Inadmissible Testimony, Instructions to Disregard, and the Jury: Substantive Versus Procedural Considerations

The present study tested the hypothesis that jurors comply selectively with instructions to disregard inadmissible evidence. A total of 81 mock jurors read a murder trial summary in which a wiretap was ruled admissible, inadmissible because it was not reliable, or inadmissible because it was illegally obtained (there was also a no-wiretap control group). As predicted, participants were more likely to vote guilty and interpret subsequent evidence as more incriminating in the admissible and inadmissible/due-process conditions than in the admissible/unreliable and control groups. These results suggest that jurors are influenced not by the judge's ruling per se but by the causal basis for that ruling. Conceptual and practical implications are discussed.

[1]  Jonathan M. Golding,et al.  Intentional forgetting: Interdisciplinary approaches. , 1998 .

[2]  S. Fein,et al.  Can the Jury Disregard that Information? The Use of Suspicion to Reduce the Prejudicial Effects of Pretrial Publicity and Inadmissible Testimony , 1997 .

[3]  K. Edwards,et al.  Judgmental Biases Produced by Instructions to Disregard: The (Paradoxical) Case of Emotional Information , 1997 .

[4]  S. Fein.  Effects of suspicion on attributional thinking and the correspondence bias , 1996 .

[5]  R. Schuller.  Expert evidence and hearsay , 1995 .

[6]  K. Pickel.  Inducing jurors to disregard inadmissible evidence: A legal explanation does not help , 1995 .

[7]  Edith Greene,et al.  The influence of prior record evidence on juror decision making , 1995 .

[8]  Hollyn M. Johnson,et al.  Processes of successful intentional forgetting. , 1994 .

[9]  S. Penrod,et al.  The biasing impact of pretrial publicity on juror judgments , 1994 .

[10]  J. Golding,et al.  When Instructions to Forget Become Instructions to Remember , 1994 .

[11]  D. R. Shaffer,et al.  Mock Jurors Versus Mock Juries: The Role of Deliberations in Reactions to Inadmissible Testimony , 1994 .

[12]  N. Pennington,et al.  Explaining the evidence: Tests of the Story Model for juror decision making. , 1992 .

[13]  I. Horowitz,et al.  Changing views of jury power , 1991 .

[14]  N. Kerr,et al.  Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies, and jury bias , 1990 .

[15]  S. Kassin,et al.  Dirty tricks of cross-examination , 1990 .

[16]  Y. Schul,et al.  The effects of type of encoding and strength of discounting appeal on the success of ignoring an invalid testimony , 1990 .

[17]  D. K. Kagehiro.  Defining the Standard of Proof in Jury Instructions , 1990 .

[18]  Dale T. Miller,et al.  Suspicion of ulterior motivation and the correspondence bias. , 1990, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[19]  D. Long,et al.  Instructions to disregard potentially useful information: The effects of pragmatics on evaluative judgments and recall , 1990 .

[20]  R. Elliott,et al.  Eyewitnesses Credible and Discredible1 , 1988 .

[21]  L. Wrightsman,et al.  The American Jury on Trial: Psychological Perspectives , 1988 .

[22]  E. Burnstein,et al.  When discounting fails: Conditions under which individuals use discredited information in making a judgment. , 1985 .

[23]  Roselle L. Wissler,et al.  On the inefficacy of limiting instructions , 1985 .

[24]  C. Haney.  On the selection of capital juries , 1984 .

[25]  Robert Fitzgerald,et al.  Due process vs. crime control , 1984 .

[26]  R. Moreland,et al.  The Direct and Indirect Effects of Inadmissible Evidence1 , 1983 .

[27]  R. Baron,et al.  The Discredible Eyewitness , 1982 .

[28]  J. Brehm.  A theory of psychological reactance. , 1981 .

[29]  Norbert L. Kerr,et al.  Social transition schemes: Charting the group's road to agreement. , 1981 .

[30]  G. T. Fong,et al.  Inadmissible evidence and juror verdicts. , 1981 .

[31]  F. Strack,et al.  The Impact of A Discredited Key Witness , 1980 .

[32]  L. Ross,et al.  Perseverance of Social Theories: The Role of Explanation in the Persistence of Discredited Information , 1980 .

[33]  A. Cavoukian,et al.  The Effects of a Judge's Charge and Subsequent Re-Charge on Judgements of Guilt , 1980 .

[34]  L. Wrightsman,et al.  On the requirements of proof: The timing of judicial instruction and mock juror verdicts. , 1979 .

[35]  S. Wolf,et al.  Effects of Inadmissible Evidence and Level of Judicial Admonishment to Disregard on the Judgments of Mock Jurors1 , 1977 .

[36]  Ronald E. Smith,et al.  Effects of inadmissible Evidence on the Decisions of Simulated Jurors: A Moral Dilemma , 1973 .

[37]  M. Kadish,et al.  The Institutionalization of Conflict: Jury Acquittals , 1971 .

[38]  W. H. Charles,et al.  The Limits of the Criminal Sanction , 1968 .

[39]  Sidney Zagri.  Free press, fair trial , 1967 .

[40]  H. Zeisel,et al.  The American Jury , 1966 .

[41]  J. Frank.  Law and the modern mind , 1931 .

[42]  Christopher B. Mueller,et al.  Modern evidence : doctrine and practice , 1995 .

[43]  D. Wegner.  Ironic processes of mental control. , 1994, Psychological review.

[44]  Hollyn M. Johnson,et al.  Sources of the continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences. , 1994 .

[45]  Yaacov Schul,et al.  When warning succeeds: The effect of warning on success in ignoring invalid information. , 1993 .

[46]  J. Darley,et al.  A hypothesis-confirming bias in labeling effects. , 1983 .

[47]  Dale W. Broeder.  The University of Chicago Jury Project , 1959 .