Racial bias in legal decision making has been given considerable attention over the past few decades, focusing mainly on African Americans to the exclusion of other minority groups. The purpose of this study was to address the dearth of research examining bias against Mexican American defendants. Two hundred forty-seven participants read through a trial transcript that varied defendant race/ethnicity (Mexican American or European American), defense attorney race/ethnicity (Mexican American or European American), and defendant socioeconomic status (SES; low or high [upper middle class]). Dependent measures included verdict, sentencing, culpability ratings, and trait assessments. Bias against Mexican American defendants occurred most when the Mexican American defendant was of low SES and represented by a Mexican American defense attorney. In addition, attorneys representing low-SES Mexican American defendants were perceived as less competent and rated lower on a number of trait measures. Limitations, applications, and future directions are discussed.

In two studies, a defendant's ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), and crime status were varied for effects on verdict decisions, sentencing recommendations, culpability assignments, and trait assessments. In Study 1, European Americans (N = 221) provided a low SES Mexican American defendant with more guilt verdicts, a lengthier sentence, and higher culpability ratings, compared to a high SES Mexican American or a European American defendant, regardless of crime status. Higher negative trait ratings occurred for a low SES Mexican American who committed a low status crime. In Study 2, Mexican Americans (N = 136) showed no differences for guilt verdicts, recommended sentence, or culpability assignment. These findings demonstrate that European American bias toward Mexican Americans may operate in all phases of the legal process, and future research should address specific contexts where bias applies.

The purpose of the research was to determine whether European American and Latino mock jurors would demonstrate bias in death penalty decision making when mitigation evidence and defendant ethnicity and socioeconomic status (SES) were varied. A total of 561 actual venire persons acted as mock jurors and read a trial transcript that varied a defendant's case information (mitigating circumstances: strong/weak, defendant ethnicity: European American/Latino, and defendant SES: low/high). European American jurors recommended the death penalty significantly more often for the low SES Latino defendant when strength of mitigation evidence was weak. In addition, they also assigned this defendant higher culpability ratings and lower ratings on positive personality trait measures compared with all other conditions. Strong mitigation evidence contributed to lower guilt ratings by European American jurors for the high SES European American defendant. Latino jurors did not differ in their death penalty sentencing across defendant mitigation, ethnicity, or SES conditions. Discussion of in-group favoritism and out-group derogation, as well as suggestions for procedures to diminish juror bias in death penalty cases, is provided.

This study examined prejudicial attitudes toward immigrant defendants who vary on legal status, country of origin, and ethnicity. Three hundred twenty mock juror participants read a trial transcript that varied defendants' immigration status (documented or undocumented), defendant country of origin (Canada or Mexico), and defendant race/ethnicity (Caucasian or Latino). Dependent measures included verdict, sentencing, culpability ratings, and trait assessments. European American mock jurors found undocumented, Latino immigrants from Mexico guilty significantly more often, more culpable, and rated this defendant more negatively on various trait measures in comparison with all other conditions. Latino mock jurors did not demonstrate ingroup favoritism or outgroup bias. This study examines aversive racism as a factor of this bias. Limitations and future directions are discussed.

The purpose of this research was to examine how ethnicity, immigration status, and socioeconomic status (SES) may contribute to juror bias. A total of 320 Euro-American venire persons were assigned to 1 of 8 criminal court trial transcript conditions that varied defendant ethnicity (Mexican or Canadian), immigrant status (undocumented or documented), and SES (low or high). Dependent measures were verdict, sentencing, culpability, and trait attributions. Results indicated that the low-SES undocumented Mexican defendant was found guilty more often, given a more severe sentence, thought to be more culpable, and rated lower on a number of trait measures compared with all other conditions. Subtle bias theories, such as aversive racism, appear to best explain the biases in juror decisions. KEYTERMS Immigration status, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, juror decisionsIn 2010, the number of immigrants in the United States reached an alltime high (Camarota, 2012), and with this rise in the number of immigrants also came a rise in prejudice toward immigrants (Falomir-Pichastor

No abstract

The current study addressed whether defendant sexual orientation, defendant attractiveness, and juror gender influences juror decisions. Two competing theories were assessed as the primary mechanism for any potential negative bias sexual minorities may experience in the legal system: heterosexism and aversive heterosexism. Heterosexism is a form of bias toward gays/lesbians that appears more blatant in displays of discrimination, whereas aversive heterosexism appears as more of an implicit form of bias, only appearing when sexual orientation is paired with another perceived negative characteristic. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a trial transcript of either a heterosexual or gay/lesbian and attractive/unattractive defendant. Participants were asked to render a verdict, recommend a sentence, and provide guilt and culpability ratings. The theory of aversive heterosexism gained partial support from the results. When the defendant was gay/lesbian and coupled with other another negative attribute (unattractive) male jurors demonstrated bias.

No abstract