Showing 1 – 3 of 3 results.
Curated
Children's Out-of-Court Statements: Effects of Hearsay on Jurors' Decisions in Sacramento County, California, and Maricopa County, Arizona, 1994-1997 (ICPSR 2791)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, California, Arizona
Time period: 1994-01-01--1997-01-01
The goal of this project was to investigate the effects of children's out-of-court hearsay statements on jurors' perceptions of witness credibility and defendant guilt. To accomplish this goal, three studies were conducted. The studies represented a series of increasingly ecologically valid investigations: mock jurors' perceptions of children's live and hearsay statements about a mock crime (Study 1), mock jurors' perceptions of real child sexual abuse victims' hearsay statements (Study 2), and actual jurors' perceptions of real child sexual abuse victims' hearsay statements (Study 3). In these contexts, "hearsay statements" are the repetition of a child's out-of-court statements in a court trial, either via a videotaped recording of the child's testimony in a forensic interview with a social worker or as described by an adult (the social worker or a police officer) who interviewed the child. The three studies permitted researchers to examine factors that jurors use to evaluate the reliability of children's hearsay evidence. The mock crime in Study 1 was touching the child on the stomach, nose, or neck. Jurors were instructed to consider those acts as if they were battery against a child. In Study 1, elaborate mock trials concerning the above mock crime were conducted under three trial conditions: (1) the child testified live in court, (2) a videotape of a simulated forensic interview with the child was presented, or (3) adult hearsay was presented (i.e., a social worker testified about what the child had said in the simulated forensic interview). A total of 370 mock jurors participated in Study 1, which was conducted in Sacramento County, California. In Study 2, videotapes of actual forensic interviews from real child sexual abuse cases were incorporated into mock trials instead of having live child testimony. The last two trial conditions in Study 2 were the same as those for Study 1, except that a police officer provided the adult hearsay testimony instead of a social worker. For Study 2, 170 mock jurors served on 15 main juries, which were held in Sacramento County, California. For both Studies 1 and 2, pre- and post-deliberation questionnaires were completed by mock jurors to ascertain their views on the credibility of the child and adult testimonies, the importance of various pieces of evidence, and the guilt of the defendant. Demographic questionnaires were also filled out before the mock trials. In Study 3, real jurors from actual child sexual abuse trials were surveyed regarding their judgments of child and adult testimonies. The three trial conditions that were present in Studies 1 and 2 (live child testimony, videotaped testimony, and adult hearsay testimony) were also experienced by the Study 3 participants. These jurors also indicated the importance of various types of evidence and provided demographic data. A total of 248 jurors representing 43 juries from Sacramento County, California, and Maricopa County, Arizona, participated in Study 3. This collection includes aggregated data prepared from the Study 3 data to provide mean values for each of the 42 juries, as calculated from the individual juror responses. Data for one jury were eliminated from the aggregated data by the principal investigators. Variables from the demographic questionnaire for Studies 1 and 2 include trial condition, respondent's age, gender, marital status, occupation, ethnic background, religious orientation, and highest grade attained in school, if the respondent supported the death penalty, if the respondent was ever a victim of crime, number of children the respondent had, if the respondent was a United States citizen, if the respondent's native language was English, and if he or she had ever been a police officer, a convicted felon, a lawyer, or a judge. The pre-deliberation questionnaire for Study 1 asked jurors if they felt that the defendant was guilty, and how confident they were of the defendant's guilt or innocence. Jurors were also asked to assess the accuracy of various facts as given in the social worker's interview of the child and the child's statements in the taped interview, and what the likelihood was of the child's being influenced by the social worker, prosecutor, and/or defense attorney. Questions about the trial included the juror's assessment of the defendant, the social worker, and the research assistant. Jurors were also asked about the influence of various factors on their decisions regarding whether to believe the individuals in the case. Jurors' open-ended comments were coded on the most important factors in believing or doubting the child or the social worker, the most important evidence in the case, and whether anything could have been done to make the trial more fair. Post-deliberation questions in Study 1 included whether the defendant was guilty, how confident the juror was of the defendant's guilt or innocence regarding various charges in the case, and the final verdict of the jury. Questions similar to those in Study 1 were asked in the pre-deliberation questionnaire for Study 2, which also included respondents' opinions of the police officer, the mother, the doctor, and the use of anatomical dolls. The Study 2 post-deliberation questionnaire included questions on whether the defendant was guilty, how confident the juror was of the defendant's guilt or innocence, and the juror's assessment of the social worker's videotaped interview and the police officer's testimony. Variables from the Study 3 juror survey include the county/state where the trial was held, the juror's age, gender, ethnic background, and highest grade attained in school, if the juror supported the death penalty, if he or she was ever a victim of crime, and the amount of contact he or she had with children. Questions about the trial include the number of children the defendant was charged with abusing, the main child's age and gender, if a videotape was shown at trial, who interviewed the child on the videotape, the impact of seeing the videotape on the juror's decision to believe the child, the number of children who testified at the trial, and if the child was involved in a custody dispute. Additional questions focused on the defendant's relationship to the main child, who the first person was that the child told about the abuse, if the main child testified in court, the most important evidence in the case in the opinion of the juror, the jury's verdict, and how fair the juror considered the trial. Finally, jurors were asked about the influence of various factors on their decision to believe or doubt the individuals in the case. Data in Study 3 also include coded open-ended responses to several questions. Variables provided for the Study 3 aggregated data consist of the calculated mean values for each of the 42 juries for most of the variables in the Study 3 juror survey data.
Curated
Restricted
Race and the Decision to Seek the Death Penalty in Federal Cases, 1995-2000 [United States] (ICPSR 4533)
Released/updated on: 2006-09-01
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1995-01-01--2000-12-31
The purpose of this project was to examine possible defendant and victim race effects in capital decisions in the federal system. Per the terms of their grant, the researchers selected cases that were handled under the revised Death Penalty Protocol of 1995 and were processed during Attorney General Janet Reno's term in office. The researchers began the project by examining a sample of Department of Justice Capital Case Unit (CCU) case files. These files contained documents submitted by the United States Attorney's Office (USAO), a copy of the indictment, a copy of the Attorney General's Review Committee on Capital Cases (AGRC's) draft and final memorandum to the Attorney General (AG), and a copy of the AG's decision letter. Next, they created a list of the types of data that would be feasible and desirable to collect and constructed a case abstraction form and coding rules for recording data on victims, defendants, and case characteristics from the CCU's hard-copy case files. The record abstractors did not have access to information about defendant or victim gender or race. Victim and defendant race and gender data were obtained from the CCU's electronic files. Five specially trained coders used the case abstraction forms to record and enter salient information in the CCU hard-copy files into a database. Coders worked on only one case at a time. The resulting database contains 312 cases for which defendant- and victim-race data were available for the 94 federal judicial districts. These cases were received by the CCU between January 1, 1995 and July 31, 2000, and for which the AG at the time had made a decision about whether to seek the death penalty prior to December 31, 2000. The 312 cases includes a total of 652 defendants (see SAMPLING for cases not included). The AG made a seek/not-seek decision for 600 of the defendants, with the difference between the counts stemming mainly from defendants pleading guilty prior to the AG making a charging decision. The database was structured to allow researchers to examine two stages in the federal prosecution process, namely the USAO recommendation to seek or not to seek the death penalty and the final AG charging decision. Finally, dispositions (e.g., sentence imposed) were obtained for all but 12 of the defendants in the database. Variables include data about the defendants and victims such as age, gender, race/ethnicity, employment, education, marital status, and the relationship between the defendant and victim. Data are provided on the defendant's citizenship (United States citizen, not United States citizen), place of birth (United States born, foreign born), offense dates, statute code, counts for the ten most serious offenses committed, defendant histories of alcohol abuse, drug abuse, mental illness, physical or sexual abuse as a child, serious head injury, intelligence (IQ), or other claims made in the case. Information is included for up to 13 USAO assessments and 13 AGRC assessments of statutory and non-statutory aggravating factors and mitigating factors. Victim characteristics included living situation and other reported factors, such as being a good citizen, attending school, past abuse by the defendant, gross size difference between the victim and defendant, if the victim was pregnant, if the victim had a physical handicap, mental or emotional problems or developmental disability, and the victim's present or former status (e.g., police informant, prison inmate, law enforment officer). Data are also provided for up to 13 factors each regarding the place and nature of the killing, defendant motive, coperpetrators, weapons, injuries, witnesses, and forensic and other evidence.
Curated
Restricted
Reduction of False Convictions through Improved Identification Procedures: Further Refinements for Street Practice and Public Policy, 1983-2010, in five countries. (ICPSR 34316)
Released/updated on: 2016-04-28
Geographic coverage: Canada, United States, Tucson, United Kingdom, South Africa, Germany, Arizona
Time period: 1983-01-01--2010-01-01
These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.
This study was a three part project which evaluated the procedural aspects of police lineups. The first part was a meta-analysis of existing laboratory data on comparative eyewitness accuracy rates for sequential versus simultaneous lineups. The second part was three experiments on the elements of current field lineup practices in simultaneous and sequential lineups. The third part was a field experiment in Tucson, Arizona, which tested double-blind simultaneous versus double-blind sequential lineups.