The effect of evidence being ruled inadmissible

1. The effect of evidence being ruled inadmissible By Pickel (1995)

2. Background • The law says that in order for evidence to be admissible in court, its relevance must outweigh its potential for prejudice. • Inadmissible evidence includes hearsay, past convictions and evidence obtained by illegal means. • If inadmissible evidence is presented in error by a witness, the judge will direct the jury to disregard what they have just heard. • However, by drawing their attention to it, it may be that the jury in fact pays even more attention to it. • This is known as reactance theory and suggests that jurors perceive instructions to ignore evidence as undermining their freedom to take all evidence into account.

3. Aim • To look at the role of the judge’s instructions when they were followed by a legal explanation. • To examine how much the credibility of the witness affects the juror’s ability to ignore inadmissible statements.

4. Procedure • 236 Ball State University students volunteering for course credit • Listened to audio recording of a mock trial involving theft • Critical evidence of prior conviction was “accidentally” introduced by a witness • Lawyer objected and judge gave ruling as admissible or inadmissible

5. Procedure IVs DVs Verdict – guilty or not guilty Estimate of probability of defendant’s guilt Rating of extent to which evidence of prior conviction causes belief in defendant’s guilt Rating of credibility of witness • Admissibility conditions • Ruled as admissible • Ruled as inadmissible followed by legal explanation of why evidence was inadmissible • Ruled as inadmissible with no legal explanation given • Control: no critical evidence of prior conviction • Witness credibility • High credibility • Low credibility

6. Results • The percentage of guilty verdicts by condition came out as follows (with 1 being the highest and 4 the lowest): • Evidence ruled admissible • Evidence ruled inadmissible with explanation • Evidence ruled inadmissible without explanation • Control

7. Results • Credibility of witness created a significant difference (sig level 0.05) • High credibility: 58% guilty verdict • Low credibility: 44% guilty verdict

8. Conclusion • This research suggests that calling attention to inadmissible evidence does indeed make it more important to the jury • What does this say about lawyer’s objecting to evidence or testimony in court? Is this sometimes part of a strategy or technique?

9. Evaluation • Consider the following: • S&W of lab experiment method • Ethics of using this method to investigate jury behaviour • Any problems with the sample • Actors reading the transcripts in the audio tapes and effect on validity • Realism of set-up • Jury decision making being freewill or determined by series or social and situational processes • Research based on Western ideas of crime • Psychology as a science in way courtroom behaviour is being researched

10. Tasks… • Develop a ‘tips’ hand out to advise prosecution and defence how to persuade a jury! Possible 10 marker What is the effect on a jury of evidence being ruled as inadmissible? Possible 15 marker: Evaluate the usefulness of research into persuading a jury