How the Defendant's Emotion Level Affects Mock Jurors' Decisions When Presentation Mode and Evidence Strength Are Varied¹

Abstract

Two experiments (N = 443) were conducted to investigate the effects of a defendant's emotion level during testimony on mock jurors' decisions. In Experiment 1, the defendant's level of emotion (low, moderate, high) and mode of presentation (audio, video) were varied. The defendant displaying a low level, as opposed to a higher level of emotion was perccived as more guilty and less credible. In Experiment 2, using only the video mode, emotion level and evidence strength (strong, weak) were varied. Defendant einotion level tended to affect jurors' decisions only when the evidence against the defendant was weak (i.e., a stronger display of emotion was associated with a lower proportion of guilty verdicts, shorter sentence assignments, and perceptions of a more honest defendant). Path analyses for both experiments indicate that the effects of emotion on perceived guilt level are mediated by perceptions of the defendant (e.g., the defendant's level of honesty). Implications of using defendant emotion level for dctermining guilt are discussed. Does a defendant's level of displayed emotion during testimony affect the decisions of jurors? A cursory look at some recent trials suggests that the emotion level displayed by the defendant may influence jurors. For example, in State v. Smart ( I 991/1993), Pamela Smart was charged with coercing her teenage lover and his friends into killing her husband. William Flynn, Smart's lover, testified "between sobs and tears" (Abell, 1991, p. A6) that he killed Smart's husband because she threatened to end their affair if he did not. William Flynn was 'This research was supported in part by two Rider University grants. The authors thank Barry T. Janes and Richard Homan for their help creating the stimuli, and

Trials and Tribulations: Psychopathic Traits, Emotion, and Decision-Making in an Ambiguous Case of Sexual Assault

“…Similarly, R-processors may be more likely to perceive the evidence in a case differently (i.e., less ambiguous), also influencing their judgments. For example, strong displays of defendant emotionality have led to less guilty verdicts and punitiveness when evidence against the defendant is weak (Heath et al, 2004). However in our study, the case was intentionally ambiguous, leaving room for individual juror interpretations of evidentiary strength.…”

“…Finally, it may be the timing of emotional information displayed (especially by defendants) that influences sentencing outcomes more so than simply the presence of emotionality. For example, Heath et al (2004) reported that greater emotional displays prior to guilt determinations led to less punitive sentencing. However, extant research suggests that a defendant's emotional display after a guilty verdict may be of greater diagnostic value in sentencing outcomes.…”

“…Studies evaluating defendant-displayed emotionality have found that defendants were viewed as most honest and credible, and received shorter sentences, when their emotional response was congruent with expected emotional reactions (e.g., Salekin, Ogloff, McFarland, & Rogers, 1995). Conversely, when defendants display flat or cold affect, jurors rated these individuals as guiltier, less credible, and tend to assign harsher sentences (e.g., Heath, Grannemann, & Peacock, 2004). With these results in mind, it is apparent that displayed emotional content (on behalf of both victims and defendants) is utilized in jury decisions, even though such emotionality is extraneous to the case details.…”

Effects of Emotional Testimony and Gruesome Photographs on Mock Jurors' Decisions and Negative Emotions

“…They may also have imagined situations even more gruesome than the actual photographs that were shown in the photograph-present condition. In a study by Heath, Grannemann, and Peacock (2004), mock jurors who were provided information by audio perceived the defendant's emotion to be stronger than did mock jurors who watched a video. The researchers suggested that information provided by audio does not limit the receivers' visualization.…”

Unconscious influences in sentencing decisions: a research review of psychological sources of disparity

“…Research findings have shown that offenders who exhibit stronger emotion are favoured with fewer convictions and more lenient sentences, whereas offenders whose level of emotional display is low are perceived as more culpable and less credible 84 . The influence of emotional displays on sentencing was most pronounced when the strength of the evidence against the defendant was weak.…”