Effective? |
Judges often instruct jurors to “disregard” certain inadmissible information presented at trial. How effective is such an instruction? How realistic is it for jurors to disregard
information after they have heard it, especially if the information is
incendiary? Even if the information is not discussed during deliberations, is
it possible for the information not to affect the outcome?
A 1988 experiment
conducted at Northwestern University measuring the effect of such instructions
on jury awards yielded very interesting results. The mock jurors were divided
into thirds and were asked to awarded damages in a mock trial where a police
officer was sued for illegally searching the plaintiff.
- The first third of jurors learned that the allegedly illegal search turned up wrongdoing by the plaintiff and were instructed to disregard it by the judge.
- The second third heard that no evidence of wrongdoing was apparent.
- The final third did not receive information on the outcome of the search.
- Perhaps unsurprisingly, “[j]urors who learned that the search had turned up wrongdoing were unable to disregard that information, even when ordered to do so.” In fact, in mock cases where jurors learned that a plaintiff was in possession of heroin, punitive damages were awarded only 38% of the time, which is 23-24% less than the other two thirds who learned the victim was innocent or knew nothing at all.
- Why?: Professor Casper (who led the research) determined from post-mock trial interviews that the jurors’ decisions were “probably the result of an unconscious interpretation and recall testimony of the trial" because knowing the plaintiff was guilty of wrongdoing "affected the jurors' recollection of lawyers' arguments" and other information.
Significantly, the study discussed the rationale
behind juror failure to follow instructions to disregard inadmissible evidence.
When the reason for rejection of inadmissible evidence is inadequate, a jury is
more likely to allow the evidence to impact the outcome. However, when the judge
explains his reasoning behind the rejection, the inadmissible evidence has a
smaller impact on the outcome.[1]
This suggests that a solution to the negative effects of inadmissible evidence is simply to
provide adequate justification to the jury for striking evidence. For example,
a judge should explain that the evidence is irrelevant to the case or is unfair
or manipulative.
However, this may not be sufficient. A 1997
studying measuring jurors’ response to different categories of inadmissible
evidence found that “jurors comply with an instruction to disregard when
evidence is inadmissible due to a lack of credibility but not when it is
excluded due to a legal technicality.” Thus,
the “attribution” for the judge’s ruling has a psychological impact on the
jury, whether or not the jurors may be aware of that fact.[2]
What is the solution in that type of
situation, then, when a piece of evidence must be disregarded for procedural
reasons? Well, if you’ve read my previous
blog post on the rapidly shrinking attention span of jurors, hopefully nobody was paying attention in the first place.
[1] Nancy, Steblay, Harmon M. Hosch, Scott E. Culhane,
& Adam McWethy, The Impact on Juror Verdicts of Judicial
Instruction to Disregard Inadmissible Evidence: A Meta-Analysis, 30,
Law and Human
Behavior, 469, 487 (2006).
[2]
Saul M. Kassin & Samuel R. Sommers, Inadmissible
Testimony, Instructions to Disregard, and the Jury: Substantive Versus
Procedural Considerations, 23 PSPB 1046, 1051 (1997).
No comments:
Post a Comment