Studies have shown that jurors can be influenced by inadmissible testimony, such as wiretapped conversations. This includes wiretaps that are excluded because they are illegally obtained, deemed to prejudicial or deemed to confusing to be of any help to the jurors.

Some studies have shown that jurors can at times ignore information on command, but other studies have shown that once the word is out, jurors might cling to the information. Furthermore, a judge saying to leave something out might make a juror think about that information even more than they would have to begin with.

Kassin and Sommers (1997) think jurors are concerned with being "just," regardless of the instructions about what evidence is admissible. In past studies they have found that jurors will use inadmissible evidence if they think that it will bring about a "just" verdict, but they will ignore it if it doesn’t help, such as if the evidence is unreliable.

Sommers and Kassin (2001) want to see if there are individual differences in how a juror reacts to this type of evidence. Also, they are interested in how jurors will correct for inadmissible evidence. This is called a biasing influence correction.

Sommers and Kassin (2001) predict that people with a high need for cognition (meaning the juror has a tendency to engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive activities) will engage in active correction for the perceived biasing influences of inadmissible evidence more than the low NC jurors. In fact, they predict that high NC jurors will overcorrect for the biasing influences. Also, high NC jurors would exhibit a greater motivation to render a just verdict than the low NC jurors.

Experiment 1

Sommers and Kassin predict that A) participants will discount wiretap info that is excluded because it lacks reliability, but not if it violated due process B) High NC would be more likely than low NC to selectively comply C) High NC would overcorrect against the biasing influence because of their need to reach a "just" verdict.

Method

2 X 4 design: no wiretap control, admissible wiretap, inadmissible-due process, inadmissible-unreliable X high NC, low NC.

Subjects took a need for cognition test one month before the mock jury experiment. Subjects scoring over 26 were high NC and subjects scoring under 26 were low NC. Subjects scoring 26 were randomly placed in high or low NC.

Subjects read a trial that only had circumstantial evidence except when the wiretap evidence was available. It was allowed, not allowed because of due process, or not allowed because it was unreliable.

Participants were asked to rate each piece of evidence on a scale of 1 to 9, 9 being it makes the defendant look very guilty, and 1 being it makes the defendant look very innocent. 5 meant it didn’t make the defendant look innocent or guilty.

Participants rendered a guilty or not guilty verdict along with a confidence rating of 1 to 10, 1 being not confident at all and 10 being very confident.

They also asked participants to say what % a defendant should look guilty before being called guilty.

Results

Participants had an overall rating of 89.2% on the question of what percentage guilty they should look before being convicted. There was an overall conviction rate of 40% across conditions. There was a 60% conviction rate for the allowed wiretap condition and a 27% in the inadmissible-unreliable and no wiretap conditions. This supports the selective compliance because of a need for a "just" verdict hypothesis. However, the high NC jurors had an 80% conviction rate in the admissible condition compared to 40% for the low NC subjects. This is what was predicted, but there was not significant evidence for overcorrection by high NC jurors, although the numbers go in the right direction (guilt probability percentages in the inadmissible-unreliable condition are lower than in the no wiretap conditions for high NC participants). Figure 1 shows the conviction rates of conditions. They found that only the high NC participants used selective compliance. In my opinion, the coolest finding is that 63% of the high NC participants and 53% of the low NC participants used the inadmissible-due process wiretap even though they were instructed not to! There were no differences in rating of evidence for low and high NC participants.

Discussion

Sommers and Kassin say that these results support their idea that jurors want to be "just" especially if they have high NC, and that this means they will use evidence that will help them reach a "just" verdict, even if it in violation of due process. They also claim that slight overcorrection by high NC jurors is taking place.