4973384
| Question | Answer |
| Aim 1 | To look at the effect of prior convictions |
| Aim 2 | To examine how much credibility of the witness affects jurors' ability to ignore inadmissible statements |
| Aim 3 | To look at the role of the judges' instructions when they were followed by a legal explanation |
| Method | Experiment - mock trial of fictional theft Critical evidence introduced ''by accident'' by witness Item objected to by attorney then either allowed or overruled - Former ruling meant it was inadmissible, and was sometimes supported by legal explanation from the judge - it might be suggestive of bad character and bias the jury |
| Participants | 236 Ball State University Psychology Students Participated as part of course requirement Assigned randomly to one condition |
| Procedure | Listened to audiotape of trial then did questionnaire asking decisions on: - Verdict - Estimate of probable guilt of defendant - Extent on a 10-point scale how much knowledge of prior conviction made them think the defendant was guilty Control Group did not get critical evidence Calling attention to inadmissible evidence makes it harder for people to ignore -> ''backfire effect'' |
| Results | No significant effect on use of prior conviction evidence as measured by 10-point scale Those without explanation were able to follow instructions and ignore evidence Those who heard it were more likely to find defendant guilty No evidence to support idea that witness credibility effects jurors' ability to disregard inadmissible evidence |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.