Transcript The effect of evidence being ruled inadmissible

The effect of
evidence being
ruled inadmissible
By Pickel (1995)
Background
• The law says that in order for evidence to be admissible in
court, its relevance must outweigh its potential for prejudice.
• Inadmissible evidence includes hearsay, past convictions and
evidence obtained by illegal means.
• If inadmissible evidence is presented in error by a witness, the
judge will direct the jury to disregard what they have just
heard.
• However, by drawing their attention to it, it may be that the
jury in fact pays even more attention to it.
o
This is known as reactance theory and suggests that jurors perceive instructions to
ignore evidence as undermining their freedom to take all evidence into account.
Aim
• To look at the role of the judge’s instructions when
they were followed by a legal explanation.
• To examine how much the credibility of the witness
affects the juror’s ability to ignore inadmissible
statements.
Procedure
• 236 Ball State University students volunteering for
course credit
• Listened to audio recording of a mock trial involving
theft
o Critical evidence of prior conviction was “accidentally” introduced by a
witness
o Lawyer objected and judge gave ruling as admissible or inadmissible
Procedure
IVs
• Admissibility conditions
o Ruled as admissible
o Ruled as inadmissible followed
by legal explanation of why
evidence was inadmissible
o Ruled as inadmissible with no
legal explanation given
o Control: no critical evidence of
prior conviction
• Witness credibility
o High credibility
o Low credibility
DVs
• Verdict – guilty or not guilty
• Estimate of probability of
defendant’s guilt
• Rating of extent to which
evidence of prior conviction
causes belief in defendant’s
guilt
• Rating of credibility of
witness
Results
• The percentage of guilty verdicts by condition
came out as follows (with 1 being the highest and 4
the lowest):
o
o
o
o
Evidence ruled admissible
Evidence ruled inadmissible with explanation
Evidence ruled inadmissible without explanation
Control
Results
• Credibility of witness created a significant
difference (sig level 0.05)
o High credibility: 58% guilty verdict
o Low credibility: 44% guilty verdict
Conclusion
• This research suggests that calling attention to
inadmissible evidence does indeed make it more
important to the jury
• What does this say about lawyer’s objecting to
evidence or testimony in court? Is this sometimes
part of a strategy or technique?
Evaluation
• Consider the following:
S&W of lab experiment method
Ethics of using this method to investigate jury behaviour
Any problems with the sample
Actors reading the transcripts in the audio tapes and effect on validity
Realism of set-up
Jury decision making being freewill or determined by series or social and
situational processes
o Research based on Western ideas of crime
o Psychology as a science in way courtroom behaviour is being researched
o
o
o
o
o
o
Tasks…
• Develop a ‘tips’ hand out to advise prosecution
and defence how to persuade a jury!
Possible 10 marker
What is the effect on a jury of evidence being ruled as
inadmissible?
Possible 15 marker:
Evaluate the usefulness of research into persuading a jury