Emily V. Shaw’s research while affiliated with University of California, Irvine and other places

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 measures. 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 interacted 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 knowledge about the problems with fair and just policing, are not used to disproportionately exclude persons of color, or to seat juries overrepresented by people who blindly trust police.

The limited existing research on how jurors evaluate informant testimony suggests jurors may not be appropriately responsive to cues that could signal informant unreliability. In particular, jurors may fail to account for and properly weigh evidence that an informant is testifying for an incentive when reaching a verdict. However studies in this area have some limitations in case type, materials used, and statistical power. The objective of the current study is to advance the research in each of these areas and provide new evidence about the impact of juror perceptions of informant incentives. This study used a novel fact pattern, video stimuli manipulations, and a large sample pool to test the impact of informant incentives on juror judgments. Participants who observed a highly incentivized informant, but not those who observed less incentivized informants, were more likely to acquit compared to participants who viewed an otherwise identical non-incentivized informant. Participants were also sensitive to incentive size in making situational attributions about the informant's motivation to testify. The results suggest that jurors may be capable of accounting for informant incentives in reaching a verdict, but only when the incentive size is substantial.

Judges are increasingly using “implicit bias” instructions in jury trials in an effort to reduce the influence of jurors’ biases on judgment. In this paper, we report on findings from a large‐scale mock jury study that tests the impact of implicit bias instructions on judgment in a case where defendant race was varied (Black or White). Using an experimental design, we collected and analyzed quantitative and qualitative data at the individual and group levels obtained from 120 small‐groups who viewed a simulated federal drug conspiracy trial and then deliberated to determine a verdict. We find that while participants were sensitized to the importance of being unbiased, implicit bias instructions had no measurable impact on verdict outcomes relative to the standard instructions. Our analysis of the deliberations, however, reveals that those who heard the implicit bias instructions were more likely to discuss the issue of bias, potentially with both ameliorative and harmful effects on the defendant. Most significantly, we identified multiple instances where, in an effort to avoid bias, participants who heard the implicit bias instructions interfered with their own or other participants’ appropriate assessments of witness credibility. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Objective: The present study integrates several distinct lines of jury decision-making research by examining how the racial identities of the defendant and an informant witness interact in a federal drug conspiracy trial scenario and by assessing whether jurors' individual racial identity and jury group racial composition influence their judgments. Hypotheses: We predicted that jurors would be biased against the Black defendant and would be more likely to convict after exposure to a White informant, among other hypotheses. Method: We recruited 822 nonstudent jury-eligible participants assigned to 144 jury groups. Each group was assigned to one of four onditions where defendant race (Black or White) and informant race (Black or White) was manipulated. Each group watched a realistic audio-visual trial presentation, then deliberated as a group to render a verdict. Results: Contrary to expectations, the conditions depicting a Black defendant yielded lower conviction rates compared to those with a White defendant-at both the predeliberation individual (odds ratio [OR] = 1.54) and postdeliberation group level (OR = 2.91)-while the informant race did not influence verdict outcomes. We also found that jurors rated the government witnesses as more credible when the defendant was White compared to when he was Black. Credibility ratings and verdict outcomes were also predicted by jurors' own race, although juror race did not interact with the race conditions when predicting verdicts. Conclusions: Jurors are sensitive to defendant race, and this sensitivity appears to strengthen after deliberation-but in a direction opposite to what was expected. One potential implication of our findings is that juries may operate as a check on system bias by applying greater scrutiny to law enforcement-derived evidence when the defendant is Black. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: To assess the relative contributions of normative and informational influence in group decisions with a binary outcome. Method: We examined vote-switching behavior in the context of jury deliberation with a novel 2 × 2 experimental paradigm. Two-hundred and forty-one university students (median age = 20, 77% female, 12% South Asian, 15% Caucasian, 4% African American, 5% Middle Eastern, 28% East Asian, and 37% Latino) were recruited for the study. We compared participants’ votes and ratings of evidence convincingness before and after exposure to a research accomplice group’s opinions during a poll. Private polls with anonymous deliberation via an online discussion platform were intended to shield jurors from normative influence, while public polls facilitated both normative and informational influence. Results: Initial disagreement with majority factions strongly predicted vote switching (OR = 66.63, 95% CI = [14.49, 306.43], p < .001), but no significant differences in conformist vote switching emerged between public and private deliberations. Changes in beliefs about the evidence against the defendant only partially mediated the effect of a disagreeing majority on vote switching (14.9%–21.9% mediation for those who initially voted Guilty and 15.0% mediation for those who initially voted Not Guilty). Gender did not predict vote-switching behavior (p = .45). Conclusions: These findings suggest even private deliberation may be incapable of eliminating normative influence completely. Only a small portion of vote switching is attributable to belief change.