard inadmissible evidence. The hypothesis of the third experiment was that participants held different views about prior conviction and hearsay evidence. Results of this experiment suggested that the legal explanation may have affected the use of hearsay and prior conviction evidence differently because of subjects' dissimilar preconceptions of the fairness of using the two evidence items to assess guilt. 18 references and 2 tables