The order of evidence in an adversary proceeding has an important effect upon the final determination of guilt or innocence. This effect is complicated by the fact that the adversary process is ordered in two distinct ways: a "gross order" of presentation by each party; and, within this gross order, an "internal order" for the presentation of each party's case. Gross order is determined by statute and judicial decision for the three parts of the traditional adversary process: opening statements, presentations of evidence, and closing arguments. The prosecution or plaintiff usually has the right to make the first opening statement, present evidence first, and make both the first and the final closing arguments. The usual justification for this ordering is that the party with the burden of proof should have the advantage of making the first and last presentation. 1 There is, however, no established internal order for adversary proceedings; such ordering is typically left entirely to the participants. Nevertheless, most practitioners normally save their strongest, most convincing evidence for last. The usual justification for this strategy is that it is the most dramatic way to present one's case and that the jury or fact-finder will remember the strongest evidence more vividly. One trial specialist suggests, for example, that the order of witnesses be arranged to "lead up to a climax with no anticlimax." 2 * The research reported here is a product of the project "Human Behavior and the Legal Process," supported by National Science Foundation Grant GS.2859OX. Another aspect of this research is reported in 86 HARV. L. REv. 383 (1972). The authors wish to thank Margaret Green for her substantial assistance in planning and reporting the study.
An experiment was designed to determine if reactance could be aroused by implication. It was hypothesized that an individual experiences reactance when he sees another person's freedom being threatened even though the threatening act is not directed toward the observer. The effect of anticipated future interaction with the threatener was also investigated. Female subjects initially ranked five topics in the order in which they desired to discuss them. Then they overheard a taped conversation in which a person's (B) freedom was threatened by Person A (threat), threatened by A and then restored by the experimenter (restored), or not threatened by A (no threat). The subject expected to interact with either the threatener, the threatened individual, or a neutral person. Following the brief conversation, the subject rated the five topics. The results indicated that the initially most preferred topic declined in desirability in the threat condition significantly more than in the restored and no-threat conditions. Furthermore, this effect was obtained regardless of the individual with whom the subject expected future interaction. The results were interpreted as supporting the hypothesis that reactance can be aroused by implication.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.