Mock-Jurors’ Judgements in a Sexual Assault Case: The Influence of Defendant Race and Occupational Status, Delayed Reporting, and Multiple Allegations

Abstract

Reports of sexual offences have increased in recent years, with many cases involving allegations against high-status individuals (e.g., Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby). In addition, many of these cases have involved allegations against the defendant from multiple victims, with long delays in reporting of the alleged assault. The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of defendant occupational status (low vs. high), defendant race (White, Black), number of allegations (one vs. five victims), and the length of reporting delay (5, 20, or 35 years) on mock-juror decision-making. Mock-jurors ( N = 752) read a mock-trial transcript describing a sexual assault case. After reading the trial transcript, mock-jurors were asked to provide dichotomous and continuous guilt ratings, as well as ratings regarding their perceptions of the defendant and victim. Results revealed that mock-jurors rendered more guilty verdicts, assigned higher guilt ratings, and perceived the defendant less favorably and the victim more favorably, when the defendant was White (as opposed to Black) and when there were multiple allegations against the defendant. The current findings suggest that defendant race and the number of allegations are highly influential in the context of a sexual assault case.

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 — 9 citations exist upstream.

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