![Mediation model predicting verdicts. * Indirect effect via police legitimacy: B = .252; 95% Boot CI [.082, .457]; indirect effect via police fairness: B = .219; 95% Boot CI [-.005, .449].](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mona-Lynch-2/publication/371198056/figure/fig3/AS:11431281167204455@1686593382287/Mediation-model-predicting-verdicts-Indirect-effect-via-police-legitimacy-B-252_Q320.jpg)
Content uploaded by Mona Lynch
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mona Lynch on Jun 12, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Downstream Effects of Frayed
Relations: Juror Race,
Judgment, and Perceptions
of Police
Mona Lynch
1
and Emily V. Shaw
2
Abstract
Building on research demonstrating significant differences in how Black and White
Americans view law enforcement, this study assesses how those differential views
shape potential jurors’decision-making in the context of a federal drug conspiracy
case in which the primary evidence against the defendant is provided by an FBI
agent and an informant cooperating with the agent. A sample of 649 Black and
White jury-eligible U.S. citizens were exposed to the case, in which a Black defendant
is being tried, and where the informant-witness race (Black or White) was varied.
Participants determined verdict, evaluated evidence, and completed additional mea-
sures. Results indicated that Black participants were significantly less likely to convict
than White participants, especially in the White informant condition; rated the law
enforcement witness as less credible, and viewed police more negatively across
three composite measures. Exploratory analysis of how juror race and gender inter-
acted indicates Black women largely drove racial differences in verdicts. Perceptions
of police legitimacy mediated the relationship between juror race and verdict choice.
We conclude that it is critical that citizens are not prevented from being seated on
juries due to skepticism about police, given the risk of disproportionate exclusion
of Black potential jurors. The legal processes relevant to juror excusals need to be
reconsidered to ensure that views of police, rooted in actual experience or knowl-
edge about the problems with fair and just policing, are not used to disproportion-
ately exclude persons of color, or to seat juries overrepresented by people who
blindly trust police.
1
Department of Criminology, Law & Society, University of California, Irvine, USA
2
Department of Psychological Science, University of California, Irvine, USA
Corresponding Author:
Mona Lynch, Department of Criminology, Law & Society, University of California, Irvine, USA.
Email: lynchm@uci.edu
Original Manuscript
Race and Justice
1-25
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1 177/215336 8723117832 2
journals.sagepub.com/home/raj
Keywords
juror race, perceptions of police, witness credibility, witness race
A growing body of research has documented that jurors’assessments of evidence and
testimony may be shaped by their own experiences and identities, empirically discon-
firming the legal myth that the impartial juror is a “blank slate”(Kassin & Wrightsman,
2013, p. 6). Rather, in accordance with a substantial body of research, laypersons come
to the juror task with individualized sets of “expectations, beliefs, and experiences that
predispose [them] to reject particular arguments or find particular types of evidence
persuasive”(Ellis & Diamond, 2003, p. 1036; see also Devine, 2012). Black and
White jurors are especially likely to differ from each other in their assessments of evi-
dence generated by law enforcement, thereby impacting how they determine verdicts,
given that attitudes and views about whether the police are trustworthy, fair, and unbi-
ased significantly diverge as a function of perceivers’race (Costanzo et al., 2010;
Gramlich, 2019; Lerman & Weaver, 2014; Peck, 2015; Tyler & Huo, 2002; Weitzer
& Tuch, 2002, 2005).
In this paper, we extend our recent work on juror race and decision-making to
examine the mechanisms underpinning jurors’race-based differences in evaluations
of law-enforcement-generated evidence and testimony, and in verdict judgments. In
the previous study, jury-eligible adults viewed a federal drug-trafficking conspiracy
case that involved testimony by law enforcement agents, and by an informant who
worked with the FBI to set up the defendant in a drug transaction (Shaw et al.,
2021). Participants were assigned to small groups that deliberated to reach a
verdict, then each participant completed a series of individual measures. We
found that White mock jurors were more likely to support convicting the defendant
than were jurors of color, with Black jurors the least likely to convict. An explor-
atory analysis suggested that differential credibility assessments by White and
Black jurors of the law enforcement witnesses underpinned the differences in ver-
dicts (Shaw et al., 2021). We also found suggestive evidence that Black jurors
were most likely to acquit when a White informant, who was working with law
enforcement on the “hope for leniency”in his own drug case, testified against a
Black defendant (Shaw et al., 2021).
In the present paper, we report on findings from a follow-up study that seeks to
more directly examine whether attitudes and beliefs about law enforcement help
explain the racial gap among jurors in support for conviction. We also further
examine whether the race of a key prosecution witness—an informant who agrees
to work with law enforcement to set the defendant up in a drug sting—influences out-
comes, consistent with previous research on race of prosecution witnesses (e.g.,
Abshire & Bornstein, 2003; Conley et al., 2000). We first review the research on cit-
izens’views of police, then the very limited research on how jurors assess law enforce-
ment testimony, focusing in particular on differences between Black and White
laypersons. After delineating our specific hypotheses, we describe the current study,
2Race and Justice 0(0)
including methods and procedures, then present our findings. We conclude with a dis-
cussion of the implications of our findings, limitations of this research, and suggested
next steps in this line of research.
Race & Perceptions of Law Enforcement
Varied research has demonstrated a large and consistent racial gap in Americans’attitudes
about the police. In particular, a substantial body of research indicates that White
Americans are much more satisfied with and trusting of police across a range of dimen-
sions than are non-White Americans, including about their equitable racial treatment of
citizens (Hurwitz & Peffley, 2005; Morin & Stepler, 2016; Peck, 2015; Taylor et al.,
2015; Warren, 2011; Weitzer & Tuch, 2002, 2005). The gap is consistently largest
among Black and White Americans (Lai & Zhao, 2010; Skogan, 2005; Wheelock
et al., 2019), wherein Black Americans view police as substantially less fair, procedurally
just, and legitimate than do White Americans (e.g., Gau et al., 2012; Gramlich, 2019).
Among White respondents, attitudes about the police appear to be tied both to broader
measures of racial identity, and to measures of racial resentment and racism. For instance,
Johnson and Lecci (2020) found that Whites who strongly identify with being White were
less likely to feel empathy for a Black victim of a fatal police-shooting, relative to Whites
with lower levels of White racial identity. White support for police use of force is also pos-
itively related to racial resentment (Carter et al., 2016), while support for the Black Lives
Matter movement (Drakulich et al., 2021) and concerns about police bias are negatively
related to measures of racism (Matsueda & Drakulich, 2009). This comports with a
broader body of research linking Whites’racial bias with perceptions and judgments on
a whole range of justice issues (e.g., Cullen et al., 2021; Drakulich, 2015; Hetey &
Eberhardt, 2014; Soss et al., 2003).
Conversely, Black citizens’views of police are more closely associated with both
direct and vicarious negative contact with police (Brunson, 2007; Gau & Brunson,
2010; Rosenbaum et al., 2005). Black Americans report more direct and vicarious neg-
ative experiences with police than do White Americans, and the source of the vicarious
experience is more often friends and family (rather than media), relative to Whites
(Rosenbaum et al., 2005). These experiences, in turn, shape perceptions of police
(Warren, 2011), and produce high rates of fear of police among Black citizens, as com-
pared to White citizens (Pickett et al., 2022). Similarly, Black and Hispanic youth
experience more direct and vicarious negative police contact than do White youth,
and contact (especially direct contact) produces cynicism about the police. Even
after controlling for level of contact, Black and Hispanic youth come to hold more neg-
ative views of police than do their White counterparts (Geller & Fagan, 2019; see also,
Brunson & Miller, 2006). Moreover, the significant racial gap in who actually experi-
ences biased treatment produces a kind of blindness to system bias among Whites that
is difficult to overcome (Hetey & Eberhardt, 2018). More systemically, the treatment
of Black and poor communities by the police produces group-level legal estrangement
(Bell, 2017), a sense of distrust that comes from widespread unjust treatment, margin-
alization, and exclusion from legal protection.
Lynch and Shaw 3
Despite these differences, given the increased public attention to, and awareness of,
the problem of bias in criminal justice (Do, 2000; Dunivin et al., 2022; Kahn & Martin,
2016), some limited evidence suggests that laypersons from all racial groups are
increasingly skeptical about the fairness of police in their treatment of Black citizens.
Following the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officers, favorability
toward police declined by “27% of a standard deviation”in a national panel survey
of Americans, although that effect disappeared among White respondents within
100 days of Floyd’s death (Reny & Newman, 2021, p. 1501). Similarly, among
matched samples of American adults, Curtis (2022) found that police favorably
dropped 32% following the Floyd killing compared to just months before, although
little change was observed among those in rural areas.
On the other hand, other high-profile police killings of Black men have not shifted
views of law enforcement to the same degree. Thus, in a repeated panel survey of
St. Louis County residents, Kochel (2019) found a significant decline in views that
police are procedurally just and legitimate after the Michael Brown killing by police
in Ferguson, but only among Black respondents. White et al. (2018) found no
erosion in perceptions of police trustworthiness, legitimacy, or procedural justice
among matched majority-Black samples of Baltimore residents before and after
the Freddie Gray killing by police, a finding partly explained by the very
negative views held about the police among Baltimoreans, such that there was
“little room for change in views in the context of Freddie Gray”(White et al., 2018,
p. 847).
Law Enforcement Evidence & Testimony in the Trial Context
Despite the centrality of police testimony in many criminal prosecutions, relatively
little research directly examines how laypersons assess police as potential or actual
witnesses in court cases (Cole, 2018). The limited existing research does suggest
that jurors’assessment of law enforcement plays an important role in judgment.
Analyses of data from one of the few large-scale studies of actual jurors in criminal
trials find that attitudes about police trustworthiness (Farrell et al., 2013), as well as
case-specific evaluations of police testimony (Garvey et al., 2004), significantly
predicted jurors’first votes for guilt. Trust in police was especially predictive of
votes among Black jurors (Farrell et al., 2013). Differential assessment of law
enforcement may therefore help explain the racial gap between Black and White
jurors in conviction-proneness, especially when the defendant is non-White
(Anwar et al., 2012; Farrell et al., 2013; Garvey et al., 2004; Williams & Burek,
2008).
To that end, studies examining the relationship between mock juror race and assess-
ments of law enforcement witnesses, as well as prosecution witnesses more generally,
have found credibility ratings of those witnesses to be demonstrably lower among
jurors of color, relative to White jurors. In an early experiment of this kind, Abshire
and Bornstein (2003) found that Black jurors were more skeptical about both of the
prosecution witnesses—a detective and an eyewitness who testified against a Black
4Race and Justice 0(0)
defendant charged with murder—but found the defense’s alibi witness more credible,
relative to White jurors in the study. In a more recent study, Ewanation et al. (2021)
found that the odds of convicting a defendant who allegedly killed a police officer
during a use-of-force incident were twice as high for White mock jurors relative to
jurors of color. They also found that the relationship between juror race and verdict
was partially mediated by participants’perceptions of police legitimacy. Our previous
findings (Shaw et al., 2021) similarly find that Black jurors were significantly more
skeptical about the credibility of prosecution witnesses, including two law enforce-
ment officers and a cooperating informant, than were White jurors, resulting in signifi-
cantly more votes for conviction among the White jurors.
The race of suspects, defendants, and witnesses can also influence how layper-
sons perceive law enforcement. Using an experimental paradigm, Pica et al. (2020)
found that their majority-White student participants were twice as likely (51% to
25%) to view a discretionary police arrest for loitering as justified when the arrestee
was White compared to a Black arrestee, and were significantly more likely to view
the arrest as racially-motivated when the arrestee was Black, relative to a White
arrestee (ηp
2
=.63). Participants’individual attitudes about police legitimacy
and fairness were significantly related to their assessments of whether the arrest
was race-based. Our previous study also found that mock jurors of all races
viewed law enforcement witnesses, as well as the informant, as significantly less
credible when the defendant was Black compared to when the defendant was
White. Moreover, Black jurors were the most likely to acquit in the Black
defendant-White informant condition (Shaw et al., 2021), which comports with
Abshire and Bornstein’s (2003) finding that Black jurors were significantly less
likely to find a White eyewitness credible relative to a Black eyewitness,
whereas White jurors did not distinguish between the eyewitnesses as a function
of race. Conversely, though, Maeder and Yamamoto (2017) found that their
majority-White participants were more likely to vote guilty against the Black
defendant when an informant who received a benefit for cooperating was White
compared to when he was Black. There was no race of informant effect when the
informant did not receive an incentive of either money or a reduced sentence to
testify.
The Present Study
Our primary aim with the present study is to further examine how laypersons’race
impacts judgment, focusing specifically on differences between Black and White
potential jurors. Building on our prior research in this area, we assess whether, and
to what degree, differential views of police underpin observed differences in outcomes
for a Black defendant charged in a drug-trafficking conspiracy case. Moreover, given
divergent findings on whether and how the race of witnesses shapes juror judgment in
Black defendant cases (Abshire & Bornstein, 2003; Conley et al., 2000; Maeder &
Yamamoto, 2017; Shaw et al., 2021), we also examine whether race of an informant
witness influences verdict decisions.
Lynch and Shaw 5
We test six hypotheses, as follows:
1. Consistent with prior research demonstrating that White jurors are more conviction-
prone than jurors of color (e.g., Abshire & Bornstein, 2003; Anwar et al., 2012;
Garvey et al., 2004; Shaw et al., 2021; Williams & Burek, 2008), Black jurors
will be significantly less likely to convict the defendant than will White jurors.
2. Consistent with Conley et al.’s (2000) finding that convictions are lowest when all
court actors are White in Black defendant cases, the White informant witness will
produce fewer convictions overall than will the Black informant.
3. Consistent with Abshire and Bornstein (2003) and suggested by our previous find-
ings, Black jurors will be less likely to convict than White jurors in the White infor-
mant condition, but not in the Black informant condition.
4. Consistent with research indicating jurors of color are more skeptical of prosecution
witnesses including law enforcement (Abshire & Bornstein, 2003; Shaw et al.,
2021), Black jurors will view the prosecution witnesses as less credible than will
White jurors.
5. Consistent with extensive research on the Black-White racial gap in perceptions of
police (e.g., Gramlich, 2019; Hurwitz & Peffley, 2005; Morin & Stepler, 2016;
Peck, 2015; Warren, 2011; Weitzer & Tuch, 2005), Black jurors will hold more
negative views of the police than White jurors across our measures of police
perceptions.
6. Consistent with Ewanation et al. (2021), perceptions of police will mediate the
effect of juror race on verdicts.
In this study, we also manipulated whether or not the informant testified that he “hoped
for”leniency for his cooperation with law enforcement and testimony against the
defendant to examine whether the “hope for”testimony would reduce convictions.
This testimony about a potential incentive for cooperation reflects a common practice
whereby such witnesses are not promised anything specific so they do not need to
reveal a concrete incentive while testifying (Cassidy, 2004). This form of “incentive”
had not been previously tested, despite its ubiquity in actual practice. While we did not
make any specific predictions about how this manipulation would interact with either
juror race or informant race, Maeder and Yamamoto’s (2017) research indicates that
informant race and incentive may interact in Black defendant cases. In this study,
we obtained virtually no main effect (the conviction rate was 72.1% without the incen-
tive and 72.2% with the incentive; OR =1.006; p=.973), nor any interaction effects
with juror race and/or informant race. Indeed, most participants across conditions
assumed the informant would benefit from testifying. Therefore, we collapsed those
cells in the analyses reported here.
Participants
We contracted with Qualtrics’research panel services to obtain a participant pool
limited to Black and White federal jury-eligible citizens, and that specifically over-
6Race and Justice 0(0)
sampled Black citizens for inclusion. Based on the findings from our previous study
(Shaw et al., 2021), we sought a minimum of 220 participants in each racial group
for the present study to uncover a main effect of juror race, our primary interest.
The specific criteria for inclusion in our study were: Black or White U.S. citizens,
18 or older, eligible to vote, with no felony convictions. Participants were paid accord-
ing to panel provider rates, and also received a $10 gift card award if they successfully
completed the study. Qualtrics recruited participants based on our eligibility criteria,
and we then confirmed eligibility at the start of our Qualtrics presentation, prior to
our informed consent process. Potential participants were asked their gender, race/eth-
nicity, age, whether they are a U.S. citizen, and about any prior convictions (nothing
other than traffic; misdemeanor; and/or felony). Those who met the criteria continued
on to the study.
A total of 775 qualified participants completed the study. Of those, 95 participants
were removed from the final sample for failing our manipulation check on informant
race, and an additional 31 were removed for either providing a nonsensical response to
our open-ended question regarding their decision-making; appearing to complete the
study a second time; and/or completing the study in less than half the median time
of the soft launch completions by 35 participants. Due to a technical glitch in
Qualtrics, the assigned informant condition for two additional participants was
unavailable. We included these two participants in our final sample for our analyses
using juror race alone as a predictor, but they are necessarily excluded from any anal-
yses that include informant race.
Our final sample included 649 mock jurors, of whom 65% (421) identified as White
and 35% (228) as Black. The majority of participants (75%) were women; 25% were
men, and 1 participant identified as another (unspecified) gender. We would have
ideally had a more balanced gender distribution in our participant pool; however,
our primary interest was in examining differences between Black and White partici-
pants, reducing our concern about the gender breakdown. Overall, there was not a sig-
nificant difference in conviction rates between women (71%) and men (74%; p=.49).
The mean participant age was 52, and 75% of our participants attended at least some
college. Approximately 27% of the participants identified as Republican, 45% as
Democrat, and 24% as Independent. The remaining 4% either had another political
affiliation or no affiliation at all. Fully 31% of the participants had previously
served on a jury.
Design & Materials
The study employed a 2 ×2 factorial design, in which the race of informant witness
(Black or White), and incentive for testifying was varied, creating four experimental
conditions. In the incentive condition, the informant testified on cross-examination
that he hoped to receive a break from the potential 10-year sentence he faced for his
cooperation, but was telling the truth. This testimony was not included in the
no-incentive condition. As previously noted, in the present analysis we collapse the
incentive conditions, since there was no measurable difference between these
Lynch and Shaw 7
conditions, and our primary interest in this analysis is in the relationship between juror
race and judgment. In all conditions, the defendant was Black.
Except for the informant’s testimony, the case materials were presented through a
written slide show presenting the abbreviated trial transcript, supplemented with pho-
tographs of the case participants. The direct and cross examination of the informant
was presented as an audio recording over a quickly moving photo slideshow of the
informant testifying. We opted to present the informant testimony through the more
visually rich audio-visual slideshow to help ensure our participants remained
engaged and were attentive to the race manipulation.
A casting call was used to recruit actors who filled the Black and White informant
roles; actors were selected based on matched age, size, and appearance. Prior to and
during the photo shoot, an acting coach worked with the selected pair to calibrate
and synchronize their movements and gestures to ensure we could match their
photos on posture and expression. They were also dressed in identical clothing. The
voice recordings for the attorneys and informant were completed using trained
actors. We used the same voice actor for the informant across the two race conditions
to control for all extraneous variations in speech that would naturally occur if using
two separate voice actors. The trained voice actor identified as a Black/
African-American and White mixed-race man and modulated his voice to be racially
ambiguous in his testimony. To capture the four experimental conditions, the versions
of the slide show varied only on the racial characteristics of the informant and the
incentive condition; otherwise, the materials were identical across conditions. While
we recognize the trade-offs in using only one actor for each role (Wells &
Windschitl, 1999), due to the more complex presentation of our stimulus, it was not
feasible to produce multiple versions of the informant testimony and we had protocols
in place to ensure matching on appearance and poses of the informant actors.
The trial presentation was loosely based on an actual federal narcotics conspiracy
trial transcript. The defendant in the case, Harold Williams, was charged with conspir-
acy to distribute cocaine in the Central District of California. The government alleged
that Mr. Williams entered into an agreement to sell 500 grams of cocaine to an asso-
ciate, Sheldon Smith, for $10,000. Unbeknownst to the defendant, the associate
himself had been arrested and was operating as a confidential informant for the FBI.
The trial presentation began by specifying the charge for which Mr. Williams was
being tried, then moved to opening statements from the prosecutor and defense attor-
ney, followed by the testimony of two prosecution witnesses.
The first witness was the FBI agent, who testified about her experience working in
narcotics and managing informants, then about specifics of the case. She testified about
text messages the defendant sent to the informant to arrange the drug sale, and how the
defendant was ultimately arrested with marked cash from the informant that was
exchanged for drugs. The second witness was the informant, Sheldon Smith, who tes-
tified about his prior history selling drugs for the defendant and about his plan to
acquire drugs from the defendant as part of the FBI sting operation. Both witnesses
were subjected to cross-examination by the defense after their direct examination tes-
timony. After the witness testimony was presented, the judge read the relevant jury
8Race and Justice 0(0)
instructions that explained the duties of jurors, the burden of proof and the presumption
of innocence, considerations of witness credibility, and the defendant’s right not to
testify, and the elements of the specific offense charged that must be proved.
1
The
trial concluded with closing arguments by the prosecution and defense. All case par-
ticipants besides the defendant and the informant (in one of the two conditions) were
White.
Procedures and Measures
Those who passed our screening for inclusion moved on to the study information sheet
describing the study, and informing them of their rights as research participants. They
then proceeded to read and listen to the case materials. After viewing the case materi-
als, participants completed an electronic survey that began with the verdict decision
and a measure of confidence in that verdict, then assessed individual perceptions of
the evidence, witnesses, attorneys, defendant, and judge; comprehension of jury
instructions; attitudes about a variety of issues; and demographic information. After
participants completed the individual measures, they were debriefed and provided
the gift card award and payment by Qualtrics. The mean time for completing the
study was 51 min, and the median time was 38 min.
Key independent variables for this analysis were juror race (Black or White) and
informant race (Black or White). Key dependent measures were verdict, a dichoto-
mous variable with the options of “guilty”or “not guilty”; the witness credibility mea-
sures; and the police perceptions measures. Specifically, participants’views of how
credible the two prosecution witnesses, the FBI agent and the informant were assessed,
using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 =not at all credible to 7 =very credible. The
police perceptions measures tapped into three distinct components. First, series of
four police legitimacy items were drawn from Hinds and Murphy (2007). Next, a
series of three “fairness and equity”items that assessed participants’confidence in
the police to treat different racial groups equally, and to refrain from using excessive
force, were drawn from Pew Research Center (2014). Finally, we created a third set of
three measures that assessed participants’perceptions about police engagement in mis-
conduct, such as planting evidence and lying on the job.
Results
Verdicts by Juror Race & Informant Race
In Hypothesis 1, we predicted that Black jurors would be significantly less likely to
convict the defendant overall than White jurors. Across conditions, 65% of Black
jurors convicted the defendant, compared to 76% of White jurors (see Table 1 for
breakdown by condition).
We ran a logistic regression with verdict (guilty vs. not guilty) as the dependent var-
iable, and entered juror race and informant race as predictor variables. Because by
design all jurors in our study self-identified as either White or Black, we used a
Lynch and Shaw 9
dichotomized juror race variable to compare the responses of jurors by race (White =
1, Black =0), and a dichotomous informant race variable (White =1, Black =0).
Verdict responses were also dichotomous (guilty =1, not guilty =0). The overall
model was significant χ
2
(2, N=647) =7.78, p=.02. Juror race significantly pre-
dicted verdict outcomes (OR =1.65, 95% CI [1.16, 2.35], Wald =7.69, p=.006),
in support of Hypothesis 1. There was no main effect for informant race, disconfirming
Hypothesis 2 (OR =.93, 95% CI [.66, 1.32], Wald =.17, p=.68). Although we did
not originally hypothesize about whether juror gender and race might intersect, the
data indicate that the juror race effect is driven by Black women (see Figure 1).
Black women significantly differed from both White men (OR =1.75; p=.04) and
White women (OR =1.81; p=.004) in their verdicts. Black men, however, did not
differ from any other group (ps ranged from .27 to .67).
2
Table 1. Conviction Verdicts by Informant Race and Juror Race (N =647).
Juror Race
Condition White Black Totals by Condition
White Informant 76% (168/220) 62% (73/117) 71% (241/337)
Black Informant 75% (151/201) 69% (75/109) 73% (226/310)
Totals by Juror Race 76% (319/421) 65% (148/226) 72% (467/647)
Figure 1. Verdicts by juror race & gender.
10 Race and Justice 0(0)
To test Hypothesis 3, we first examined whether Black participants in the White
informant condition convicted at a lower rate than those in the other three conditions.
A logistic regression specifying the Black juror/White informant condition as the ref-
erence category was run. The overall model was significant χ
2
(3, N=647) =8.73, p
=.03. Black jurors in the White informant condition had significantly lower convic-
tion rates relative to White participants in both the White (OR =1.95, 95% CI
[1.20, 3.17], Wald =7.21, p=.007), and Black (OR =1.82, 95% CI [1.11, 2.98],
Wald =5.69, p=.017) informant conditions. Black jurors in the White informant
condition did not significantly differ from Black jurors in the Black informant condi-
tion (OR =1.33, 95% CI [.77, 2.31], Wald =1.03, p=.31). We then ran a second
binary logistic regression specifying the Black juror/Black informant as the reference
category. Results indicated that it did not differ from the White juror conditions with
either the Black (OR =1.37, 95% CI [.82, 2.29], Wald =1.42, p=.23) or White
(OR =1.46, 95% CI [.88, 2.44], Wald =2.14, p=.14) informant. Again, the
lower conviction rate among Black jurors in the White informant condition effect
appears to be largely due to Black women, as illustrated in Figure 1. Black women
were significantly less likely to convict, relative to the others, in the White informant
condition (OR =.47; p=.004), whereas they did not differ from the others in the
Black informant condition (p=.21).
Juror Race and Witness Credibility
Hypothesis 4, that Black jurors will view both prosecution witnesses as less credible
than will White jurors, was partially supported. Consistent with our prediction,
Black jurors rated the FBI agent as significantly less credible than did White jurors
(see Table 2). Again, there was an interaction between the race and gender of partic-
ipants (F =4.16; p=.042). Black women (mean =4.90) significantly differed in
their mean rating of the FBI agent’s credibility from both White men (mean =5.58)
and White women (mean =5.66), but not from Black men (mean =5.44). A
two-way ANOVA that included juror race and informant race indicated that Black
Table 2. Perceptions of Witness Credibility by Juror Race.
White Juror Black Juror
Variable M SD M SD t-test Cohen’sd
Credibility rating
FBI Agent 5.64 1.46 5.02 1.78 −4.52*** .39
White Informant 5.15 1.67 4.74 1.84 −2.06* .24
Black Informant 5.18 1.65 5.07 1.79 −.523 .06
Note. M=Mean; SD =Standard deviation. Credibility ratings range from 1 (not at all credible) to 7 (very
credible).
*p< .05, *** p< .001.
Lynch and Shaw 11
jurors found the informant only marginally less credible than did White jurors
(F =3.444; p=.06), and there was no main effect of informant race on credibility
ratings (F =1.644, p=.20). As is illustrated in Table 2, however, there was a split
in credibility ratings of the informant, as a function of informant race. Black jurors
found the White informant significantly less credible than did the White jurors,
whereas there was no difference in the ratings of the Black informant. No race x
gender interactions were detected in the assessments of either the Black or White
informant.
Juror Race and Perceptions of Police
Hypothesis 5 predicted that Black jurors will hold more negative views of the police
than White jurors across our police perceptions measures. In order to test this, we pre-
pared several variables to examine the relationship between juror race and police per-
ceptions. To create our measure of police legitimacy, we averaged the scores for four
items derived from Hinds and Murphy (2007) and used in subsequent studies (e.g.,
Fedina et al., 2019; Jackson et al., 2021; Murphy et al., 2008), that were on a
5-point scale from “strongly disagree”(1) to “strongly agree”(5): “Police do their
job well,”“I have confidence in the police,”“I have great respect for the police,”
and “I’m very satisfied with services provided by police.”A principal component anal-
ysis with a varimax rotation was used to assess the suitability of these four items for
combining into a single scale. This produced a one-factor solution with an
Eigenvalue of 3.38, and the model explained 85% of the cumulative variance, indicat-
ing that the four items tap one unified construct with a Cronbach’s alpha of .939.
Greater scores on this composite measure indicated more a positive view of police
legitimacy.
To assess perceptions of police misconduct, we created three measures of attitudes
about police misconduct, using a 5-point scale from “never”(1) to “always”(5):
“Police officers plant evidence—like drugs or weapons—on people they are investi-
gating,”“Police officers lie to avoid trouble,”and “Police officers tell the truth in
court.”The third item was reverse-coded, and then all three measures were averaged
together to produce a single scale reflecting perceptions of police misconduct.
Another principal component analysis with a varimax rotation was used to assess
the suitability of these three items for combining into a single scale. This produced
a one-factor solution with an Eigenvalue of 2.10, and the model explained 70% of
the cumulative variance, indicating that the three items tap one unified construct
with a Cronbach’s alpha of .785, which is considered acceptable (Cortina, 1993).
Higher scores on this misconduct measure reflect greater distrust of police officers.
To create our measure of perceptions of police fairness and equity, we used three
items developed by Pew Research Center (2014) and regularly used in national
polls that assess participant confidence using a 4-point scale from “very little”(1) to
“a great deal”(4): “How much confidence do you have in police officers in your com-
munity to treat blacks and whites equally?,”“How much confidence do you have in
police officers in your community to treat Hispanics and whites equally?,”and
12 Race and Justice 0(0)
“How much confidence do you have in police officers in your community to not use
excessive force on suspects?”. All three measures were averaged together to produce a
single scale reflecting perceptions of police fairness. Another principal component
analysis with a varimax rotation was used to assess the suitability of these three
items for combining into a single scale. This produced a one-factor solution with an
Eigenvalue of 2.53, and the model explained 85% of the cumulative variance, indicat-
ing that the three items tap one unified construct with a Cronbach’s alpha of .908.
Higher scores on this police fairness scale reflect greater confidence that police officers
are fair and unbiased.
We then examined whether juror race predicted the composite measures of police atti-
tudes (legitimacy, misconduct, and fairness) as hypothesized, using two-way ANOVAs
that included both juror race and informant race. In each analysis, both informant race
and the informant race x juror race interaction were nonsignificant, while juror race sig-
nificantly predicted each of the police perceptions measures. Table 3 illustrates the means
by juror race and effect sizes for the three composite measures. The effect sizes for the
legitimacy composite measure and the fairness composite measure are very large
(Cohen’sd=.91 and .85, respectively), indicating that the differences between the
groups are substantial. As illustrated in Figure 2, Black women had significantly lower
police legitimacy and police fairness ratings than all the others and had significantly
higher police misconduct ratings relative to White participants. Black men also signifi-
cantly differed from White participants in their police misconduct and police fairness
ratings. They also significantly differed from White men in police legitimacy scores.
Perceptions of Police as Mediator of Juror Race Effect
A primary goal of this study was to identify a potential pathway through which juror
race could shape verdict responses, in order to help explain differences by juror race in
verdict outcomes, as observed in prior studies. Therefore, in Hypothesis 6, we pre-
dicted that the relationship between juror race and verdict would be mediated by per-
ceptions of police. To test this hypothesis, we examined whether two of our composite
measures –police legitimacy and perceptions of police fairness –mediated the impact
of juror race on verdicts.
Table 3. Views of Police by Juror Race.
White Juror Black Juror
Composite Variable M SD M SD t-test Cohen’sd
Police Are Legitimate 4.09 .79 3.38 1.11 8.54*** .91
Police Engage in Misconduct 2.41 .61 3.13 .72 13.43*** .65
Police are Fair & Equitable 2.99 .82 2.14 .90 11.54*** .85
Note. M=Mean; SD =Standard deviation.
*** p< .001.
Lynch and Shaw 13
While we administered the perceptions measures after jurors had viewed the case
and rendered their judgment, we are confident in the validity of using these two com-
posite measures as mediators of the impact of juror race on verdicts. We assume that
jurors participating in this study began with pre-existing, relatively stable attitudes
toward the police on these two dimensions, and were not significantly influenced by
the facts of this case toward one verdict or another (see e.g., Tyler & Weber, 1982
on stability of symbolic attitudes such as those on criminal justice issues). We also
ran two-way ANOVA tests to examine if mean scores by juror race on the police per-
ceptions measures differed as a function of informant race. They were nonsignificant
(ps ranged from .37 to .57), suggesting that the study participation did not substantially
impact these measures. Moreover, as Ewanation et al. (2021) have demonstrated,
police legitimacy attitudes do not appear to be influenced by order of measurement.
In their study, there was no significant difference in police legitimacy scores
between those measured before the stimulus materials and those measured after (see
also, Hayes & Rockwood, 2020).
3
Therefore, given that both police fairness attitudes and police legitimacy attitudes,
especially respect for and confidence in police, represent normative attitudes that
reflect broader values and that tend to be relatively stable, we examined whether
these attitudes mediated the juror race effect on verdicts. Because the police miscon-
duct composite measure includes an item about the possibility of police planting drugs
or money, and one directly related to credibility (that police tell the truth in court), we
did not use this measure in our mediation analysis. We reasoned that, given the fact
Figure 2. Views of police by juror race & gender.
Note: Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.
14 Race and Justice 0(0)
pattern of the case, both of these may have been related to assessments of the evidence
and testimony made by participants, thereby directly shaping the verdict decision. As
such, this composite measure runs the risk of measuring perceptions of the case itself,
rather than more deeply held attitudes.
We present a model that tests the potential for police legitimacy and perceived fair-
ness of the police to operate as distinct mediators of the relationship between juror race
and verdict. While the two scales were correlated (.633; p< .001), the two composite
measures tap into different underlying attitudes. Perceptions of police fairness among
Whites, and in particular, the belief that Black and White citizens are treated equally by
police, are associated with measures of both explicit and “symbolic”racism, as well as
with political party affiliation (Matsueda & Drakulich, 2009). Likewise, police legiti-
macy and its constituent components can function as an expressive or normative atti-
tude, reflecting views about social cohesion and moral authority (Jackson & Bradford,
2009; Jackson & Sunshine, 2007; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003).
We first tested the role of police legitimacy and perceptions of police fairness on ver-
dicts by performing a binary logistic regression predicting verdicts using juror race, the
police support scale and the police fairness scale. The overall model was significant,
χ
2
(3, N=649) =39.12, p< .001. Juror race was no longer significant in the model
(p=.856), while the police legitimacy scale and police fairness scale both significantly
predicted verdicts (police legitimacy: OR =1.42, 95% CI [1.14, 1.78], Wald =9.62,
p=.002; police fairness: OR =1.30, 95% CI [1.01, 1.67], Wald =4.15, p< .04).
We used the PROCESS plug-in created by Andrew Hayes (2022) to analyze our
mediation model in SPSS to determine if the impact of juror race on verdicts was medi-
ated by the police fairness and police legitimacy measures. As is illustrated in Figure 3,
based on the bootstrap confidence intervals derived from 5000 samples, juror race
was significantly associated with both police perceptions measures (police
legitimacy: B =.714, SE =.076; 95% CI [.565, .862], p< .001; police fairness:
B=.841; SE =.070; 95% CI [.704, .978]; p< .001), and the police perceptions mea-
sures were, in turn, significantly associated with verdict (police legitimacy: B =.353;
SE =.114; 95% CI [.130, .577], p=.002; police fairness: B =.261; SE =.128; 95%
CI [.010, .511]; p=.04). The direct effect of race on verdict was not significant
(B =.037; SE =.206; 95% CI [-.366, .441], p=.86). The indirect effect coefficient
for police legitimacy was significant (B =.252; 95% Boot CI [.082, .457]), whereas
police fairness was not (B =.219; 95% Boot CI [-.005, .449]). This suggests that
the relationship between juror race and verdict was mediated by perceptions of
police legitimacy, thus partially supporting our hypothesis.
Discussion & Conclusion
Taken together, this study’sfindings link and extend three previous areas of research.
Specifically, we add to the nascent body of work on law enforcement as trial witnesses,
and demonstrate the role that views of police plays in predicting verdict outcomes. We
also replicate the robust, well-documented finding that Black laypersons hold much
more negative views of police than White laypersons, and demonstrate its effect on
Lynch and Shaw 15
juror judgments. Finally, we contribute to the literature on the interaction of witness
race and juror race. We also explored the intersection of gender and race in evaluation
of testimony, perceptions of police, and verdicts.
Consistent with our predictions and consistent with previous work (Abshire &
Bornstein, 2003; Shaw et al., 2021), White jurors behaved differently than Black
jurors, especially Black women, in this study. Black women were the least likely of
all groups to support a guilty verdict, and they gave lower credibility ratings to the
FBI witness relative to the White participants. White participants were also marginally
more likely to find the informant credible overall. Black participants were especially
skeptical of the White informant witness, consistent with prior research that indicates
Black jurors are less likely than White jurors to convict Black defendants when the
prosecution witnesses are White (Abshire & Bornstein, 2003). The finding that
Black participants found the White informant significantly less credible than did
White participants and were less likely to convict when the informant was White
also suggests that Black, but not White participants, may have been sensitive to the
“racial ecology”of the case, wherein laypersons are sensitized to the appearance of
the state ganging up on a Black defendant when all the court actors and witnesses
are White (Conley et al., 2000).
Our Black and White participants also significantly and substantially differed in
their views of police. Black participants expressed less confidence in and respect for
police, thereby viewing police as less legitimate, relative to White participants.
Black participants had less confidence that police treat citizens equally regardless of
race and that they refrained from using excessive force. Finally, Black participants
Figure 3. Mediation model predicting verdicts.
* Indirect effect via police legitimacy: B =.252; 95% Boot CI [.082, .457]; indirect effect via
police fairness: B =.219; 95% Boot CI [-.005, .449].
16 Race and Justice 0(0)
were more likely than White participants to expect that police engage in misconduct.
Again, Black women differed the most dramatically from others in their perceptions of
police, although Black men also differed from White participants in their views. In the
end, the differential in views of police appeared to account for the difference in verdict
decisions by juror race. Specifically, the composite measure of police legitimacy
appeared to mediate the relationship between juror race and verdict choice. This sug-
gests that differential perceptions of police can influence how law enforcement evi-
dence is evaluated and verdicts are rendered, and this is manifested as differences
by juror race. As previous research indicates, those racially divergent views, though,
are at least partly produced through both direct and vicarious negative police
contact that is disproportionately experienced by Black Americans (Brunson, 2007;
Rosenbaum et al., 2005; Warren, 2011). Thus, racially unequal treatment by police
itself influences how potential jurors orient to criminal cases.
Implications for Jury Selection & Composition
Our findings have important implications for police legitimacy in the criminal court
context, especially in the wake of multiple, egregious incidents of racialized police vio-
lence, including the killings of Michael Brown, Freddie Gray, George Floyd, Tyre
Nichols, Breonna Taylor, and others. These events have a cumulative impact on the
public’s trust in police that, coupled with citizens’own negative experiences with
police, increasingly creates challenges for prosecutors who rely on law enforcement
as key witnesses. The remedy, of course, is not to rid criminal juries of all who
view police with skepticism. That effectively “whitewashes”(Semel et al., 2020) crim-
inal juries, ensuring that Whites are over-represented, and potentially colliding with
constitutional protections for both defendants (Batson v. Kentucky, 1986; Foster
v. Chatman, 2016) and citizens who come to serve (J.E.B v. Alabama, 1994). Such
a strategy also runs the risk of seating juries whose members will disproportionately
harbor racial bias (Matsueda & Drakulich, 2009) and/or who are blind to racial ineq-
uities in the system (see generally, Hetey & Eberhardt, 2018), which is especially a
threat to fair justice for Black defendants. Moreover, given the divergent constitutional
make-up of attitudes about the police, with White support associated with measures of
White racial identity, and racial bias and resentment, and Black cynicism and estrange-
ment associated with experiential knowledge about how police treat those in poor and
Black communities (Bell, 2017; Brunson & Miller, 2006), removing jurors due to their
skepticism about the police runs the high risk of seating a biased jury.
Rather, it is critical that juries represent the diversity of the communities from which
venire members come. As such, they can bring a race-conscious (Do, 2000) lens to the
decision-making task, that may well include a variety of prior experiences with, and
understandings of, police. Diversity in the jury room improves the quality of deliber-
ation (Sommers, 2006), and can ensure that the jury functions in its democratic role as
a check on state power, including that wielded by police (Carroll, 2015). To that end,
as more members of the public come to recognize and condemn anti-Black police vio-
lence and other forms of biased law enforcement practices (Pew Research Center,
Lynch and Shaw 17
2020), it may be that the jury will become a more robust democratic check on justice
system bias in an era of declining police legitimacy.
Ultimately, our findings suggest that the legal processes that are used to excuse jurors
from service, either peremptorily or for cause, need to be reconsidered to ensure that
views of police, included those rooted in actual experience or knowledge about the prob-
lems with fair and just policing, are not used to disproportionately exclude persons of
color, or to seat juries overrepresented by people who blindly trust and support police
(Hetey & Eberhardt, 2018). Recent policy developments in several states, beginning
with Washington, have done just that. In 2018, the Washington State Supreme Court
adopted General Rule 37, which declares that the use of peremptory challenges to
remove venire members for “having prior contact with law enforcement officers; express-
ing a distrust of law enforcement or a belief that law enforcement officers engage in racial
profiling; [or] having a close relationship with people who have been stopped, arrested, or
convicted of a crime”is presumptively invalid, as those reasons unfairly exclude jurors
based on race or ethnicity (Washington Courts, n.d., pp. 1–2). The California legislature
subsequently enacted A.B. 3070, modeled after General Rule 37, to strengthen protec-
tions against discriminatory juror exclusion on the basis of race or ethnicity. It includes
this same language, declaring peremptory challenges used to excuse potential jurors
for views of, and experiences with, police to be presumptively invalid (California
Legislature, 2020).
Limitations & Future Directions
This study is not without limitations. First, we only examined one type of crime—an
arranged drug conspiracy that was set up by law enforcement—that may have been
especially likely to produce skepticism about both the FBI agent and informant, par-
ticularly for a Black defendant, as in our scenario. This scenario directly called on
our participants to consider system actors’veracity in making a verdict determination.
And, as is the case with all juror simulation studies, external validity is a limitation
with regard to both consequentiality and engagement. In particular, unlike our previous
study upon which we are building, this study collected participant data exclusively
online, and did not include a group deliberation component. Although individual
verdict preferences have been shown to be a consistent predictor of group outcomes
(Devine, 2012), it is possible that the results would vary if a group deliberation com-
ponent was used (see Garcia et al., 2021; Salerno & Diamond, 2010). Participants in
this study were also aware that they were not actually reaching a verdict that would
impact the life of a real defendant, and it is possible that jurors would be more attentive
to a trial scenario with actual consequences for the defendant (see Bornstein &
McCabe, 2005). At the very least, this is a feature that distinguishes experimental
jury research from actual trials. This online participant group also appears to be rela-
tively well-educated, with 75% having at least some college education, and it was more
Democratic than the nation’s population (Gallup, n.d.). However, prior research sug-
gests that differences between online and in-person studies tend to be minimal (see
Irvine et al., 2018).
18 Race and Justice 0(0)
We also want to reiterate that our findings in regard to the intersection of race and
gender are exploratory, and were not part of our original hypotheses. Consequently,
among other concerns, we do not have sufficient power, especially regarding Black
men as a subgroup, to draw conclusions about their relative role in the overall race
effects we found. It is clear, however, that the findings related to Black women
were robust, to the extent that they stood out in their negative views of police, assess-
ments of the FBI witness, and in their verdict determinations.
These findings suggest several future lines of research. First, given the juror race
effects we obtained in this and our previous study (Shaw et al., 2021), it is imperative
to further examine whether attitudes about law enforcement, and justice system fair-
ness more broadly, underpin the differences between White and non-White potential
jurors. Our study was one step in this endeavor, but more work remains to be done
using different kinds of cases, including civil matters related to law enforcement
(such as civilian lawsuits against police agencies). And to the degree that some
White Americans’support for law enforcement, and denial of system bias, is associ-
ated with forms of racism (Carter et al., 2016; Matsueda & Drakulich, 2009), it is crit-
ical to further examine how jury diversity may mitigate the risk of biased
decision-making. In addition, while we did not set out to examine how juror race inter-
sects with gender, it does appear that Black women, in particular, drove the differences
in verdicts, and were the least supportive of guilt in the White informant condition.
Thus, future studies should further explore how race and gender intersect in juror judg-
ment. Finally, while we can hypothesize that increased sensitivity among the public to
the problem of anti-Black bias by criminal justice actors may reconfigure how juries
evaluate cases and come to verdicts in cases that rely heavily upon law enforcement-
generated evidence, future studies should more directly test whether different kinds of
law enforcement-generated evidence may raise doubts about its veracity or credibility,
especially when the defendant is Black.
Author's Note
Emily V. Shaw is also affiliated at Decision Analysis, Inc., Topanga, CA, USA.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article: This work was supported by the National Science Foundation (grant
number 1624943), and National Institute of Justice (grant number 2017-IJ-CX-0044).
ORCID iD
Mona Lynch https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5594-9016
Lynch and Shaw 19
Notes
1. In the federal system, jury instructions can be given at the end of evidence and prior to closing
argument, by stipulated agreement, and in some jurisdictions, this is the norm. In the trial
from which we adapted our case, the instructions were delivered at the end of evidence,
prior to closing arguments so we maintained that format.
2. Because Black men constituted the smallest group (50 participants as compared to 109 White
men, 178 Black women, and 311 White women) and they typically had the closest scores to
Black women, relative to White men and women, we cannot conclude that nonsignificant dif-
ferences between Black men and White participants is meaningful.
3. We opted not to measure police perceptions prior to introducing the stimulus materials to
avoid priming participants in a way that could influence verdicts, especially in regard to
the police misconduct measures.
References
Abshire, J., & Bornstein, B. H. (2003). Juror sensitivity to the cross-race effect. Law & Human
Behavior,27(5), 471–480. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025481905861
Anwar, S., Bayer, P., & Hjalmarsson, R. (2012). The impact of jury race in criminal trials. The
Quarterly Journal of Economics,127(2), 1017–1055. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjs014
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
Bell, M. C. (2017). Police reform and the dismantling of legal estrangement. Yale Law Journal,
126(7), 2054–2150.
Bornstein, B. H., & McCabe, S. G. (2005). Jurors of the absurd? The role of consequentiality in
jury simulation research. Florida State University Law Review,32(2), 443–467.
Brunson, R. K. (2007). “Police don’t like black people”: African-American young men’s accu-
mulated police experiences. Criminology & Public Policy,6(1), 71–101. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1745-9133.2007.00423.x
Brunson, R. K., & Miller, J. (2006). Young black men and urban policing in the United States.
British Journal of Criminology,46(4), 613–640. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azi093
California Legislature (2020). Assembly Bill 3070. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/
billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB3070
Carroll, J. E. (2015). The jury as democracy. Alabama Law Review,66(4), 825–870.
Carter, J. S., Corra, M., & Jenks, D. A. (2016). In the shadows of Ferguson: The role of racial
resentment on White attitudes towards the use of force by police in the United States.
International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences,11(2), 114–131.
Cassidy, R. M. (2004). Soft words of hope: Giglio, accomplice witnesses, and the problem of
implied inducements. Northwestern University Law Review,98(3), 1129–1177.
Cole, L. M. (2018). In the aftermath of Ferguson. In C. J. Nagdowski, & M. C. Stevenson (Eds.),
Criminal juries in the 21st century: Psychological science and the law (pp. 109–131). Oxford
University Press.
Conley, J. M., Turnier, W. J., & Rose, M. R. (2000). The racial ecology of the courtroom: An
experimental study of juror response to the race of criminal defendants. Wisconsin Law
Review,2000(6), 1185–1220.
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications.
Journal of Applied Psychology,78(1), 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98
20 Race and Justice 0(0)
Costanzo, M., Shaked-Schroer, N., & Vinson, K. (2010). Juror beliefs about police interroga-
tions, false confessions, and expert testimony. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies,7(2),
231–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2010.01177.x
Cullen, F. T., Butler, L. C., & Graham, A. (2021). Racial attitudes and criminal justice policy.
Crime & Justice,50(1), 163–245. https://doi.org/10.1086/715911
Curtis, J. (2022). The effect of the 2020 racial justice protests on attitudes and preferences in
rural and urban America. Social Science Quarterly,103(1), 90–107. https://doi.org/10.
1111/ssqu.13105
Devine, D. J. (2012). Jury decision making: The state of the science. NYU Press.
Do, L. X. (2000). Jury nullification and race-conscious reasonable doubt: Overlapping reifications of
commonsense justice and the potential voir dire mistake. UCLA Law Review,47(6), 1843–1884.
Drakulich, K., Wozniak, K. H., Hagan, J., & Johnson, D. (2021). Whose lives mattered? How
white and black Americans felt about Black Lives Matter in 2016. Law & Society Review,
55(2), 227–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12552
Drakulich, K. M. (2015). The hidden role of racial bias in support for policies related to
inequality and crime. Punishment & Society,17(5), 541–574. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1462474515604041
Dunivin, Z. O., Yan, H. Y., Ince, J., & Rojas, F. (2022). Black Lives Matter protests shift public
discourse. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,119(10), e2117320119. https://
doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2117320119
Ellis, L., & Diamond, S. S. (2003). Race, diversity, and jury composition: Battering and bolster-
ing legitimacy. Chicago-Kent Law Review,78(3), 1033–1058.
Ewanation, L., Maeder, E. M., & Yamamoto, S. (2021). Mock juror decision-making in a
self-defence trial involving police use of force. Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement,54(1), 19–27. https://doi.org/
10.1037/cbs0000270
Farrell, A., Pennington, L., & Cronin, S. (2013). Juror perceptions of the legitimacy of legal
authorities and decision making in criminal cases. Law & Social Inquiry,38(4), 773–802.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2012.01323.x
Fedina, L., Backes, B. L., Jun, H. J., DeVylder, J., & Barth, R. P. (2019). Police legitimacy, trust-
worthiness, and associations with intimate partner violence. Policing: An International
Journal,42(5), 901–916. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-04-2019-0046
Foster v. Chatman, 136 S. Ct. 1737 (2016).
Gallup (n.d.). Party affiliation. https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
Garcia, R. J., Shaw, E. V., & Scurich, N. (2021). Normative and informational influence on
group decision making: Effects of majority opinion and anonymity on voting behavior
and belief change. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice,25(4), 319–333.
https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000145
Garvey, S. P., Hannaford-Agor, P., Hans, V. P., Mott, N. L., Munsterman, G. T., & Wells, M. T.
(2004). Juror first votes in criminal trials. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies,1(2), 371–398.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2004.00011.x
Gau, J. M., & Brunson, R. K. (2010). Procedural justice and order maintenance policing: A
study of inner-city young men’s perceptions of police legitimacy. Justice Quarterly,27(2),
255–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820902763889
Lynch and Shaw 21
Gau, J. M., Corsaro, N., Stewart, E. A., & Brunson, R. K. (2012). Examining macro-level
impacts on procedural justice and police legitimacy. Journal of Criminal Justice,40(4),
333–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.05.002
Geller, A., & Fagan, J. (2019). Police contact and the legal socialization of urban teens. RSF: The
Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences,5(1), 26–49. https://doi.org/10.7758/
RSF.2019.5.1.02
Gramlich, J. (2019, May 21). From police to parole, black and white Americans differ widely in
their views of criminal justice system. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/
fact-tank/2019/05/21/from-police-to-parole-black-and-white-americans-differ-widely-in-
their-views-of-criminal-justice-system/
Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A
regression-based approach (3rd ed.). Guilford Publications.
Hayes, A. F., & Rockwood, N. J. (2020). Conditional process analysis: Concepts, computation,
and advances in the modeling of the contingencies of mechanisms. American Behavioral
Scientist,64(1), 19–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219859633
Hetey, R. C., & Eberhardt, J. L. (2014). Racial disparities in incarceration increase acceptance of
punitive policies. Psychological Science,25(10), 1949–1954. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0956797614540307
Hetey, R. C., & Eberhardt, J. L. (2018). The numbers don’t speak for themselves: Racial dispar-
ities and the persistence of inequality in the criminal justice system. Current Directions in
Psychological Science,27(3), 183–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418763931
Hinds, L., & Murphy, K. (2007). Public satisfaction with police: Using procedural justice
to improve police legitimacy. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology,40(1),
27–42. https://doi.org/10.1375/acri.40.1.27
Hurwitz, J., & Peffley, M. (2005). Explaining the great racial divide: Perceptions of fairness in
the US criminal justice system. The Journal of Politics,67(3), 762–783. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00338.x
Irvine, K., Hoffman, D. A., & Wilkinson-Ryan, T. (2018). Law and psychology grows up, goes
online, and replicates. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies,15(2), 320–355. https://doi.org/10.
1111/jels.12180
Jackson, A. N., Fedina, L., DeVylder, J., & Barth, R. P. (2021). Police violence and associations
with public perceptions of the police. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research,
12(2), 303–326. https://doi.org/10.1086/711683
Jackson, J., & Bradford, B. (2009). Crime, policing and social order: On the expressive nature of
public confidence in policing. The British Journal of Sociology,60(3), 493–521. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2009.01253.x
Jackson, J., & Sunshine, J. (2007). Public confidence in policing: A neo-Durkheimian
perspective. British Journal of Criminology,47(2), 214–233. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/
azl031
J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127, 140 (1994).
Johnson, J., & Lecci, L. (2020). Does empathy undermine justice? Moderating the impact of
empathic concern for a White policeman on responses to police interracial violence.
British Journal of Social Psychology,59(3), 752–772. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12347
22 Race and Justice 0(0)
Kahn, K. B., & Martin, K. D. (2016). Policing and race: Disparate treatment, perceptions, and policy
responses. Social Issues and Policy Review,10(1), 82–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12019
Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (2013). The American jury on trial: Psychological perspec-
tives. Taylor & Francis.
Kochel, T. R. (2019). Explaining racial differences in Ferguson’s impact on local residents’trust
and perceived legitimacy: Policy implications for police. Criminal Justice Policy Review,
30(3), 374–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403416684923
Lai, Y. L., & Zhao, J. S. (2010). The impact of race/ethnicity, neighborhood context, and police/
citizen interaction on residents’attitudes toward the police. Journal of Criminal Justice,
38(4), 685–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.04.042
Lerman, A. E., & Weaver, V. M. (2014). Arresting citizenship: The democratic consequences of
American crime control. University of Chicago Press.
Maeder, E. M., & Yamamoto, S. (2017). Attributions in the courtroom: The influence of race,
incentive, and witness type on jurors’perceptions of secondary confessions. Psychology,
Crime & Law,23(4), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2016.1258473
Matsueda, R. L., & Drakulich, K. (2009). Perceptions of criminal injustice, symbolic racism, and
racial politics. The Annals of the American Academy of Political & Social Science,623(1),
163–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716208330500
Morin, R., & Stepler, R. (2016, September 29). The racial confidence gap in police
performance. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2016/09/
29/the-racial-confidence-gap-in-police-performance/
Murphy, K., Hinds, L., & Fleming, J. (2008). Encouraging public cooperation and support for
police. Policing & Society,18(2), 136–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439460802008660
Peck, J. H. (2015). Minority perceptions of the police: A state-of-the-art review. Policing: An
International Journal of Police Strategies & Management,38(1), 173–203. https://doi.org/
10.1108/PIJPSM-01-2015-0001
Pew Research Center (2014, August 25). Few say police forces nationally do well in treating
races equally. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/08/25/few-say-police-forces-
nationally-do-well-in-treating-races-equally/
Pew Research Center (2020, July 9). Majority of public favors giving civilians the power to sue
police officers for misconduct. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/07/09/majority-
of-public-favors-giving-civilians-the-power-to-sue-police-officers-for-misconduct/
Pica, E., Thompson, L. E., Pozzulo, J., & Sheahan, C. L. (2020). Perceptions of police
conduct when race and gender are considered. Journal of Police & Criminal Psychology,
35(2), 131–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-019-09346-1
Pickett, J. T., Graham, A., & Cullen, F. T. (2022). The American racial divide in fear of
the police. Criminology; An Interdisciplinary Journal,60(2), 291–320. https://doi.org/10.
1111/1745-9125.12298
Reny, T. T., & Newman, B. J. (2021). The opinion-mobilizing effect of social protest against
police violence: Evidence from the 2020 George Floyd protests. American Political
Science Review,115(4), 1499–1507. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055421000460
Rosenbaum, D. P., Schuck, A. M., Costello, S. K., Hawkins, D. F., & Ring, M. K. (2005).
Attitudes toward the police: The effects of direct and vicarious experience. Police
Quarterly,8(3), 343–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611104271085
Lynch and Shaw 23
Salerno, J. M., & Diamond, S. S. (2010). The promise of a cognitive perspective on jury deliber-
ation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,17(2), 174–179. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.2.174
Semel, E., Downard, D., Tolman, E., Weis, A., Craig, D., & Hanlock, C. (2020). Whitewashing
the jury box: How California perpetuates the discriminatory exclusion of Black and Latinx
jurors. Berkeley Law, Death Penalty Clinic. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/
uploads/2020/06/Whitewashing-the-Jury-Box.pdf
Shaw, E. V., Lynch, M., Laguna, S., & Frenda, S. J. (2021). Race, witness credibility, and jury
deliberation in a simulated drug trafficking trial. Law and Human Behavior,45(3), 215–228.
https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000449
Skogan, W. G. (2005). Citizen satisfaction with police encounters. Police Quarterly,8(3),
298–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611104271086
Sommers, S. R. (2006). On racial diversity and group decision making: Identifying multiple
effects of racial composition on jury deliberations. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology,90(4), 597–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.597
Soss, J., Langbein, L., & Metelko, A. R. (2003). Why do white Americans support the death penalty?
The Journal of Politics,65(2), 397–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.t01-2-00006
Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping
public support for policing. Law & Society Review,37(3), 513–548. https://doi.org/10.
1111/1540-5893.3703002
Taylor, R. B., Wyant, B. R., & Lockwood, B. (2015). Variable links within perceived police
legitimacy?: Fairness and effectiveness across races and places. Social Science Research,
49, 234–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.08.004
Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the
police and courts. Russell-Sage.
Tyler, T. R., & Weber, R. (1982). Support for the death penalty; instrumental response to crime,
or symbolic attitude? Law & Society Review,17(1), 21–46. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053531
Warren, P. Y. (2011). Perceptions of police disrespect during vehicle stops: A race-based anal-
ysis. Crime & Delinquency,57(3), 356–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128708316177
Washington Courts (n.d.). GR 37: Jury selection. https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/
GR/GA_GR_37_00_00.pdf
Weitzer, R., & Tuch, S. A. (2002). Perceptions of racial profiling: Race, class, and personal
experience. Criminology; An Interdisciplinary Journal,40(2), 435–456. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1745-9125.2002.tb00962.x
Weitzer, R., & Tuch, S. A. (2005). Racially biased policing: Determinants of citizen perceptions.
Social Forces,83(3), 1009–1030. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2005.0050
Wells, G. L., & Windschitl, P. D. (1999). Stimulus sampling and social psychological experi-
mentation. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,25(9), 1115–1125. https://doi.org/10.
1177/01461672992512005
Wheelock, D., Stroshine, M. S., & O’Hear, M. (2019). Disentangling the relationship between
race and attitudes toward the police: Police contact, perceptions of safety, and procedural
justice. Crime & Delinquency,65(7), 941–968. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128718811928
White, C., Weisburd, D., & Wire, S. (2018). Examining the impact of the Freddie Gray unrest on
perceptions of the police. Criminology & Public Policy,17(4), 829–858. https://doi.org/10.
1111/1745-9133.12404
24 Race and Justice 0(0)
Williams, M. R., & Burek, M. W. (2008). Justice, juries, and convictions: The relevance of race
in jury verdicts. Journal of Crime & Justice,31(1), 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0735648X.2008.9721247
Author Biographies
Mona Lynch is Chancellor’s Professor of Criminology, Law & Society and School of
Law (by courtesy) at the University of California, Irvine.
Emily V. Shaw has a PhD in Psychological Science from University of California,
Irvine and is a Senior Consultant at Decision Analysis, Inc.
Lynch and Shaw 25
