The Influence of Limiting Instructions on Processing and Judgments of Emotionally Evocative Evidence

Most jury instructions are issued after all the evidence has been presented in a trial; however, some are given during the trial. When gruesome photographs form part of the evidence in criminal culpability proceedings, the judge will usually instruct jurors to be dispassionate in examining the evidence. This study investigated whether time of presentation affects the ability of limiting instructions to cure the potentially prejudicial effects of gruesome photographic evidence by measuring the emotions, cognitions and verdicts of 108 mock jurors in a simulated murder trial. Pre-instructed participants processed evidence in the defendant's favour and rendered significantly fewer convictions than did post-instructed participants and those who received no limiting instructions. Gruesome photographs did not bias processing of other items in evidence or verdicts, although they elicited significantly greater victim compassion and crime negativity than did neutral photographs. Results suggest that jury instructions are more conducive to compliance when presented early in the evidence-processing task than when presented late.

[1]  D. Wegner,et al.  The Transparency of Denial: Briefing in the Debriefing Paradigm , 1985 .

[2]  L. Wrightsman,et al.  The Effects of Opening Statements on Mock Jurors' Verdicts in a Simulated Criminal Trial1 , 1981 .

[3]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  A new look at anchoring effects: basic anchoring and its antecedents. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[4]  D M Wegner,et al.  Ironic processes in the mental control of mood and mood-related thought. , 1993, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[5]  Jane Goodman-Delahunty,et al.  The Influence of Gruesome Verbal Evidence on Mock Juror Verdicts , 2004 .

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

[7]  S. Kassin,et al.  Blood and Guts: General and Trial-Specific Effects of Videotaped Crime Scenes on Mock Jurors , 1991 .

[8]  J. Forgas.  Mood and judgment: the affect infusion model (AIM). , 1995, Psychological bulletin.

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

[10]  F. A. Blanchard,et al.  Effects of Photographic Evidence on Mock Juror Judgement1 , 1982 .

[11]  Dieter Frey,et al.  Different levels of cognitive dissonance, information seeking, and information avoidance. , 1982 .

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

[13]  A. Campbell.  COURTS ON TRIAL , 1950 .

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

[15]  The effect of jury deliberations on jurors' propensity to disregard inadmissible evidence. , 2000 .

[16]  Mueller.  Federal Rules of Evidence , 1995 .

[17]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. , 1977 .

[18]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Mental contamination and mental correction: unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. , 1994, Psychological bulletin.

[19]  Daniel M. Wegner,et al.  The hyperaccessibility of suppressed thoughts. , 1992 .

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

[21]  N. Pennington,et al.  The story model for juror decision making , 1993 .

[22]  Owen J. Roberts,et al.  Courts on Trial , 1949 .

[23]  K. Douglas,et al.  The Impact of Graphic Photographic Evidence on Mock Jurors' Decisions in a Murder Trial: Probative or Prejudicial? , 1997, Law and human behavior.

[24]  Neil Brewer,et al.  Effects of mood and emotion on juror processing and judgments. , 2002, Behavioral sciences & the law.

[25]  R. Simon.  Murder, juries, and the press , 1966 .

[26]  N. Nuñez,et al.  The effect of jury deliberations on jurors' propensity to disregard inadmissible evidence. , 2000, The Journal of applied psychology.

[27]  V. L. Smith.  Impact of pretrial instruction on jurors' information processing and decision making , 1991 .

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

[29]  G. Clore.  Cognitive phenomenology: Feelings and the construction of judgment. , 1992 .

[30]  S. Sue,et al.  Authoritarianism, Pretrial Publicity, and Awareness of Bias in Simulated Jurors , 1975, Psychological reports.

[31]  Joel D. Lieberman,et al.  Understanding the limits of limiting instructions: Social psychological explanations for the failures of instructions to disregard pretrial publicity and other inadmissible evidence. , 2000 .

[32]  J. E. Russo,et al.  Biased interpretation of evidence by mock jurors. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

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

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

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

[36]  R. Zajonc.  Feeling and thinking : Preferences need no inferences , 1980 .

[37]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  Discrete emotions and persuasion: the role of emotion-induced expectancies. , 2004, Journal of personality and social psychology.

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