The current study examined the impact of expert witness orientation (researcher or clinical practitioner) and type of testimony (testimony for the prosecution, for the defense, for both prosecution and defense, and no testimony) on mock jurors‟ decisions in a sexual abuse trial. Participants read a summary of a sexual abuse criminal trial based on recovered memory; the summary included expert witness testimony (varied across participants based on the conditions described above). Participants then completed a juror decision making task. Results showed that expert witness testimony provided by a researcher did not impact mock jurors‟ guilt ratings any differently than the expert witness testimony provided by a clinical practitioner. However, type of testimony had a significant effect on jurors‟ guilt ratings. The prosecution witness expert testimony influenced mock jurors‟ decision in favor of the prosecution and testimony by a defense expert influenced the jurors‟ decisions in favor of the defense.

The current study was based on Hester and Jacquin’s (2011) study of juror bias in a trial in which a woman killed her abusive husband. Specifically, this study examined the influence of the husband’s alcohol use, the wife’s alcohol use, the wife’s diagnosis, and evidence of domestic violence on mock jurors (N = 518). Results indicated that the wife’s alcohol use impacted her negatively at trial. When she was intoxicated, jurors perceived her to be more to blame for her actions and for the abuse she received from her husband. Gender differences were present among mock jurors; females gave lower guilt ratings than males, suggesting that females sympathized with the female defendant.

The purpose of the study was to examine whether a potential juror would give harsher sentences to defendants based only on the manipulation of the defendant's personal hobby. This was investigated by manipulating the hobby through a hypothetical manslaughter scenario in a vignette. Participants were asked to answer questions pertaining to the defendant's guilt and potential sentencing. Results indicate that participants' sex, participants' authoritarianism, and defendant's hobby were significant factors. Significant interactions were found pertaining to whether the defendant should receive counseling across sex by violence and sex by avocation. These results are evidence that the use of jurors in the legal system is flawed and needs to be improved upon. Future research should examine an age distribution closer to the national mean, and the online setting should be replaced with an in person mock jury that will have more realistic group dynamic and higher ecological validity.