Defendant characteristics (e.g., facial tattoos) influence juror decision making but effects of defendant characteristics and case information have received less attention. We explored perceptions of facially tattooed defendants in multidefendant trials involving information about gang affiliation. Participants (N = 259; Experiment 1) read a vignette detailing a convenience store robbery, either with or without information about gang affiliation. Mock jurors were then presented with a photograph of each defendant-either with or without facial tattoos-for which they rated the likelihood of guilt, rendered a verdict, indicated confidence, rated the likelihood of recidivism, and provided a sentence recommendation. Facial tattoos increased perceptions of guilt, guilty verdicts, confidence in verdicts, and sentencing punitiveness, but the presence of gang information did not. However, mock jurors were more likely to convict, perceived defendants to be more guilty and more likely to reoffend when they received information about gang affiliation and defendants had facial tattoos. Protective measures are needed for defendants with facial tattoos, especially when information about gang affiliation is also presented in court. To develop safeguards, we proposed, and explored, the concept of masked trials (i.e., not visually presenting the defendants to jurors; Experiment 2). Our results suggest mock jurors were less likely to convict when the trial was masked compared with when facially tattooed defendants were visible, regardless if gang information was present or absent. These findings highlight the potential for masked trials to serve as a protective measure against juror biases in the courtroom.
Child sexual abuse (CSA) prosecutions often hinge on the perceived credibility of the alleged child victim, especially when corroborating evidence is lacking. Myths and misconceptions about how CSA unfolds, children's cognitive abilities, and their susceptibility to suggestive influences further undermine credibility, influencing jury verdicts. Researchers analyzing CSA trials have found that attorneys commonly question alleged victims to assess credibility. Questioning maps onto several dimensions: the child's cognitive ability and memory for events, their honesty and suggestive influences, the plausibility of how the abuse unfolded and the child's reaction, and the consistency of their statements. The purpose of the current study was to assess which of these dimensions most influence jurors' belief in the child's testimony and their verdicts. We presented mock jurors with testimony from real CSA trials and assessed their perceptions of credibility across four dimensions-memory and cognitive ability, honesty and suggestive influences, plausibility, and consistency. We further explored whether these dimensions had different associations with jurors' belief in the child and their verdicts. Plausibility had the largest association with belief, and it was the only credibility dimension that statistically significantly increased the likelihood of a guilty verdict. These findings suggest that different dimensions of credibility may influence juror decision-making in distinct ways. Attorneys questioning children in court may consider emphasizing the credibility dimensions that have the greatest impact on jury verdicts, namely plausibility and, to a lesser extent, memory/cognition. Attorneys should also assess jurors' CSA misconceptions during empanelment and introduce expert testimony to debunk myths.
Evaluations of youths' adjudicative competence are increasingly common in juvenile court proceedings. These evaluations help ensure that youth can participate in the adjudicative process by assessing their understanding of the court proceedings and their ability to assist in their defense. Using data extracted from 357 juvenile court competency to stand trial evaluations, this study explored the associations between demographic, legal, clinical/historical, and diagnostic variables and specific functional capacities (i.e., understanding of court personnel and proceedings, and abilities to participate in the court process) based on the content of the Juvenile Adjudicative Competence Interview (JACI; Grisso, 2005). We also examined how youths' overall understanding and ability were associated with evaluator opinions and judges' findings about competency to stand trial. After adjusting for multiple comparisons, we found that intellectual disability was significantly associated with poor performance across all 14 functional capacities. In addition, having a history of special education, other cognitive concerns (e.g., learning disorders), and younger age were associated with multiple deficits in functional capacities. Evaluator opinions were best explained by JACI understanding and ability mean scores as well as prior arrest and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; judges' decisions were best explained by evaluator opinions supplemented with JACI understanding and ability mean scores. Results highlight the importance of assessing relevant functional capacities when examining how age, diagnosis, and other clinical/historical factors predict youths' adjudicative competence.
