Sentencing decisions in capital cases are to be guided by a consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. This article presents a review of the literature on what mock jurors and actual capital jurors find aggravating and mitigating. Although there is relatively little empirical research available that addresses those issues directly, what does exist is relatively consistent, especially as it pertains to aggravation. Jurors are most persuaded for death by evidence and even mere perceptions of a defendant's future dangerousness particularly when couched in terms of psychopathy. Likewise, defendants who are perceived as suffering from or experiencing traumatic life events that are out of their control are more likely to receive a sentence of life. The article concludes with a review of the research on how jurors respond to evidence presented in different modes that could help explain receptivity to aggravation and mitigation.
BarnettM.BrodskyS.DavisC. (2004). When mitigation evidence makes a difference: Effects of psychological mitigating evidence on sentencing decisions in capital trials. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 22, 751–770.
3.
BarnettM.BrodskyS.PriceJ. (2007). Differential impact of mitigating evidence in capital case sentencing. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 7, 39–46.
4.
BarthA. (2007). A Double-Edged Sword: The role of neuroimaging in federal capital sentencing. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 33, 500–522.
5.
BenteleU.BowersW. (2001) How jurors decide on death: Guilt is overwhelming; Aggravation requires death; and mitigation is no excuse. Brooklyn Law Review, 66, 1012–1080.
6.
BlumeJ. H.GarveyS. P.JohnsonS. L. (2001). Future dangerousness in capital cases: Always “at issue.”Cornell Law Review, 86. 387–399.
7.
BlumeJ. H.JohnsonS. L.SundbyS. E. (2008). Competent capital representation: The necessity of knowing and heeding what jurors tell us about mitigation. Hofstra Law Review, 36, 1035–1066.
8.
BornsteinB. H. (2004). The impact of different types of expert scientific testimony on mock jurors' liability verdicts. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10(4), 429–446.
9.
BowersW.PierceG.McDevittJ. (1984). Legal homicide: Death as punishment in America, 1864–1982. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
10.
BowersW.FogliaW. (2003). Still singularly agonizing: Law's failure to purge arbitrariness from capital sentencing. Criminal Law Bulletin-Boston, 39, 51–86.
11.
BowersW. J.SandysM.SteinerB. D. (1998). Foreclosed impartiality in capital sentencing: Jurors' predispositions, guilt-trial experience, and premature decision making. Cornell Law Review, 83, 1476–1556.
12.
BrekkeN.BorgidaE. (1988). Expert psychological testimony in rape trials: A social-cognitive analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(3), 372–386.
13.
BrewerT. W. (2004). Race and jurors' receptivity to mitigation in capital cases: The effect of jurors', defendants', and victims' race in combination. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 529–545.
14.
ButlerB.MoranG. (2002). The role of death qualification in venirepersons' evaluations of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital Trials. Law & Human Behavior, 26, 175–184.
15.
ChampagneA.ShumanD.WhitakerE. (1992). Expert witnesses in the courts: An empirical examination. Judicature, 76, 5.
16.
CooperJ.BennettE. A.SukelH. L. (1996). Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions?Law and Human Behavior, 20(4), 379–394.
17.
CooperJ.NeuhausI. M. (2000). The “hired gun” effect: Assessing the effect of pay, frequency of testifying, and credentials on the perception of expert testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 24(2), 149–171.
18.
CostanzoS.CostanzoM. (1994). Life or death decisions: An analysis of capital jury decision making under the special issues sentencing framework, Law & Human Behavior, 18, 151–168.
19.
CunninghamM. D. (2006). Dangerousness and death: A nexus in search of science and reason. American Psychologist, November2006, 828–839.
20.
CunninghamM.D. (2007). Forensic psychology evaluations at capital sentencing. In. JacksonR. (Ed.), Learning Forensic Assessment (pp. 211–238). New York: Routledge.
21.
CunninghamM.ReidyT. (1998). Antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy: Diagnostic dilemmas in classifying patterns of antisocial behavior in sentencing evaluations. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 16,331–351.
22.
CunninghamM.ReidyT. (1999). Don't confuse me with facts: Common errors in violence risk assessment at capital sentencing. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 26, 20–43.
23.
CunninghamM. E.ReidyT. (2002). Violence risk assessment at federal capital sentencing: Individualization, generalization, relevance, and scientific standards. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 512–537.
24.
CunninghamM. D.SorensenJ. R. (2007). Capital offenders in Texas prisons: Rates, correlates, and an actuarial analysis of violent misconduct. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 553–571.
25.
CunninghamM. D.SorensenJ. R.ReidyT. (2005). An actuarial model for assessment of prison violence risk among maximum security inmates. Assessment, 12, 40–49.
26.
DevineD. J.ClaytonL. D.DunfordB. B.SeyingR.PryceJ. (2001). Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(3), 622–727.
27.
DorlandM.KraussD. (2005). Danger of dangerousness in capital sentencing: Exacerbating the problem of arbitrary and capricious decision-making. Law & Psychology Review, 29, 63–104.
28.
EdensJ.DesforgesD.FernandezK.PalacC. (2004). Effects of psychopathy and violence risk testimony on mock juror perceptions of dangerousness in a capital murder trial. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 70,393–412.
29.
EdensJ.Buffington-VollumJ.KeilinA.RoskampP.AnthonyC. (2005). Predictions of future dangerousness in capital murder trials: Is it time to “disinvent the wheel?”Law & Human Behavior, 26, 59–87.
30.
EisenbergT.GarveyS. P.WellsM. T. (1998). But was he sorry? The role of remorse in capital sentencing. Cornell Law Review, 83, 1599–1637.
31.
FoxS. G.WaltersH. A. (1986). The impact of general versus specific expert testimony and eyewitness confidence upon mock juror judgment. Law and Human Behavior, 10(3), 215–228.
32.
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
33.
GaboraN. J.SpanosN. P.JoabA. (1993). The effects of complainant age and expert psychological testimony in a simulated child sexual abuse trial. Law and Human Behavior, 17(1), 103–119.
34.
GardnerW.LidzC. W.MulveyE. P.ShawE. C. (1996). Clinical versus actuarial predictions of violence of patients with mental illnesses. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 64(3), 602–609.
35.
GarveyS. P. (1998). Aggravation and mitigation in capital cases: What do jurors think?Columbia Law Review, 98, 1538–1576.
36.
GeimerW.AmsterdamJ. (1988). Why jurors vote life or death: Operative factors in ten Florida death penalty cases. American Journal of Criminal Law, 15, 1–54.
37.
GreeneJ.CohenJ. (2004). For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philosophical Transranactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 359(1451), 1775–1785.
38.
GreenbergJ.WurstenA. (1988). The psychologist and the psychiatrist as expert witnesses: Perceived credibility and influence. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 19(4), 6.
39.
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976).
40.
GroveW. M.MeehlP. E. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2(2), 293.
41.
GuyL.EdensJ. (2003). Juror decision-making in a mock sexually violent predator trial: Gender differences in the impact of divergent types of expert testimony. Behavioral Science & the Law, 21, 215–237.
42.
HaneyC. (1984a). On the selection of capital juries: The biasing effects of death qualification. Law & Human Behavior, 8, 121–132.
43.
HaneyC. (1984b). Examining death qualification: Further analysis of the process effect. Law & Human Behavior, 8, 133–151.
44.
HaneyC.HurtadoA.VegaL. (1994). “Modern” death qualification: New data on its biasing effects. Law & Human Behavior, 18, 619–633.
45.
HaneyC.LynchM. (1994). Comprehending life and death matters: A preliminary study of California's capital penalty instructions. Law & Human Behavior, 18, 411–436.
46.
HaneyC. (1997). Violence and the capital jury: Mechanisms of moral disengagement and the impulse to condemn to death. Stanford Law Review, 49, 1447–1486.
47.
HaneyC. (2005). Death by design: Capital punishment as a social psychological system. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
48.
HarrisG. T.RiceM. E.CormierC. A. (2002). Prospective replication of the violence risk appraisal guide in predicting violent recidivism among forensic patients. Law and Human Behavior, 26(4), 377.
49.
HemphillJ.HareR.WongS. (1998). Psychopathy and recidivism: A review. Legal & Criminological Psychology, 3, 139–170.
50.
HessA. K. (2006). Serving as an expert witness. In WeinerI. B.HessA. K. (Eds.), Handbook of forensic psychology (Third ed., pp. 521–555). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
51.
HigginsP.HeathW.GrannemannB. (2007). How type of excuse defense, mock juror age, and defendant age affect mock jurors' decisions. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 371–392.
52.
HuberP. W. (1993). Galileo's revenge: Junk science in the courtroom. New York: Basic Books.
53.
Indiana Code 35-50-2-9(c) Death penalty sentencing procedure
54.
IvkovicS. K.HansV. P. (2003). Jurors' evaluations of expert testimony: Judging the messenger and the message. Law & Social Inquiry, 28(2), 441–482.
55.
Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 153 (1976).
56.
KayeD. H.KoehlerJ. J. (1991). Can jurors understand probabilistic evidence?Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A, 154, 75–81.
57.
KerrN.L.BrayR.M. (2007). Simulation, realism, and the study of the jury. In BrewerN.WilliamsK. D. (Eds.), Psychology and Law: An empirical perspective (pp. 322–364). New York: Guilford Press.
58.
KleinJ.G. (1991). Negativity effects in impression formation: A test in the political arena. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 412–418.
59.
KoehlerJ. J. (2001a). The psychology of numbers in the courtroom: How to make DNA-match statistics seem impressive or insufficient. Southern California Law Review, 74, 1275–1305.
60.
KoehlerJ. J. (2001b). When are people persuaded by DNA match statistics?Law and Human Behavior, 25(5), 493–513.
61.
KoveraM. B.GreshamA. W.BorgidaE.GrayE.ReganP. C. (1997). Does expert psychological testimony inform or influence juror decision making? A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 78–71.
62.
KoveraM. B.LevyR. J.BorgidaE.PenrodS. D. (1994). Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases. Law and Human Behavior, 18(6), 653–674.
63.
KraussD. A.LeeD. H. (2003). Deliberating on dangerousness and death: Jurors' ability to differentiate between expert actuarial and clinical predictions of dangerousness. International Journal of Law & Psychiatry, 26, 113–137.
64.
KraussD.LiebermanJ. (2007). Expert testimony on risk and future dangerousness. In CostanzoM.KraussD.PezdekK. (Eds.), Expert Psychological Testimony for the Courts (pp. 227–249). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
65.
KraussD. A.SalesB. D. (2001). The effects of clinical and scientific expert testimony on juror decision making in capital sentencing. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 267–310.
66.
LevineJ. P. (1996). The case study as a jury research methodology. Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 351–360.
67.
Locken v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978).
68.
LuginbuhlJ.MiddendorfK. (1988). Death penalty beliefs and jurors' responses to aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials. Law & Human Behavior, 12, 263–281.
69.
MaassA.BrighamJ. C.WestS. G. (1985). Testifying on eyewitness reliability: Expert advice is not always persuasive. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15(3), 207–229.
70.
McAuliffB. D.KoveraM. B. (2008). Juror need for cognition and sensitivity to methodological flaws in expert evidenceJournal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(2), 385–408.
71.
MeltonG. B.PetrilaJ.PoythressN. G.SloboginC. (1997). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (2nd ed.): The Guilford Press.
72.
MemonA.ShumanD. W. (1998). Juror perception of experts in civil disputes: The role of race and gender. Law & Psychology Review, 22, 179.
73.
MonahanJ. (1981). The clinical prediction of violent behavior. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
74.
MontgomeryJ. H.CicconeJ. R.GarveyS. P.EisenbergT. (2005). Expert testimony in capital sentencing: Juror responses. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 33, 509–518.
75.
MossmanD. (1994). Assessing predictions of violence: Being accurate about accuracy. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 62(4), 783–792.
76.
OttoCApplegateB.DavisR. (2007). Improving comprehension of capital sentencing instructions: Debunking juror misconceptions. Crime & Delinquency, 53, 502–517.
77.
RiceM. E.HarrisG. T. (1995). Violent recidivism: Assessing predictive validity. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 63(5), 737–748.
78.
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002).
79.
RobinsonR. (1993). What does “unwilling to impose the death penalty” mean anyways? Another look at excludable jurors. Law & Human Behavior, 17, 471–477.
80.
RogersR.BagbyR. M.ChowM. M. (1992). Psychiatrists and the parameters of expert testimony. Int J Law Psychiatry, 15(4), 387–396.
81.
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 541 (2005).
82.
SandersJ. (1993). Jury deliberation in a complex case: Havner v. Merrell Dow pharmaceuticals. Justice System Journal, 16, 45.
83.
SandysM.TrahanA.PrussH. (2008). Taking account of the “diminished capacities” of the mentally retarded: Are capital jurors up to the task?DePaul Law Review, 57, 679–700.
84.
SchullerR. A. (1992). The impact of battered woman syndrome evidence on jury decision processes. Law and Human Behavior, 16(6), 597–620.
85.
SchullerR. A.CrippsJ. (1998). Expert evidence pertaining to battered women: The impact of gender of expert and timing of testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 22(1), 17–31.
86.
SchullerR. A.TerryD.McKimmieB. (2001). Impact of an expert's gender on jurors' decisions. Law & Psychology Review, 25. 59.
87.
SchullerR. A.TerryD.McKimmieB. (2005). The impact of expert testimony on jurors' decisions: Gender of the expert and testimony complexity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(6), 1266–1280.
88.
SelvinM.PicusL. (1987). The debate over jury performance: Observations from a recent asbestos case. Institute for Civil Justice, Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
89.
ShahS. (1978). Dangerousness: A paradigm for exploring some issues in law and psychology. American Psychologist, 33, 224–238.
90.
ShumanD. W.WhitakerE.ChampagneA. (1994). Empirical examination of the use of expert witnesses in the courts—part ii: A three city study. Jurimetrics Journal, 34, 193.
91.
Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994).
92.
SingerM. T.NievodA. (1987). Consulting and testifying in court. In WeinerI. B.HessA. K. (Eds.), Handbook of Forensic Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
93.
SkowronskiJ. J.CarlstonD. E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105(1). 131–142.
94.
SmithB. C.PenrodS. D.OttoA. L.ParkR. C. (1996). Jurors' use of probabilistic evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 20(1), 49–82.
95.
SneadO. Carter (2007). Neuroimaging and the “complexity” of capital punishment. New York University Law Review, 82, 1265–1339.
96.
SundbyS. E. (1997). The jury as critic: An empirical look at how capital juries perceive expert and lay testimony. Virginia Law Review, 83(6), 1109–1188.
97.
SundbyS. (1998). The capital jury and absolution: The intersection of trial strategy, remorse, and the death penalty. Cornell Law Review, 83, 1557–1598.
98.
SwensonR. A.NashD. L.RoosD. C. (1984). Source credibility and perceived expertness of testimony in a simulated child-custody case. Professional psychology, research and practice, 15(6), 891–898.
99.
ThompsonW. C.SchumannE. L. (1987). Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials. Law and Human Behavior, 11(3), 167–187.
100.
VidmarN.DiamondS. S. (2000). Juries and expert evidence. Brooklyn Law Rev., 66, 1121.
101.
VidmarN.SchullerR. A. (1989). Juries and expert evidence: Social framework testimony. Law & Contemporary Problems, 52, 133.
102.
VonkR. (1993). The negativity effect in trait ratings and in open-ended descriptions of persons. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 269–278.
