Two experiments investigated jurors' ability to disregard unusual inadmissible evidence. Participants listened to an audio recording of a theft trial. Those in four experimental conditions heard critical testimony favoring the prosecution, which was ruled either admissible or inadmissible and which contained either neutral details or details that were unusual in terms of semantic content (Experiment 1) or form (Experiment 2). Control jurors received no critical evidence. Exposure to unusual rather than neutral evidence led jurors to see the defendant as more guilty but only if that evidence was inadmissible instead of admissible. Additionally, jurors remembered unusual evidence better than neutral evidence. The results are consistent with Wegner's ironic-process theory and suggest that attempts at thought suppression are less successful if the forbidden information is especially memorable.
Andrews, M. (1998, February 15). Woman's crystal-ball testimony puts fitting end to curious case. Orlando Sentinel, p. K2.
2.
Bornstein, B.H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-91.
3.
Brehm, J.W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.
4.
Brehm, S.S., & Brehm, J.W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York: Academic Press .
5.
Brigham, J.C. (1990). Target person distinctiveness and attractiveness as moderator variables in the confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identifications. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11, 101-115.
6.
Carretta, T.R., & Moreland, R.L. (1983). The direct and indirect effects of inadmissible evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 291-309.
7.
Costabile, K.A., & Klein, S.B. (2005). Finishing strong: Recency effects in juror judgment . Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27, 47-58.
8.
Doege, D. (2004, January 14). Dog vs. chickens goes to court: Lisbon man faces felony charge for shooting Labrador. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, p. 6.
9.
Edwards, K., & Bryan, T.S. (1997). Judgmental biases produced by instructions to disregard: The (paradoxical) case of emotional information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 849-864.
10.
Fein, S., McCloskey, A.L., & Tomlinson, T.M. (1997). Can the jury disregard that information? The use of suspicion to reduce the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity and inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1215-1226.
11.
Hirshman, E., Whelley, M.M., & Palij, M. (1989). An investigation of paradoxical memory effects . Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 594-609.
12.
Hunt, R.R., & Elliot, J.M. (1980). The role of nonsemantic information in memory: Orthographic distinctiveness effects on retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 49-74.
13.
Kassin, S.M., & Sommers, S.R. (1997). Inadmissible testimony, instructions to disregard, and the jury: Substantive versus procedural considerations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1046-1054.
14.
Kassin, S.M., & Sukel, H. (1997). Coerced confessions and the jury: An experimental test of the "harmless error" rule. Law and Human Behavior , 21, 27-46.
15.
Lee, D.H., Krauss, D.A., & Lieberman, J. (2005). The effects of judicial admonitions on hearsay evidence. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 28, 589-603.
16.
Lieberman, J.D., & Arndt, J. (2000). Understanding the limits of limiting instructions: Social psychological explanations for the failures of instructions to disregard pretrial evidence and other inadmissible evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 677-711.
17.
Lieberman, J.D., Arndt, J., & Vess M. (in press). Inadmissible evidence and pretrial publicity: The effects (and ineffective-ness) of admonitions to disregard. In J. D. Lieberman & D. A. Krauss (Eds.), Psychology and the courtroom (Vol. 1). Hampshire, UK: Ashgate.
18.
London, K., & Nuñez, N. (2000). The effect of jury deliberations on jurors' propensity to disregard inadmissible evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology , 85, 932-939.
Rakos, R.F., & Landsman, S. (1992). Researching the hearsay rule: Emerging findings, general issues, and future directions. Minnesota Law Review , 76, 655-681.
27.
Rothstein, P.F. (1981). Evidence: State and federal rules (2nd ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.
28.
Schmidt, S.R. (1985). Encoding and retrieval processes in memory for conceptually distinctive events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 565-578.
29.
Schmidt, S.R. (1991). Can we have a distinctive theory of memory? Memory and Cognition, 19, 523-542.
30.
Smith, D.A., & Graesser, A.C. (1981). Memory for actions in scripted activities as a function of typicality, retention interval, and retrieval task. Memory and Cognition, 9, 550-559.
31.
Steblay, N., Hosch, H.M., Culhane, S.E., & McWethy, A. (2006). The impact on juror verdicts of judicial instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 469-492.
32.
Stodghill, M. (1999, March 5). Woman denies part in murder: Defense rests its case after unusual testimony. Duluth News-Tribune , p. 01B.
33.
Sue, S., Smith, R.E., & Caldwell, C. (1973). Effects of inadmissible evidence on the decisions of simulated jurors: A moral dilemma. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 345-353.
34.
Thompson, W.C., Fong, G., & Rosenhan, D.L. (1981). Inadmissible evidence and juror verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 40, 453-463.
Wolf, S., & Montgomery, D.A. (1977). Effects of inadmissible evidence and level of judicial admonishment to disregard on the judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 205-219.
37.
Wolfe, J. (1996, July 11). Ricci admits lying, berating workers: The race track owner says he wanted to "save" his truthful testimony for this week's trial. Portland Press Herald, p. 1B.
