Court battle
Perceived Masculinity Predicts U.S. Supreme Court Outcomes
Daniel Chen, Yosh Halberstam & Alan Yu
PLoS ONE, October 2016
Abstract:
Previous studies suggest a significant role of language in the court room, yet none has identified a definitive correlation between vocal characteristics and court outcomes. This paper demonstrates that voice-based snap judgments based solely on the introductory sentence of lawyers arguing in front of the Supreme Court of the United States predict outcomes in the Court. In this study, participants rated the opening statement of male advocates arguing before the Supreme Court between 1998 and 2012 in terms of masculinity, attractiveness, confidence, intelligence, trustworthiness, and aggressiveness. We found significant correlation between vocal characteristics and court outcomes and the correlation is specific to perceived masculinity even when judgment of masculinity is based only on less than three seconds of exposure to a lawyer’s speech sample. Specifically, male advocates are more likely to win when they are perceived as less masculine. No other personality dimension predicts court outcomes. While this study does not aim to establish any causal connections, our findings suggest that vocal characteristics may be relevant in even as solemn a setting as the Supreme Court of the United States.
---------------------
Judging Expertise: Gender and the Negotiation of Expert Authority in Courts
Timothy O’Brien
Social Currents, December 2016, Pages 315-331
Abstract:
This article develops a framework for understanding the role of gender in negotiations of expert authority and tests the new approach with an analysis of legal disputes about expert witness credibility (N = 435). Content-coded data from patent infringement, civil rights, and medical malpractice lawsuits in U.S. district courts indicate that lawyers’ challenges to expert witnesses’ credibility reflect widely held cultural beliefs about gender and certain kinds of expertise: whereas women are more likely than men to be challenged as unqualified to testify, men are more likely than women to be contested as irrelevant to the case. Furthermore, although highly credentialed women and men have equal chances of overcoming credibility challenges, women with fewer credentials are substantially more likely than men to be excluded from court. Overall, findings suggest that women must clear a higher bar than men to demonstrate their credibility as expert witnesses. Moreover, this study indicates that disputes about expert witness credibility are a site where stereotypes about gender and expertise are reproduced in the justice system.
---------------------
Melody Valdini & Christopher Shortell
Political Research Quarterly, December 2016, Pages 865-876
Abstract:
The presence of women justices in the highest constitutional courts varies significantly across countries, yet there is little existing research that engages this substantial cross-national variation. Using an original data set of women’s representation in the constitutional courts in fifty democracies combined with qualitative case studies, we assess the effect of the selection mechanism on this variation and find that the existence of a “sheltered” versus “exposed” selection mechanism is a critical determinant of women’s presence. That is, when the selectors are sheltered from electoral accountability, they are less likely to select women as judges because they do not benefit from credit claiming. When the selectors are exposed and can claim credit, however, the unique traits and visibility of the highest court generate an incentive to appoint women.
---------------------
Emotional Judges and Unlucky Juveniles
Ozkan Eren & Naci Mocan
NBER Working Paper, September 2016
Abstract:
Employing the universe of juvenile court decisions in a U.S. state between 1996 and 2012, we analyze the effects of emotional shocks associated with unexpected outcomes of football games played by a prominent college team in the state. We investigate the behavior of judges, the conduct of whom should, by law, be free of personal biases and emotions. We find that unexpected losses increase disposition (sentence) lengths assigned by judges during the week following the game. Unexpected wins, or losses that were expected to be close contests ex-ante, have no impact. The effects of these emotional shocks are asymmetrically borne by black defendants. We present evidence that the results are not influenced by defendant or attorney behavior or by defendants’ economic background. Importantly, the results are driven by judges who have received their bachelor’s degrees from the university with which the football team is affiliated. Different falsification tests and a number of auxiliary analyses demonstrate the robustness of the findings. These results provide evidence for the impact of emotions in one domain on a behavior in a completely unrelated domain among a uniformly highly-educated group of individuals (judges), with decisions involving high stakes (sentence lengths). They also point to the existence of a subtle and previously-unnoticed capricious application of sentencing.
---------------------
The Unintended Impact of Pretrial Detention on Case Outcomes: Evidence from NYC Arraignments
Emily Leslie & Nolan Pope
University of Chicago Working Paper, July 2016
Abstract:
In the United States, over 400,000 individuals are in jail each day waiting for their criminal cases to be resolved. The majority of these individuals are detained pretrial due to the inability to post low levels of bail (less than $3,000). We estimate the impact of being detained pretrial on the likelihood of an individual being convicted or pleading guilty, and their sentence length, using data on nearly a million misdemeanor and felony cases in New York City from 2009 to 2013. Causal effects are identified using variation across arraignment judges in their propensities to detain defendants. We find that being detained increases the probability of conviction by causing individuals to plead guilty more often. Because pretrial detention is driven by failure to post bail, these adverse effect disproportionately hurt low-income individuals.
---------------------
Steve Charman et al.
Behavioral Sciences & the Law, forthcoming
Abstract:
Some innocent suspects rely on the memory of strangers to corroborate their alibis. However, no research has examined whether such potential alibi corroborators can accurately recognize an innocent suspect with whom they previously interacted. We developed a novel alibi corroboration paradigm in which undergraduate students (representing innocent suspects who would later provide an alibi) interacted with naïve university employees (representing potential alibi corroborators). Each student briefly interacted with a different naïve university employee (n = 60), and were also each yoked to a different employee with whom they did not interact (n = 60). Employees were presented 24 hours later with either a single photograph of the student or a six-person array containing a photograph of the student and were asked if they recognized anyone. The majority of employees failed to make a correct recognition of the student. False recognitions, however, were rare. Students exhibited overconfidence that they would be recognized. Findings imply that innocent suspects who rely on strangers to corroborate their alibis may be at risk.
---------------------
Kerri Pickel & Rachel Gentry
Psychology, Crime & Law, forthcoming
Abstract:
We examined mock jurors’ judgments in a rape case that was either prototypical (late-night assault by a stranger in a public place) or non-prototypical (daytime assault by an acquaintance in a private home). We also varied the psychological harm experienced by the victim as a result of the rape (mild anxiety or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)). We hypothesized that participants’ expectations regarding the level of harm the victim is likely to experience would mediate the effect of harm level on ratings of the victim’s credibility, and this indirect effect would be contingent on the prototypicality of the case. In a pilot experiment we demonstrated that people expect prototypical rape cases to be more traumatic for victims than non-prototypical cases. In the main experiment, and as predicted, participants in the Prototypical condition expected the victim to develop PTSD more than mild anxiety, but Non-Prototypical condition participants expected the opposite. In addition, a level of harm that was consistent rather than inconsistent with their expectations led participants to rate the victim as more credible; they also rated her as less responsible for what happened, and they thought the defendant was more likely guilty and that he should be incarcerated for a longer period of time.
---------------------
The Impact of Neighborhood Status on Imprisonment for Firearm Offenses
Joshua Williams & Richard Rosenfeld
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, November 2016, Pages 383-400
Abstract:
Burgeoning research on criminal case processing has revealed persistent effects of the race and ethnicity of defendants on case outcomes up to and including imprisonment. But prior studies have devoted relatively little attention to how the characteristics of the communities in which crimes are committed affect imprisonment and antecedent legal outcomes such as bail amount and pretrial detention. Guided by the group threat and focal concerns perspectives, the current study examines the impact of community racial and socioeconomic composition on the likelihood that African American male defendants are sentenced to prison rather than probation for firearm offenses in a large Midwestern city. We find that defendants arrested in neighborhoods with higher proportions of non-poor residents received higher bail and, in turn, spent more time in jail and were more likely to be sentenced to prison than those arrested in lower status neighborhoods. We find no significant effect of neighborhood racial composition on bail, pretrial confinement, or imprisonment. We recommend that the community context of crime receive high priority in future research on the impact of extralegal factors on imprisonment.
---------------------
Evaluating the Effects of Multiple Opinion Rationales on Supreme Court Legitimacy
Chris Bonneau et al.
American Politics Research, forthcoming
Abstract:
The literature on the U.S. Supreme Court has paid substantial attention to the perceived legitimacy of the Court’s decisions. However, much less attention has been paid to the perceived legitimacy of the reasons the Court provides for its opinions. We design two experiments to understand how the public perceives opinion content. Unlike prior studies, we take it as a given that the Court uses legal reasons in its decisions. This offers us a baseline by which to compare departures from these legal reasons. We find that extralegal reasons, when paired with legal reasons, do nothing to harm the legitimacy of the Court. Furthermore, we find that even with a lack of legal reasons, the use of extralegal reasons does not harm the legitimacy of the Court, even among those who find that these reasons are inappropriate for the Court to use.
---------------------
Evidentiary, Extraevidentiary, and Deliberation Process Predictors of Real Jury Verdicts
Dennis Devine et al.
Law and Human Behavior, forthcoming
Abstract:
In contrast to the extensive literature based on mock jurors, large-sample studies of decision making by real juries are relatively rare. In this field study, we examined relationships between jury verdicts and variables representing 3 classes of potential determinants — evidentiary, extraevidentiary, and deliberation process — using a sample of 114 criminal jury trials. Posttrial data were collected from 11 presiding judges, 31 attorneys, and 367 jurors using a Web-based questionnaire. The strength of the prosecution’s evidence was strongly related to the occurrence of a conviction, whereas most extraevidentiary and deliberation process variables were only weakly to modestly related in bivariate form and when the prosecution’s evidence strength was controlled. Notable exceptions to this pattern were jury demographic diversity as represented by the number of different race-gender subgroups (e.g., Black males) present in the jury, and several deliberation process variables reflecting advocacy for acquittal (e.g., presence of an identifiable proacquittal faction within the jury and proacquittal advocacy by the foreperson). Variables reflecting advocacy for conviction were essentially unrelated to jury verdict. Sets of extraevidentiary and deliberation variables were each able to modestly improve the explanation of jury verdicts over prosecution evidence strength in multivariate models. This study highlights the predictive efficacy of prosecution evidence strength with respect to jury verdicts, as well as the potential importance of jury demographic diversity and advocacy for acquittal during deliberation.
---------------------
Curt Carlson et al.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, forthcoming
Abstract:
Crimes can occur in a matter of seconds, with little time available for an eyewitness to encode a perpetrator's face. The presence of a weapon can further exacerbate this situation. Few studies have featured mock crimes of short duration, especially with a weapon manipulation. We conducted an experiment to investigate the impact of weapon presence and short perpetrator exposure times (3 vs. 10 seconds) on eyewitness confidence and accuracy. We found that recall concerning the perpetrator was worse when a weapon was present, replicating the weapon focus effect. However, there was no effect on eyewitness identification accuracy. Calibration analyses revealed that all conditions produced a strong confidence–accuracy relationship. Confidence–accuracy characteristic curves illustrated almost perfect accuracy for suspect identifications at the highest levels of confidence. We conclude that weapon presence during a brief crime does not necessarily result in negative consequences for either eyewitness identification accuracy or the confidence–accuracy relationship.
---------------------
Stephanie Madon et al.
Law and Human Behavior, forthcoming
Abstract:
We conducted two experiments to test whether police interrogation elicits a biphasic process of resistance from suspects. According to this process, the initial threat of police interrogation mobilizes suspects to resist interrogative influence in a manner akin to a fight or flight response, but suspects’ protracted self-regulation of their behavior during subsequent questioning increases their susceptibility to interrogative influence in the long-run. In Experiment 1 (N = 316), participants who were threatened by an accusation of misconduct exhibited responses indicative of mobilization and more strongly resisted social pressure to acquiesce to suggestive questioning than did participants who were not accused. In Experiment 2 (N = 160), self-regulatory decline that was induced during questioning about misconduct undermined participants’ ability to resist suggestive questioning. These findings support a theoretical account of the dynamic and temporal nature of suspects’ responses to police interrogation over the course of questioning.
---------------------
Reducing False Guilty Pleas and Wrongful Convictions through Exoneree Compensation
Murat Mungan & Jonathan Klick
Journal of Law and Economics, February 2016, Pages 173-189
Abstract:
A great concern with plea bargains is that they may induce innocent individuals to plead guilty to crimes they have not committed. In this article, we identify schemes that reduce the number of innocent pleas without affecting guilty individuals’ plea-bargaining incentives. Large compensations for exonerees reduce expected costs associated with wrongful determinations of guilt in trial and thereby reduce the number of innocent pleas. Any distortion in guilty individuals’ incentives to take plea bargains caused by these compensations can be offset by a small increase in the discounts offered for pleading guilty. Although there are many statutory-reform proposals for increasing exoneree compensation, no one has yet noted this desirable separating effect of compensations. We argue that such reforms are likely to achieve this result without causing losses in deterrence.
---------------------
Effects of a Proven Error on Evaluations of Witness Testimony
Tiffany Lavis & Neil Brewer
Law and Human Behavior, forthcoming
Abstract:
Witnesses frequently make an error when reporting events they have observed. Although some error in witness reports is to be expected and does not mean the testimony as a whole is flawed, an important question is how such an error affects judgments of credibility of the witness. In 2 experiments we investigated the impact of a single demonstrated (probative or nonprobative) detail inaccuracy on judgments of the likely reliability of witness memory. Potential mediators (witness dishonesty and forgetfulness) were examined to explain the relationship between inaccuracy and perceived reliability of the witness’s memory report. The presence of a single inaccuracy affected observers’ judgments of the reliability of the other elements of testimony and the testimony as a whole. There was also some evidence that the less probative the detail the more other elements of the reported account of the event were questioned. The mediation analyses showed that a single testimonial error contributed to the witness being perceived as dishonest or forgetful, attributions that in turn shaped perceptions of witness credibility. These findings suggest that legal professionals should be cautious when highlighting an isolated testimonial error given the potential for it to suggest more widespread testimonial unreliability.
---------------------
Alexis Carpenter & Anne Krendl
Social Neuroscience, forthcoming
Abstract:
Eyewitness testimony has been shown to be unreliable and susceptible to false memories. Whether eyewitness memory errors are influenced by the victim’s group membership (relative to both the eyewitness and perpetrator) impacts memory error is underexplored. The current study used complementary behavioral and neuroimaging approaches to test the hypothesis that intragroup conflict heightens participants’ susceptibility to subsequent false memories. Healthy young adults witnessed and later answered questions about events in which the perpetrator and victim were either 1) identified as ingroup members relative to each other and the eyewitness, 2) outgroup members relative to the eyewitness, but not each other, or 3) outgroup members relative to each other (Experiments 1a and 1b). When perpetrators and victims were ingroup members (intragroup conflict), participants showed heightened false memory rates. Moreover, false memories increased upon crime realization. Neuroimaging data analysis revealed that salient (as compared to ambiguous) intragroup conflict elicited heightened activation in neural regions associated with resolving cognitive conflict (anterior cingulate cortex; ACC). Increased functional connectivity between the ACC and dorsomedial prefrontal cortex was associated with subsequent false memories (Experiment 2). Results suggest that the social salience of the intragroup conflict may have been associated with participants’ increased susceptibility to false memories.
---------------------
Richard Stringer & Melanie Holland
Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, Fall 2016, Pages 327-347
Abstract:
This study aims to alleviate some of the mixed findings throughout the literature on racial disparities in sentencing outcomes by utilizing propensity score matching and multilevel modeling to assess racial drug sentencing disparities in state courts from 2000–2012. The findings illustrate the effect of race on sentencing varies significantly across states, and aggregate factors impact this relationship. Specifically, although differential offending, minority population, and arrests do not alleviate disparities, they are moderators that explain variance across states. Finally, aggregate socioeconomic factors such as poverty and education are also significant moderators that indicate the importance of structural disadvantage in sentencing outcomes.
---------------------
Legal Uncertainty as a Welfare Enhancing Screen
Matthias Lang
European Economic Review, forthcoming
Abstract:
Consider legal uncertainty as uncertainty about the legality of a specific action. In particular, suppose that the threshold of legality is uncertain. I show that this legal uncertainty raises welfare. Legal uncertainty changes deterrence in opposite directions. The probability of conviction increases for firms below the threshold, while the probability of conviction decreases for firms above the threshold. Hence, legal uncertainty acts as a welfare enhancing screen and increases welfare. Legal uncertainty discourages some actions with low private benefits, while it encourages other actions with high private benefits.