Mock Jurors Versus Mock Juries: The Role of Deliberations in Reactions to Inadmissible Testimony

Abstract

The consensus among authors in the area of juridic decision making is that trial jurors often readily disregard judicial instructions to ignore inadmissible evidence. Perhaps, however, the moderating influence of a key methodological variable-the presence or absence of group deliberations-has been overlooked by those making this assertion. It was hypothesized that mock juries (who participate in deliberations) would be more likely to follow judicial instructions to ignore inadmissible testimony than mock jurors (responding individually, without deliberations). Results supported this hypothesis.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 74 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.