Hobbs, P. (2003). ‘Is that what we’re here about?’: A lawyer’s use of impression management in a closing argument at trial. Discourse & Society, 14, 273–290.
Hoffman, H. M., & Brodley, J. (1952). Jurors on trial. Missouri Law Review, 17, 235–251.
Hoiberg, B. C., & Stires, L. K. (1973). The effect of several types of pretrial publicity on the guilt attributions of simulated jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 267–275.
Holt, R. W., O’Connor, J. A., Smith, J. L., Gessner, T. L., Clifton, T. C., & Mumford, M. D. (1997). Influences of destructive personality information on decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 781–799.
Horn, E. R. (1976). The effects of a prior conviction and kind of conflicting evidence on the attribution of credibility to a witness by a juror. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 37, 2570B.
Horowitz, I. A., Bordens, K. S., Victor, E., Bourgeois, M. J., & ForsterLee, L. (2001). The effects of complexity on jurors’ verdicts and construction of evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 641–652.
Hvistendahl, J. (1979). The effect of placement of biasing information. Journalism Quarterly, 56, 863–865.
Imrich, D. J., Mullin, C., & Linz, D. (1995). Measuring the extent of prejudicial pretrial publicity in major American newspapers: A content analysis. Journal of Communication, 45(3), 94–117.
Jacoubovitch, M. D., Bermant, G., Crockett, G. T., McKinley, W., & Sanstad, A. (1977). Juror responses to direct and mediated presentations of expert testimony. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 227–238.
Johnson, C., & Haney, C. (1994). Felony voir dire: An exploratory study of its content and effect. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 487–506.
Johnstone, R. (1994). The empty chair doctrine revisited: An examination of the relative influences of attorneys and judges. (Master’s thesis, San Jose State University, 1993). Masters Abstracts International, 32, 0734.
Jones, S. E. (1987). Judge- versus attorney conducted voir dire: An empirical investigation of juror candor. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 131–146.
Kagehiro, D. K. (1990). Defining the standard of proof in jury instructions. Psychological Science, 1, 194–200.
Kaplan, M. F., & Kemmerick, G. D. (1974). Juror judgment as information integration: Combining evidential and nonevidential information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 493–499.
Kaplan, M. F., & Miller, C. E. (1977). Judgments and group discussion: Effect of presentation and memory factors on polarization. Social Psychology Quarterly, 40, 337–343.
Kasin, M., Spanos, N. P., Terrance, C. A., & Peebles, S. (1993). Battered women who kill: Jury simulation and legal defenses. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 289–312.
Kassin, S. M., & Neumann, K. (1997). On the power of confession evidence: An experimental test of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 469–484.
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.
Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1980). Prior confessions and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 133–146.
Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1981). Coerced confessions, judicial instructions, and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11, 489–506.
Katzev, R. D., & Wishart, S. S. (1985). The impact of judicial commentary concerning eyewitness identifications on jury decision making. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 76, 733–745.
Kaufmann, G., Drevland, G. C. B., Wessel, E., Overskeid, G., & Magnussen, S. (2003). The importance of being earnest: Displayed emotions and witness credibility. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 21–34.
Kerr, N. L. (1978). Severity of prescribed penalty and mock jurors’ verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1431–1442.
Kerr, N. L., Atkin, R. S., Stasser, G., Meek, D., Holt, R.W., & Davis, J. H. (1976). Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: Effects of concept definition and assigned decisional rule on the judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 282–294.
Kerr, N. L., Kramer, G. R., Carroll, J. S., & Alfini, J. J. (1991). On the effectiveness of voir dire in criminal cases with prejudicial pretrial publicity: An empirical study. American University Law Review, 40, 665–701.
Kerr, N. L., Niedermeier, K. E., & Kaplan, M. F. (1999). Bias in jurors vs. bias in juries: New evidence from the SDS perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80, 70–86.
Key, H. G., Warren, A. R., & Ross, D. F. (1996). Perceptions of repressed memories: A reappraisal. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 555–563.
Koch, C. M., & Devine, D. J. (1999). Effects of reasonable doubt definition and inclusion of a lesser charge on jury verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 653–674.
Kovera, M. B. (2002). The effects of general pretrial publicity on juror decisions: An examination of moderators and mediating mechanisms. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 43–72.
Kovera, M. B., & Greathouse, S. M. (2008). Pretrial publicity: Effects, remedies, and judicial knowledge. In E. Borgida & S. T. Fiske (eds.), Beyond common sense: Psychological science in the courtroom (pp. 261–279). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Kramer, G. P., & Kerr, N. L. (1989). Laboratory simulation and bias in the study of juror behavior: A methodological note. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 89–99.
Kramer, G. P., Kerr, N. L., & Carroll, J. S. (1990). Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies, and jury bias. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 409–438.
Kressel, N. J., & D. F. Kressel. (2002). Stack and sway: The new science of jury consulting. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Larntz, K. (1975). Reanalysis of Vidmar’s data on the effects of decision alternatives on verdicts of simulated jurors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 123–125.
Larson, B. A., & Brodsky. S. L. (2010). When cross-examination offends: How men and women assess intrusive questioning of male and female expert witnesses. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 811–830.
Laub, C. (2010). Can earwitness limitations be overcome by the court system? Strategies to help mock jurors appreciate the limitations of earwitness testimony. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 71(4), 2712.
Lewis, E. W. (1997). A social psychological investigation of legal entrapment. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 58, 458B.
Levett, L. M., & Kovera, M. B. (2009). Psychological mediators of the effects of opposing expert testimony on juror decisions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15, 124–148.
Lindsay, R. C. L. (1994). Expectations of eyewitness performance: Jurors’ verdicts do not follow from their beliefs. In D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments (pp. 362–384). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lindsay, R. C. L., Lim, R., Marando, L., & Cully, D. (1986). Mock-juror evaluations of eyewitness testimony: A test of metamemory hypotheses. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 447–459.
Linz, D., Penrod, S., & McDonald, E. (1986). Attorney communication and impression making in the courtroom: Views from off the bench. Law and Behavior, 10, 281–302.
Lipscomb, T. J., McAllister, H. A., & Bregman, N. J. (1985). Bias in eyewitness accounts: The effects of question format, delay interval, and stimulus presentation. Journal of Psychology, 119, 207–212.
Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. P. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Behavior, 13, 585–589.
Ludwig, K., & Fontaine, G. (1978). Effect of witnesses’ expertness and manner of delivery of testimony on verdicts on simulated jurors. Psychological Reports, 42, 955–961.
Lymburner, J. A., & Roesch, R. (1999). The insanity defense: Fiv
e years of research (1993–1997). International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22, 213–240.
MacLin, M., Downs, C., MacLin, O., & Caspers, H. (2009). The effect of defendant facial expression on mock juror decision-making: The power of remorse. North American Journal of Psychology, 11, 323–332.
Mallard, D., & Perkins, D. (2005). Disentangling the evidence: Mock jurors, inadmissible testimony and integrative encoding. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 12, 289–297.
Malouff, J., & Schutte, N. S. (1989). Shaping juror attitudes: Effects of requesting different damage amounts in personal injury trials. Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 491–497.
Matlon, R. J., Davis, J. W., Catchings, B. W., Derr, W. R., & Waldron, V. R. (1985, November). Factors affecting jury decision-making. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Denver, CO.
McAllister, H. A., & Bregman, N. J. (1986). Juror underutilization of eyewitness nonidentifications: Theoretical and practical implications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 168–170.
McCullough, G. W. (2007). Function of text structure in jurors’ comprehension and decision making. Psychological Reports, 101, 723–730.
McKimmie, B. M., Newton, C. J., Terry, D. J., & Schuller, R. A. (2004). Jurors’ responses to expert witness testimony: The effects of gender stereotypes. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 7, 131–143.
McMahon, E. A. (1974). A study of the relationship of psychiatric testimony and juror variables to the decision process. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida). Dissertation Abstracts International, 35, 3025B.
Mosmann, A. L. (1998). Nothing but the truth: Mock jurors’ use of stricken evidence in decision-making. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 59, 893B.
Mullin, C. R. (1997). The impact of acquaintance rape scripts and case-specific pretrial publicity on juror decision-making. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 57, 3733B.
Mullin, C. R., Imrich, D. J., & Linz, D. (1996). The impact of acquaintance rape stories and case specific pretrial publicity on juror decision making. Communication Research, 23, 100–135.
Neuschatz, J., Lawson, D., Swanner, J., Meissner, C., & Neuschatz, J. (2008). The effects of accomplice witnesses and jailhouse informants on jury decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 137–149.
Nietzel, M. T., & Dillehay, R. C. (1982). The effects of variations in voir dire procedures in capital murder trials. Law and Human Behavior, 6, 1–13.
Ogloff, J. R. P. (1993). Jury decision making and the insanity defense. In N. J. Castellan Jr. (Ed.), Individual and group decision making: Current issues (pp. 167–201). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Olson, E. A., & Wells, G. L. (2004a, March). Not as easy as it looks: Alibi generation influences alibi evaluation. Paper presented at the American Psychology-Law Society Annual Conference, Scottsdale, AZ.
Olson, E., & Wells, G. (2004b). What makes a good alibi? A proposed taxonomy. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 157–176.
O’Mara, J. J. (1972). The courts, standard jury charges: Findings of a pilot project. Pennsylvania Law Review, 120, 166–175.
Otto, A. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1994). The biasing impact of pretrial publicity on juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 453–469.
Otto, A. L., Penrod, S. D., & Hirt, E. (1990). The influence of pretrial publicity on juror judgments in civil case. Unpublished manuscript.
Padawer-Singer, A. M., Singer, A., & Singer, R. (1974). Voir dire by two lawyers: An essential safeguard. Judicature, 57, 386–391.
Payne, C. R. (2007). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion: Implications for trial advocacy. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 14, 309–312.
Perrin, L. T. (1999). From O. J. to McVeigh: The use of argument in the opening statement. Emory Law Journal, 48, 107–167.
Pettus, A. B. (1990). The verdict is in: A study of jury decision making factors, moment of personal decision, and jury deliberations—From the jurors’ point of view. Communication Quarterly, 38, 83–97.
Pickel, K. L., Karam, T. J., & Warner, T. C. (2009). Jurors’ responses to unusual inadmissible evidence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 466–480.
Platania, J. (1996). Prosecutorial misconduct promotes wrongful death sentences. (Doctoral dissertation, Florida International University, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 5226B.
Posey, A. J. (1996). Blame assignment in affirmative defense cases: Who has the burden of proof? Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 56, 7098B.
Poulson, R. L. (1990). Mock juror attribution of criminal responsibility: Effects of race and the guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) verdict option. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1596–1611.
Poulson, R. L., Braithwaite, R. L., Brondino, M. J., & Wuensch, K. L. (1997). Mock jurors’ insanity defense verdict selections: The role of evidence, attitudes, and verdict options. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 743–758.
Poulson, R. L., Brondino, M. J., Brown, H., & Braithwaite, R. L. (1998). Relations among mock jurors’ attitudes, trial evidence, and their selections of an insanity defense verdict: A path analytic approach. Psychological Reports, 82, 3–16.
Poulson, R. L., Wuensch, K. L., Brown, M. B., & Braithwaite, R. L. (1997). Mock jurors’ evaluations of insanity defense verdict selection: The role of death penalty attitudes. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 1065–1078.
Pryor, B., & Buchanan, R. W. (1984). The effects of a defendant’s demeanor on juror perceptions of credibility and guilt. Journal of Communication, 34(3), 92–99.
Pyszczynski, T. A., Greenberg, J., Mack, D., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1981). Opening statements in a jury trial: The effect of promising more than the evidence can show. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11, 434–444.
Pyszczynski, T. A., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1981). The effects of opening statements on mock jurors’ verdicts in a simulated criminal trial. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11, 301–313.
Rahaim, G. L., & Brodsky, S. L. (1982). Empirical evidence versus common sense: Juror and lawyer knowledge of eyewitness accuracy. Law and Psychology Review, 7, 1–11.
Raimo, A. M. (1987). Psychological challenges to eyewitness testimony. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 5, 23–36.
Raitz, A., Greene, E., Goodman, J., & Loftus, E. F. (1990). Determining damages: The influence of expert testimony on jurors’ decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 385–395.
Read, J., Connolly, D., & Welsh, A. (2006). An archival analysis of actual cases of historic child sexual abuse: A comparison of jury and bench trials. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 259–285.
Redding, R. E., Floyd, M. Y., & Hawk, G. L. (2001). What judges and lawyers think about the testimony of mental health experts: A survey of the courts and bar. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 19, 583–594.
Reinard, J. C. (1981, February). Effects of inadmissible evidence from law enforcement officers on jury decisions. Paper presented at the meeting of the Western Speech Communication Association, San Jose, CA.
Reinard, J. C. (1985, February). The effects of witness inadmissible testimony on jury decisions: A comparison of four sources. Paper presented at the meeting of the Western Speech Communication Association, Fresno, CA.
Reinard, J. C. (1989, February). Explaining inadmissible testimony effects on jurors: Crucial experimental tests of a model of the influence of inadmissible material. Paper presented at the meeting of the Western Speech Communication Association, Spokane, WA.
Reinard, J. C. (1993, February). A model of the effects of inadmissible testimony on civil case decisions. Paper presented at the meeting of the Western States Communication Association, Albuquerque, NM.
Reinard, J. C. (2009, November). An experimental study of the use of voir dire questions to preview case elements and promote positive attitudes toward defendants. Paper presented at the meeting of the Nat
ional Communication Association, Chicago, IL.
Reinard, J. C. (2010, February). Study of voir dire questions previewing cases advancing positive assessment of defendants: A causal model. Paper presented at the meeting of the Western States Communication Association, Anchorage, AK.
Reinard, J. C., & Arsenault, D. J. (2000). The impact of forms of strategic and non-strategic voir dire questions on jury verdicts. Communication Monographs, 67, 159–177.
Reinard, J. C., Arsenault, D. J., & Geck, S. (1998, February). Models of the influence of strategic voir dire questions on jury decision making. Paper presented at the meeting of the Western States Communication Association, Denver, CO.
Reinard, J. C., Khalid, O., & Liso, J. (2001, February). Persuading the jury through voir dire questioning designed to establish rapport and empathy. Paper presented at the meeting of the Western States Communication Association, Coeur d’Alene, ID.
Reinard, J. C., & Reynolds, R. A. (1978). The effects of inadmissible testimony objections and rulings on jury decisions. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 15, 91–109.
Rogers, J., Bloom, J., & Manson, S. (1984). Insanity defenses: Contested or conceded? The American Journal of Psychiatry, 141, 885–888.
Rosen, A. P. (1997). Factors affecting juror decision-making in repressed-memory cases. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 58, 0447B.
Ruva, C. L., & McEvoy, C. (2008). Negative and positive pretrial publicity affect juror memory and decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 226–235.
Ruva, C., McEvoy, C., & Bryant, J. (2007). Effects of pre-trial publicity and jury deliberation on juror bias and source memory errors. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 45–67. doi: 10.1002/acp.1254
Saks, M. J., & Wissler, R. L. (1984). Legal and psychological bases of expert testimony: Surveys of the law and of jurors. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 2, 435–449.
Sanford, S. (1987). The nature of discourse in the courtroom: The complete rape trial. Dissertation Abstracts International, A: The Humanities and Social Sciences, 48, 2460A.
Savitsky, J., Czyzewski, D., Dubord, D., & Kaminisky, S. (1976). Age and emotion of an offender as determinants of adult punitive reactions. Journal of Personality, 44, 311–320.
The SAGE Handbook of Persuasion Page 71
