Abstract
Several researchers have investigated the impact of evidence of prior convictions on jurors' decision making. Very little is known about a related issue, the impact of prioracquittal evidence introduced by the prosecution on jurors' decisions. The Supreme Court recently held (Dowling v. U.S., 1990) that the admission of prior acquittal evidence does not unfairly prejudice the defendant. We conducted a simulation study to examine the effects of prior record evidence (prior convictions, prior acquittals, and no prior record) on jurors' decisions. We also manipulated the presence of judicial instructions on the limited use jurors can make of extrinsic acts evidence. Mock jurors were more likely to convict the defendant when they had evidence of a prior conviction than when they had evidence of a prior acquittal or no record evidence. This effect was mediated by attributions about criminal propensity. Judge's limiting instructions were ineffective in guiding jurors' use of prior record evidence.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Psychological Association (1992).Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Washington, DC: Author.
Borgida, E., & Park, R. (1988). The entrapment defense: Juror comprehension and decision making.Law and Human Behavior, 12, 19–40.
Clary, E., & Shaffer, D. (1980). Effects of evidence withholding and a defendant's prior record on juridic decisions.Journal of Social Psychology, 112, 237–245.
Cleary, E. W. (Ed.) (1984).McCormick's handbook on the law of evidence. St. Paul: West.
Cornish, W. R., & Sealy, A. (1973). Juries and the rules of evidence.Criminal Law Quarterly, 16, 208–223.
Delao, M. (1989). Admissibility of prior acquitted crimes under Rule 404(b): Why the majority should adopt the minority rule.Florida State University Law Review, 16, 1033–1067.
Doob, A., & Kirshenbaum, H. (1972). Some empirical evidence on the effect of S. 12 of the Canada Evidence Act upon the accused.Criminal Law Quarterly, 15, 88–86.
Dowling v. U.S., 110 S.Ct. 668 (1990).
Eichhorn, L. (1989). Social science findings and the jury's ability to disregard evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence.Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 341–353.
Eisen, S., & McArthur, L. (1979). Evaluating and sentencing a defendant as a function of his salience and the observer's set.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 48–52.
Greene, E., & Loftus, E. (1985). When crimes are joined at trial.Law and Human Behavior, 9, 193–207.
Greene, E., & Wade, R. (1988). Of private talk and public print: General pre-trial publicity and juror decision making.Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2, 123–135.
Hans, V., & Doob, A. (1976). Section 12 of the Canada Evidence Act and the deliberations of simulated juries.Criminal Law Quarterly, 18, 235–253.
Sue, S., Smith, R., & Caldwell, C. (1973). Effects of inadmissible evidence on the decisions of simulated jurors: A moral dilemma.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 344–353.
Tanford, S., & Cox, M. (1988). The effects of impeachment evidence and limiting instructions on individual and group decision making.Law and Human Behavior, 12, 477–497.
Tanford, S., & Penrod, S. (1984). Biases in trials involving defendants charged with multiple offenses.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12, 453–480.
Thompson, W., Fong, G., & Rosenhan, D. (1981). Inadmissible evidence and juror verdicts.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 453–463.
U.S. v. Adams, 443 F.2d 756 (2nd Cir. 1970).
U.S. v. Burkhart, 453 F.2d 201 (10th Cir. 1972).
U.S. v. Castro-Castro, 464 F.2d 336 (9th Cir. 1972).
U.S. v. Foutz, 540 F.2d 733 (D.C. Cir. 1976).
Wingate v. Wainwright, 464 F.2d 209 (CA5 1972).
Wissler, R. L., & Saks, M. J. (1985). On the inefficacy of limiting instructions: When jurors use prior conviction evidence to decide on guilt.Law and Human Behavior, 9, 37–48.
Wolf, S., & Montgomery, D. (1977). Effects of inadmissible evidence and level of judicial admonishment to disregard on the judgments of mock jurors.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 205–219.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This study is based on a master's thesis submitted by the second author to the University of colorado. We thank Melody Moss, Assistant Federal Public Defender for the District of the Virgin Islands, for providing the transcript from theDowling case.
About this article
Cite this article
Greene, E., Dodge, M. The influence of prior record evidence on juror decision making. Law Hum Behav 19, 67–78 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499073
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499073