Effect of Witnesses' Expertness and Manner of Delivery of Testimony on Verdicts of Simulated Jurors

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The impact on jurors' decision making of the type of expert witness and the manner of delivery of testimony was explored in a 3 × 2 between-subjects, factorial design. 68 undergraduate subjects read an edited, 26-page transcript of an actual criminal case in which the crucial testimony concerned the intoxication of the victim. A physician, police officer, or layperson as witness delivered that testimony against the defendant in either an opinionated or non-opinionated manner. Dependent variables were subjects' verdicts and recommended sentences. Results indicated that verdicts and sentences were most severe following testimony against the defendant by a physician and least severe following testimony against the defendant by a police officer. An interaction between the criminal charge and the manner of delivery of testimony showed that opinionated delivery was followed by more severe judgments of guilt on the relatively severe charges of first and second degree murder, whereas non-opinionated delivery was followed by more severe judgments of guilt on the charge of manslaughter. Discussion centered on both the theoretical and practical implications of the findings.

This publication has 2 references indexed in Scilit: