Race, witness credibility, and jury deliberation in a simulated drug trafficking trial.

Abstract

Objective: The present study integrates several distinct lines of jury decision-making research by examining how the racial identities of the defendant and an informant witness interact in a federal drug conspiracy trial scenario and by assessing whether jurors' individual racial identity and jury group racial composition influence their judgments. Hypotheses: We predicted that jurors would be biased against the Black defendant and would be more likely to convict after exposure to a White informant, among other hypotheses. Method: We recruited 822 nonstudent jury-eligible participants assigned to 144 jury groups. Each group was assigned to one of four onditions where defendant race (Black or White) and informant race (Black or White) was manipulated. Each group watched a realistic audio-visual trial presentation, then deliberated as a group to render a verdict. Results: Contrary to expectations, the conditions depicting a Black defendant yielded lower conviction rates compared to those with a White defendant-at both the predeliberation individual (odds ratio [OR] = 1.54) and postdeliberation group level (OR = 2.91)-while the informant race did not influence verdict outcomes. We also found that jurors rated the government witnesses as more credible when the defendant was White compared to when he was Black. Credibility ratings and verdict outcomes were also predicted by jurors' own race, although juror race did not interact with the race conditions when predicting verdicts. Conclusions: Jurors are sensitive to defendant race, and this sensitivity appears to strengthen after deliberation-but in a direction opposite to what was expected. One potential implication of our findings is that juries may operate as a check on system bias by applying greater scrutiny to law enforcement-derived evidence when the defendant is Black. Public Significance StatementThis study exposed mock jurors to a drug conspiracy case where law enforcement credibility was key to conviction and found that they were less likely to convict a Black defendant than a White defendant. Participants were more skeptical about the credibility of the law enforcement-derived testimony when the defendant was Black, opening the possibility that sensitivity to bias in the criminal justice system may influence how lay persons consider and assess evidence produced by system actors.

Battling bias: can two implicit bias remedies reduce juror racial bias?

“…White jurors were more likely than Black jurors to find the defendant not guiltysuggesting that regardless of defendant race, White jurors were more lenient. Importantly, this finding is counter to prior research finding Black jurors more lenient than White jurors (Fitzgerald & Ellsworth, 1984;Foley & Chamblin, 1982;Shaw et al, 2021;Sommers & Ellsworth, 2000). However, in the context of the OJ Simpson trial, White jurors viewed defendants of an elevated status (celebrity/athlete) more favorably than Black jurors (Skolnick & Shaw, 1997).…”

The subtle effects of implicit bias instructions

“…While the findings speak to our theoretical understanding of bias, including in small group contexts such as juries, there is also more work to be done on how individuals' attributes and experiences contribute to the group‐level process. Prior research indicates that jurors subjectively experience the deliberation process differently as a function of “status characteristics” such as gender and racial identity (Winter & Clair, 2018) and that decision‐making processes and outcomes vary considerably as a function of jury diversity (Shaw et al, 2021; Sommers, 2006). While we preliminarily examined how juror race impacted verdict outcomes in this study, further research on the racial and gender dynamics of deliberation and decision making is warranted, including whether these instructions may improve the subjective experience for jurors from marginalized groups.…”

“…While federal criminal juries are composed of 12 individuals, the smaller juries allowed for a sufficient number of jury units to meaningfully analyze, while not sacrificing a group decision‐making process. This approach has been successfully used in multiple prior experimental jury decision‐making studies (e.g., Lynch & Haney, 2009; MacCoun & Kerr, 1988; Peter‐Hagene, 2019; Sommers, 2006; Shaw et al, 2021). Data from three groups, totaling 16 participants, were removed from the analyses: two were removed due to technical difficulties during data collection, rendering the data unreliable, and one was removed due to the dismissal of a participant for disruptive behavior, resulting in too few participants remaining to comprise a jury unit of at least four people.…”

Battling Bias: Can Two Implicit Bias Remedies Reduce Juror Racial Bias?

“…Additionally, defendant and eyewitness race have been found to influence jurors' perceptions of defendant and eyewitness credibility (Kurinec & Weaver, 2019;Saulnier et al, 2020;Shaw et al, 2021). Saulnier et al's (2020) explored the effect of eyewitness race (Black or White) and body-worn cameras on verdicts and defendant credibility.…”

“…Defendants supported by White eyewitnesses were less likely to be found guilty and were viewed as more credible than defendants supported by Black eyewitnesses. Shaw et al (2021) investigated eyewitness credibility in a federal narcotics trial. They found that eyewitnesses who supported White defendants were viewed as more credible than eyewitnesses that supported Black defendants.…”