Juror Perceptions: The Impact of Judicial Warning on Video Evidence

            As society becomes more and more technologically advanced, there has been more of an emphasis on presenting video evidence in courtrooms. This emphasis comes from the widely held belief that video documentation provides an objective and unbiased representation of events that have taken place. However, how video evidence is presented and the effects it may have on the juror’s perception of the events taking place have not been extensively researched.

            In the article, “In the Eyes of the Law: Perception Versus Reality in Appraisals of Video,” Yael Granot and her colleagues address the fallibility of video evidence especially when it comes to the creditability of the juror’s interpretation of the videos. The researchers also delve into the possible implications of presenting video evidence in a certain manner.  For example, Granot and colleagues highlight that the manner in which a judge introduces the visual evidence does in fact have a major impact on the way the jurors weigh evidence. As suggested by previous research, they state that “judicial instructions regarding the factors that influence eyewitnesses can sensitize jurors to those factors and affect their ultimate verdicts,” (Granot, Balcetis, Feigensen & Tyler, 2018). This suggests that both judges and lawyers should be wary of the explicit instructions given, if any, prior to presenting jurors with visual evidence.

            Jacqueline M. Wheatcroft and Hannah Keogen (2017) had also done research regarding the impact of evidence type and judicial warning on jurors perception of witness evidence. They conducted research on the matter because based on existing research it is unclear just how successful judicial warning can be when it comes to preventing or eliminating bias during the examination of evidence. The researchers investigated the impact of providing jurors with multiple types of evidence versus a single type of evidence and how receiving a judicial warning reminding the jurors to be cautious when making assessments might affect their perception of a witness. In the study, 60 participants were presented with witness evidence in either transcript format, video format, or both. In addition, half of the participants from each condition received instructions from a judge to be wary of placing disproportionate weight on the evidence as opposed to their general impression of it. Wheatcroft and Keogen found that a transcript plus video evidence when accompanied by a warning led to more positive ratings about the reliability of a witness. They discovered that providing a judicial warning made the task of what to look for less clear, which could have possibly eliminated any preconceived biases, allowing for a more holistic assessment of the evidence.

            As suggested by both of these studies, the manner in which video evidence is presented should be taken heavily into consideration. It is also important to have precautionary steps in place in order to prevent or eliminate any biases jurors might have prior to conveying the evidence.

References

Granot, Y., Balcetis, E., Feigenson, N., & Tyler, T. (2018). In the eyes of the law: Perception versus reality in appraisals of video evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(1), 93-104. https://doi-org.flagship.luc.edu/10.1037/law0000137

Wheatcroft, J.M. & Keogan, H. (2017). Impact of evidence type and judicial warning on juror perceptions of global and specific witness evidence. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 151(3), 247-267. https://doi-org.flagship.luc.edu/10.1080/00223980.2016.1261077