Recent case law has considered whether a Muslim woman who wishes to appear in court should be allowed to testify wearing a veil that covers part of her face (e.g., Muhammad v. Paruk, 2008, in the United States, R. v. N.S., 2009, in Canada). The current research sought to test the influence of a victim’s wearing of a veil while testifying on juror decision making in a sexual assault trial. In addition, the study tested for effects of defendant race using Middle Eastern and Caucasian as the target races, given that there is a paucity of research comparing these races in the juror decision-making literature. Results demonstrated that contrary to hypotheses, jurors were more convinced of the defendant’s guilt when the victim was wearing a burqa or hijab to testify than when she testified wearing no veil. Defendant race did not have an effect on any of the dependent variables in this research; however, mock juror gender was found to be influential. Potential reasons for these findings and directions for future research are discussed.
BackS.LipsH. M. (1998). Child sexual abuse: Victim age, victim gender, and observer gender as factors of contributing to attributions of responsibility. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22, 1239-1252.
3.
BlumenthalJ. A. (1998). The reasonable woman standard: A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 33-57.
4.
BornsteinB. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out?Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-91.
5.
BrekkeN.BorgidaE. (1988). Expert psychological testimony in rape trials: A social-cognitive analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 372-386.
6.
BurtM. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217-230.
7.
Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988).
8.
DaviesM.RogersP. (2006). Perceptions of male victims in depicted sexual assaults: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 367-377.
9.
DeitzS. R.ByrnesL. E. (1981). Attribution of responsibility for sexual assault: The influence of observer empathy and defendant occupation and attractiveness. Journal of Psychology, 108, 17-29.
10.
EkmanP.O’SullivanM. (1991). Who can catch a liar?American Psychologist, 46, 913-920.
FergusonP. A.DuthieD. A.GrafR. G. (1987). Attribution of responsibility to rapist and victim: The influence of victim’s attractiveness and rape-related information. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2, 243-250.
13.
FoleyL. A.EvancicC.KarnikK.KingJ.ParksA. (1995). Date rape: Effects of race of assailant and victim and gender of subjects on perceptions. Journal of Black Psychology, 21, 6-18.
14.
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, 103-119.
15.
GeorgeW. H.MartinezL. J. (2002). Victim blaming in rape: Effects of victim and perpetrator race, type of rape, and participant racism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 110-119.
16.
GiacopassiD. J.DullR. T. (1986). Gender and racial differences in the acceptance of rape myths within a college population. Sex Roles, 15, 63-75.
17.
GorchowZ. (2006, October22). Veil costs her claim in court—judge: Face key in deciding truth. Detroit Free Press.
18.
GrayJ. M. (2006). Rape myth beliefs and prejudiced instructions: Effects on decisions of guilt in a case of date rape. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, 75-80.
19.
GrubbA. R.HarrowerJ. (2009). Understanding attribution of blame in cases of rape: An analysis of participant gender, type of rape and perceived similarity to the victim. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 15, 63-81.
20.
HymesR.LeinartM.RoweS.RogersW. (1993). Acquaintance rape: The effect of race of defendant and race of victim on White juror decisions. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 627-634.
21.
KanekarS.NazarethA. M. (1988). Attributed rape victim’s fault as a function of her attractiveness, physical hurt, and emotional disturbance. Social Behavior, 3, 37-40.
22.
KleinK.CreechB. (1982). Race, rape, and bias: Distortion of prior odds and meanings changes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 3, 21-33.
23.
KleinkeC. L.MeyerC. (1990). Evaluation of rape victim by men and women with high and low belief in a just world. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14, 343-353.
24.
LandwehrP. H.BothwellR. K.JeanmardM.LuqueL. R.BrownR.BreauxM.-A. (2002). Racism in rape trials. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 667-669.
25.
MaederE. M.WienerR. L.WinterR. (2007). Does a truck driver see what a nurse sees? The effects of occupation type on perceptions of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 56, 801-810.
26.
Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990).
27.
MaynardC.WiedermanM. (1997). Undergraduate students’ perceptions of child sexual abuse: Effects of age, sex, and gender-role attitudes. Child Abuse and Neglect, 21, 833-844.
28.
McCabeJ. G.KraussD. A.LiebermanJ. D. (2010). Reality check: A comparison of college students and a community sample of mock jurors in a simulated sexual violent predatory civil commitment. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 28, 730-750.
29.
McCauleyM. R.ParkerJ. F. (2001). When will a child be believed? The impact of the victim’s age and juror’s gender on children’s credibility and verdict in a sexual-abuse case. Child Abuse and Neglect, 25, 523-539.
30.
McNamaraK.VattanoF.VineyW. (1993). Verdict, sentencing, and certainty as a function of sex of juror and amount of evidence in a simulated rape trial. Psychological Reports, 72, 575-583.
31.
MitchellT. L.HawR. M.PfeiferJ. E.MeissnerC. A. (2005). Racial bias in mock juror decision-making: A meta-analytic review of defendant treatment. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 621-637.
32.
Muhammad v. Paruk, 553 F. Supp. 2d 893 (2008).
33.
PfeiferJ. E.OgloffJ. R. P. (2003). Mock juror ratings of guilt in Canada: Modern racism and ethnic heritage. Social Behavior and Personality, 31, 301-312.
34.
PozzuloJ. D.DempseyJ.MaederE.AllenL. (2010). The effects of victim gender, defendant gender, and defendant age on juror decision making. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 47-63.
35.
QuasJ. A.BottomsB. L.HaegerichT. M.Nysse-CarrisK. L. (2002). Effects of victim, defendant, and juror gender on decisions in child sexual assault cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1993-2021.
36.
R. v. N.S., O.J. No. 1766 (2009).
37.
RectorN. A.BagbyR. M. (1995). Criminal sentence recommendations in a simulated rape trial: Examining juror prejudice in Canada. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 13, 113-121.
38.
RectorN. A.BagbyR. M.NicholsonR. (1993). The effect of prejudice and judicial ambiguity on defendant guilt ratings. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 651-659.
39.
RogersP.DaviesM. (2007). Perceptions of victims and perpetrators in a depicted child sexual abuse case: Gender and age factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 566-584.
40.
RoseV. G.OgloffJ. R. P. (2001). Evaluating the comprehensibility of jury instructions: A method and an example. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 409-431.
41.
SchutteJ. W.HoschH. M. (1997). Gender differences in sexual assault verdicts: A meta-analysis. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 759-772.
42.
ScroggsJ. R. (1976). Penalties for rape as a function of victim provocativeness, damage, and resistance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 6, 360-368.
43.
SearsD. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow database on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 515-530.
44.
ThorntonB. (1977). Effect of rape victim’s attractiveness in a jury simulation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 666-669.
45.
ThorntonB.RyckmanR. M. (1983). The influence of a rape victim’s physical attractiveness on observers’ attributions of responsibility. Human Relations, 36, 549-562.
46.
UgwuegbuD. C. E. (1979). Racial and evidential factors in juror attribution of legal responsibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 133-176.
47.
VrijA.FirminH. R. (2001). Beautiful thus innocent? The impact of defendants’ and victims’ physical attractiveness and participants’ rape beliefs on impression formation in alleged rape cases. International Review of Victimology, 8, 245-255.
48.
WilliamsA. J. (2008). The veiled truth: Can the credibility of testimony given by a niqab-wearing witness be judged without the assistance of facial expressions?University of Detroit Mercy Law Review, 85, 273-291.
49.
Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund. (2010). Factum of the intervener. Presented to the court in R. v. N.S. (2010), Court of Appeal for Ontario.
50.
WuenschK. L.CampbellM. W.KeslerF. C.MooreC. H. (2002). Racial bias in decisions made by mock jurors evaluating a case of sexual harassment. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 587-600.
