The Impact of gruesome evidence on juror decision making

Introduction

The term gruesome means something that is causing repulsion or horror. It is used in situations that have extremely unpleasant happenings. In the confines of court proceedings, gruesome evidence is that the kind of what a party in a court of law may present so as to add to his/her case the weight required by the jury in order to succeed in their averments (Bornstein & Wiener, 2006). The evidence is called gruesome because they contain pictures that may result into high emotions due to the shocking effect they have on human beings. The paper looks into the various kinds of gruesome evidence that the parties may present before the courts and will go to the next step of highlighting the impact that such kinds of evidentiary materials have on the decision made by the juror.

Within the traditional procedures of the courts, the bench can always allow the autopsy photographs that have been gathered and taken from the crime scene and they are admissible under the rules of many courts in both the criminal and civil law jurisdictions albeit that the decision to do so does not arise inherently (Epstein and Mannes, 2016). Accordingly, the general rule for admissibility in most jurisdictions is that the evidence must have a tendency to make a fact probable in a more or less manner than it would be without the evidence

David et al. (2006) point out that in a criminal trial, there is high expectation that a juror will make a verdict on the guilt or rather innocence of the accused person. In so doing, a juror must take into cognizance the arguments that the parties to the case make together with the evidence submitted therein. According to Epstein and Mannes (2016), in the trials that have taken place within the crown and beyond, there are very material statements that in reality do not have much to do with the culpability of the defendant. Law surely is premised on the idea to adopt a double standard in the way it deals with emotions. The rationale is due to the fact that in some spheres, the law expressly dwells on emotion as a legitimate factor that may be taken into consideration while on other areas; the law is silent and denies that there is any meaningful role that emotions can play in the course of decision making (Matsuo & Itoh, 2015). Consequently, legal analysis hinges an obligation on the people making decisions, the jurors, to consider the emotional attitude and reactions of others during the classification of certain offense for purposes of establishing criminal culpability (Kleynhans & Bornstein, 2016).

On the same note, the prosecution, with the desire to nail down the accused person to be convicted, may present to the court pictures that are disturbing, most especially in a matter involving death (Matsuo & Itoh, 2016). The pictures of the victim may bring in emotions that should not necessarily be there. Actually, since time immemorial, law has been regarded in the account of emotion and thus, as human beings hitherto admit the relevance that documentary evidence such as photos give as they are full of fears and emotions which ultimately trickle to what the juror will hold (Kleynhans & Bornstein, 2016).

In accordance with the cognitive theory of emotions, every emotion involves an appraisal in which the significance is related to the environment in which one dwells. Generally, such appraisals do include considerations that show whether events are subject to the person’s control or no other person’s control at large (Kleynhans & Bornstein, 2016). Essentially, particular emotions mostly get associated with various types of control. For instance, the cognitive component of anger is designed in a manner that is disapproving the blameworthiness of a person and at that displeasure is related to such event.

According to PeterHagene et al. (2019), cognitive appraisals and attributions are some of the specific emotions that may influence decision-making process when the juries are in the process of issuing verdict in courts of law. Some studies have shown that jurors are really affected when it comes to such (Grady et al., 2018). The fact of the matter is that cognitive appraisals of senses such as sadness, anger, disguise, fear, sympathy come to manifest themselves in situation that gruesome evidence is displayed and presented in court (Feigenson, 2016). In effect, jurors who are exposed to evidence that is gruesome tend to be aroused emotionally more than the jurors who are not exposed to such horror evidence at all. In addition, jurors who are constantly exposed to such scaring evidence are more likely to experience high levels of specific valance emotions such as anger, disgust, anxiety, and sadness (Grady et al., 2018).

Additionally, the gruesome evidence that the prosecution presents before the juror may arouse the emotion of the bench so as to base the verdict on a threshold that is not sound. It is trite law than in any criminal proceedings, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused person is guilty (Epstein and Mannes, 2016). Primarily, even before this, the court gives an opportunity to the prosecution to make a preliminary objective presentation to show whether the accused person has a case to answer. Here, the court ensures that it has guarded its inherent power of being the custodian of justice and as so, must verify if the charges are genuine and if so, allows the prosecution to tender what will show that they have a case against the accused. In precision, the horror evidence that the prosecution at times present during trial reduces the threshold that the courts are statutorily and customarily required to sustain a conviction (David et al., 2006).

In reality, judicial assumption may result when gruesome pictures are presented during trial in a courtroom. Such a horror like images may not be upsetting, as there is high likelihood that the jurors have seen them in other places. According to Epstein and Mannes (2016), it is common knowledge that in our modern society, everyone, and the jurors no exception, are constantly and routinely have the same content which may be even more gruesome than the ones the parties present before them. The way in which the current technological advancement has enhanced the spread of information cannot be overlooked. Nemeth (2002) notes that effectually, the message that the party presenting the evidence before the court may not be taken seriously, as the jury may believe that there is nothing they have never seen.

As stated hereinbefore, any kind of evidence that parties make before the trial court influences in one way or the other, the way the jury will arrive into his decision as to the innocence or guilt of the accused person. However, in the light of the above, it may not be the case when the gruesome evidence is presented before juror (Nemeth, 2002). It is noteworthy that the jurors are not superhuman but are also subject to the emotions in human race. Gruesome evidence surely has the effect of directing the mind of the jury towards bias thus the decision made will not be generally made on objectivity (Epstein and Mannes, 2016).

When the prosecution presents some gruesome especially by way verbal descriptions of the injuries that the victim sustained bias may openly manifest itself in the whole trial. The overall effect of the manifested bias has high probability of misleading the jury to make decisions that is geared towards a conviction even if the threshold for so doing as established in statutes and customs does not show such (Epstein and Mannes, 2016).

When the gruesome information is present, the guilt of the defendant may ensue very fast notwithstanding the weak inculpatory evidence so presented. It is noteworthy that regardless of whether photographic evidence is gruesome or neutral, the likelihood of sustaining conviction can really increase and thereby shift to the defendant to disprove the liability that has he has been faced with (Nemeth, 2002). In the same note, inasmuch as the exposure to photographs has had a congruent effect to most mock juror effect, reactions from emotional sense always appear to result into changes in the way evidence is always assessed thereby leading to an increased probability of conviction or liability.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it cannot be denied that judges in most legal jurisdictions have fallen to the influence of gruesome evidence. To curb this tendency, some measures are meant to safeguard the delivery of justice as espoused in the jurisprudential norm and culture of the Crown. Some of the legal safeguards that are in place in place to prevent misdirection by the jurors include exclusionary evidentiary doctrines that must be adhered to during the trial. Consequently, most common law jurisdictions do permit the exclusion of that evidentiary material which is mostly determined more prejudicially than on probative basis. Take a deeper dive into Navigating Legal Grounds with our additional resources.

References

• Bornstein, B., & Wiener, R. (2006): Introduction to the Special Issue on Emotion in Legal Judgment and Decision Making. Law and Human Behavior, 30(2), 115-118.
• David A. Bright & Jane Goodman-Delahunty (2004) The Influence of Gruesome Verbal Evidence on Mock Juror Verdicts, Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 11:1, 154-166.
• David A. Bright, & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2006). Gruesome Evidence and Emotion: Anger, Blame, and Jury Decision-Making. Law and Human Behavior, 30(2), 183-202.
• Epstein, J., and Mannes, S. (2016). Gruesome” Evidence, Science, and Rule 403. Retrieved [online] from https://www.judges.org/gruesome-evidence-science-and-rule-403/ [accessed on 27th April, 2019].
• Feigenson, N. (2016). Jurors’ emotions and judgments of legal responsibility and blame: What does the experimental research tell us?. Emotion Review, 8(1), 26-31.
• Grady, R. H., Reiser, L., Garcia, R. J., Koeu, C., & Scurich, N. (2018). Impact of gruesome photographic evidence on legal decisions: A meta-analysis. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 25(4), 503-521.
• Kleynhans, A., & Bornstein, B. H. (2016). Psychology and the Federal Rules of Evidence. In Advances in Psychology and Law (pp. 179-204). Springer, Cham.
• Matsuo, K., & Itoh, Y. (2015). Effects of Emotional Testimony and Gruesome Photographs on Mock Jurors’ Decisions and Negative Emotions Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 1-17
• Matsuo, K., & Itoh, Y. (2016). Effects of emotional testimony and gruesome photographs on Mock Jurors' decisions and negative emotions. Psychiatry, psychology and law, 23(1), 85-101.
• Nemeth, R. J. (2002). The impact of gruesome evidence on mock juror decision-making: The role of evidence characteristics and emotional response (doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University, LA, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(11), 5546.
• PeterHagene, L. C., Salerno, J. M., & Phalen, H. (2019). Jury Decision Making. Psychological Science and the Law, 338.