Juries and Interactive Visual Evidence an ARC funded project

1. Juries and Interactive Visual Evidencean ARC funded project Arwen Mow-Lowry PhD Candidate University of Canberra I started work on this ARC funded project in May last year. My earlier study was in Psychology and sociology. In my presentation today I am going to very briefly outline some of the relevant research and then talk about the research project that I am involved with.I started work on this ARC funded project in May last year. My earlier study was in Psychology and sociology. In my presentation today I am going to very briefly outline some of the relevant research and then talk about the research project that I am involved with.

2. Research Findings Computer Animation 4 key research papers looking at computer animation in the courtroom Dunn, Salovey & Feigenson. (2006). The jury persuaded (and not): computer animation in the courtroom. Morell. (1999). New technology: Experimental research on the influence of computer animated display on jurors. Bennett, Leibman & Fetter. (1999). Seeing is believing; or is it? An empirical study of computer simulations as evidence. Kassin & Dunn. (1997). Computer-animated displays and the jury: Facilitative and prejudicial effects. These papers all research the impact of computer animation on jury decision making, with varying results. Morells research was designed to compare the effectiveness of different modes of presentation on learning. Participants were shown a video of expert witness testimony, without visual aides, with diagram, with computer animation or with diagrams and computer animation. Participants then answered a questionnaire designed to test their free recall and understanding of the witness. Results show that jurors who saw the animation retained more information than those who didn�t. Bennett, Leibman & Fetter (1999) used a computer simulation in a personal injury trial where a young woman was permanently injured in a car accident. They found that when the computer animation made no difference to the damages awarded to the young woman. Kassin & Dunn (1997) used a computer simulation in a civil case determining whether a man fell to his death or jumped. They found that when the animation depicted the event in a neutral manner the judgements were more consistent with the physical evidence, however when the animation depicted either the defense or plaintiff theory, the judgements increasingly contradicted the physical evidence.These papers all research the impact of computer animation on jury decision making, with varying results. Morells research was designed to compare the effectiveness of different modes of presentation on learning. Participants were shown a video of expert witness testimony, without visual aides, with diagram, with computer animation or with diagrams and computer animation. Participants then answered a questionnaire designed to test their free recall and understanding of the witness. Results show that jurors who saw the animation retained more information than those who didn�t. Bennett, Leibman & Fetter (1999) used a computer simulation in a personal injury trial where a young woman was permanently injured in a car accident. They found that when the computer animation made no difference to the damages awarded to the young woman. Kassin & Dunn (1997) used a computer simulation in a civil case determining whether a man fell to his death or jumped. They found that when the animation depicted the event in a neutral manner the judgements were more consistent with the physical evidence, however when the animation depicted either the defense or plaintiff theory, the judgements increasingly contradicted the physical evidence.

3. Dunn, Salovey & Feigenson (2006) The scenarios The computer-animation Findings Dunn, Salovey and Feigenson conducted 2 experiments looking at the persuasiveness of computer on juror decision making. They used 2 different scenarios � one involving a car accident and one a plane crash. In both cases participants saw a trial video of approximately 35 minutes with either a computer animation or diagrams. The researchers found that the computer animation only influenced the verdict in the plane crash case. Possibly because people are generally familiar with car accidents, but plane crashes are not something that most people are familiar with. To summarise, the research into the effect of computer animation on jury decision is not conclusive, some researchers have found that the animation had no effect and others found that it was more persuasive than physical evidence. And so far there has been no research that looks specifically at criminal cases, and no research that uses interactive visual evidence.Dunn, Salovey and Feigenson conducted 2 experiments looking at the persuasiveness of computer on juror decision making. They used 2 different scenarios � one involving a car accident and one a plane crash. In both cases participants saw a trial video of approximately 35 minutes with either a computer animation or diagrams. The researchers found that the computer animation only influenced the verdict in the plane crash case. Possibly because people are generally familiar with car accidents, but plane crashes are not something that most people are familiar with. To summarise, the research into the effect of computer animation on jury decision is not conclusive, some researchers have found that the animation had no effect and others found that it was more persuasive than physical evidence. And so far there has been no research that looks specifically at criminal cases, and no research that uses interactive visual evidence.

4. Research Findings Gruesome Evidence Bright & Goodman-Dalahunty. (2006). Gruesome evidence and emotion: Anger, blame, and jury decision-making. Kassin & Garfield. (1991). Blood and guts: General and trial specific effects of videotaped crime scenes on mock jurors. Another body of research relevant to this project is the research that addresses the impact of gruesome evidence, including the effect of black and white photos vs colour photos. Bright and Goodman-Delahunty measured the impact that different types of gruesome evidence had on juror emotional state and conviction rate. Participants read an extract from a trial and then either, verbal gruesome evidence, neutral photos or gruesome photos. Participants who saw the gruesome photos were more likely to convict and reported feeling more anger towards the defendant. Kassin and Garfield showed participants a video of a murder victim and the crime scene. They found that while participants who viewed the video applied a significantly lower threshold of proof for conviction, this did not translate to a higher conviction rate.Another body of research relevant to this project is the research that addresses the impact of gruesome evidence, including the effect of black and white photos vs colour photos. Bright and Goodman-Delahunty measured the impact that different types of gruesome evidence had on juror emotional state and conviction rate. Participants read an extract from a trial and then either, verbal gruesome evidence, neutral photos or gruesome photos. Participants who saw the gruesome photos were more likely to convict and reported feeling more anger towards the defendant. Kassin and Garfield showed participants a video of a murder victim and the crime scene. They found that while participants who viewed the video applied a significantly lower threshold of proof for conviction, this did not translate to a higher conviction rate.

5. The Current Project Stage 1 � scenario & survey development Stage 2 � individual level juror experiment Stage 3 � jury experiment in NSW Supreme Court There are 3 stages to this project. In the first stage we are focusing on ensuring the questionnaire measures exactly what we want it to measure and that the scenarios provide a balanced split (guilty vs not guilty). The experiment in stage 2 is an individual level juror experiment that will be run in a laboratory around June this year. The final stage of the project is a series of mock trials to be held in the NSW supreme court in January 2008.There are 3 stages to this project. In the first stage we are focusing on ensuring the questionnaire measures exactly what we want it to measure and that the scenarios provide a balanced split (guilty vs not guilty). The experiment in stage 2 is an individual level juror experiment that will be run in a laboratory around June this year. The final stage of the project is a series of mock trials to be held in the NSW supreme court in January 2008.

6. The Project Team Name Organisation David Tait University of Canberra Jane Goodman-Delahunty University of NSW Jennelle Kyd Central Queensland University Jacqui Horan University of Melbourne Graham Brawn University of Melbourne Greg Battye University of Canberra Jim Ogloff Monash University Chris Lennard University of Canberra Diane Jones PTW Architects Anne Wallace University of Canberra Richard Refshauge DPP, ACT James Roberston AFP Mark Hanson Hanson Associates Rod Louey-Gung Integrated Media Cameron Lyon Lyons Architects Karen Mow University of Canberra Sam Hinton University of Canberra Elizabeth Ockenden University of NSW Arwen Mow-Lowry University of Canberra Phillipa Last University of Canberra 20 members of the team 11 investigators 7 industry partners 2 doctoral students Project manager Research assistant20 members of the team 11 investigators 7 industry partners 2 doctoral students Project manager Research assistant

7. Stage 1Scenario Development Why are they important Process we went through Ideas Testing with industry partners Refining (pre testing) In our case we need the scenarios to give a pretty good split on opinions about guilt. So that we can more accurately measure the impact of evidence types in the later stages of the project. We needed to ensure that the scenarios were plausible, and drawn from the experiences of practitioners. The first stage on the process was to meet with the industry partners and tease out some ideas. Then we wrote the scenarios based on this information and tested them again with the industry partners. In our case we need the scenarios to give a pretty good split on opinions about guilt. So that we can more accurately measure the impact of evidence types in the later stages of the project. We needed to ensure that the scenarios were plausible, and drawn from the experiences of practitioners. The first stage on the process was to meet with the industry partners and tease out some ideas. Then we wrote the scenarios based on this information and tested them again with the industry partners.

8. Stage 1Survey Design What we are measuring Factors jurors use when deciding a verdict � harm, intent, victim involvement, mental state of perpetrator Juror factors � empathy, juror bias scale The population we are using The population we are using to develop the questionnaire is people who have been called for jury duty in Queensland and Victoria. In Victoria a brochure is handed out to people (by the staff of the jury commissioner) who are called for a case, but don�t actually serve on the jury. In Queensland the Sheriffs office is sending out the brochure to people when they receive their cheque.The population we are using to develop the questionnaire is people who have been called for jury duty in Queensland and Victoria. In Victoria a brochure is handed out to people (by the staff of the jury commissioner) who are called for a case, but don�t actually serve on the jury. In Queensland the Sheriffs office is sending out the brochure to people when they receive their cheque.

9. Stage 2Videos Process Outlines Scripting Story boards Casting Filming In this stage we will have juror eligible persons watching a 30 minute mock trial video (2 scenarios) and then completing the questionnaire. The 2 scenarios we have chosen are a home invasion in which one of the invaders is killed by the home owner and a terrorist attack on a Sydney train which results in the death of several people (note about actual events that happened after we wrote and selected the scenarios � home invasion in Sydney and bombing in Pakistan) Time constraints, cost restraints and testing constraints mean tight scripting is required. Unlike a real court room where people may take longer to get to their real point. We need to ensure that we are fair, and providing sufficient material to cover defense, prosecution and relevant facts to simulate a real decision process.In this stage we will have juror eligible persons watching a 30 minute mock trial video (2 scenarios) and then completing the questionnaire. The 2 scenarios we have chosen are a home invasion in which one of the invaders is killed by the home owner and a terrorist attack on a Sydney train which results in the death of several people (note about actual events that happened after we wrote and selected the scenarios � home invasion in Sydney and bombing in Pakistan) Time constraints, cost restraints and testing constraints mean tight scripting is required. Unlike a real court room where people may take longer to get to their real point. We need to ensure that we are fair, and providing sufficient material to cover defense, prosecution and relevant facts to simulate a real decision process.

10. Stage 2Variations Methodology Variations � control, IVE, IVE rebuttal, Judicial instruction, scenario Participants There are several variations for each scenario. Baseline or control using standard presentation of evidence (verbal description), Then we will add the interactive visual evidence in the form of either a computer simulation or 3D video of the crime scene The next variable is the form of rebuttal to this IVE � the defense will have their own expert who will utilise the technology to produce a viable alternative explanation for the crime scene. The final variable is the level of judicial instruction. In some variations the judge will give the jurors explicit instructions about the interpretation of the IVE, prior to the introduction of the IVE. There are several variations for each scenario. Baseline or control using standard presentation of evidence (verbal description), Then we will add the interactive visual evidence in the form of either a computer simulation or 3D video of the crime scene The next variable is the form of rebuttal to this IVE � the defense will have their own expert who will utilise the technology to produce a viable alternative explanation for the crime scene. The final variable is the level of judicial instruction. In some variations the judge will give the jurors explicit instructions about the interpretation of the IVE, prior to the introduction of the IVE.

11. Stage 3Trials Methodology Location & timing 144 Jurors over 2 days Variations � control, IVE, IVE rebuttal, Judicial instruction The 3rd stage of the project will be in January 2008 � in the Supreme Court of NSW Participants will come into the court, 4 groups of 12 at a time. They will then see a short mock trial before retiring to various jury rooms to deliberate and hopefully deliver a verdict. The 3rd stage of the project will be in January 2008 � in the Supreme Court of NSW Participants will come into the court, 4 groups of 12 at a time. They will then see a short mock trial before retiring to various jury rooms to deliberate and hopefully deliver a verdict.