On the inefficacy of limiting instructions - When jurors use prior conviction evidence to decide on guilt

Roselle L. Wissler, Michael Saks

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

75 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The rationale for allowing into evidence a defendant's criminal record asserts that such evidence can be used for the limited purpose of impeaching a dèfendant witness's credibility and, in accord with judges' instructions, will not be used to assess likelihood of guilt. The effect that the defendant's prior record has on mock jurors' assessments of credibility and guilt was tested in a two (cases) x four (type of prior conviction) factorial design. Adults' ratings of the defendant's credibility did not vary as a function of prior record and were consistently the lowest of the credibility ratings of all witnesses. Conviction rates did vary by prior record, however, with the highest conviction rate occurring when the prior conviction was the same as the present charge and the lowest conviction rate occurring in the no-prior-conviction condition. Defendants with a previous conviction for perjury or a dissimilar crime were convicted at an intermediate rate. We concluded that the risk of prejudice to the defense under existing policy is greater than the unrealized potential benefit to the prosecution.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)37-48
Number of pages12
JournalLaw and Human Behavior
Volume9
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1985
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Guilt
guilt
credibility
instruction
Crime
witness
evidence
previous conviction
rating
prosecution
prejudice
offense
Jurors
Conviction
present
Credibility

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law
  • Social Psychology
  • Psychology(all)

Cite this

On the inefficacy of limiting instructions - When jurors use prior conviction evidence to decide on guilt. / Wissler, Roselle L.; Saks, Michael.

In: Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 9, No. 1, 03.1985, p. 37-48.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{78a52fecfe054ec38a7c1793883cdaa8,
title = "On the inefficacy of limiting instructions - When jurors use prior conviction evidence to decide on guilt",
abstract = "The rationale for allowing into evidence a defendant's criminal record asserts that such evidence can be used for the limited purpose of impeaching a d{\`e}fendant witness's credibility and, in accord with judges' instructions, will not be used to assess likelihood of guilt. The effect that the defendant's prior record has on mock jurors' assessments of credibility and guilt was tested in a two (cases) x four (type of prior conviction) factorial design. Adults' ratings of the defendant's credibility did not vary as a function of prior record and were consistently the lowest of the credibility ratings of all witnesses. Conviction rates did vary by prior record, however, with the highest conviction rate occurring when the prior conviction was the same as the present charge and the lowest conviction rate occurring in the no-prior-conviction condition. Defendants with a previous conviction for perjury or a dissimilar crime were convicted at an intermediate rate. We concluded that the risk of prejudice to the defense under existing policy is greater than the unrealized potential benefit to the prosecution.",
author = "Wissler, {Roselle L.} and Michael Saks",
year = "1985",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1007/BF01044288",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
pages = "37--48",
journal = "Law and Human Behavior",
issn = "0147-7307",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - On the inefficacy of limiting instructions - When jurors use prior conviction evidence to decide on guilt

AU - Wissler, Roselle L.

AU - Saks, Michael

PY - 1985/3

Y1 - 1985/3

N2 - The rationale for allowing into evidence a defendant's criminal record asserts that such evidence can be used for the limited purpose of impeaching a dèfendant witness's credibility and, in accord with judges' instructions, will not be used to assess likelihood of guilt. The effect that the defendant's prior record has on mock jurors' assessments of credibility and guilt was tested in a two (cases) x four (type of prior conviction) factorial design. Adults' ratings of the defendant's credibility did not vary as a function of prior record and were consistently the lowest of the credibility ratings of all witnesses. Conviction rates did vary by prior record, however, with the highest conviction rate occurring when the prior conviction was the same as the present charge and the lowest conviction rate occurring in the no-prior-conviction condition. Defendants with a previous conviction for perjury or a dissimilar crime were convicted at an intermediate rate. We concluded that the risk of prejudice to the defense under existing policy is greater than the unrealized potential benefit to the prosecution.

AB - The rationale for allowing into evidence a defendant's criminal record asserts that such evidence can be used for the limited purpose of impeaching a dèfendant witness's credibility and, in accord with judges' instructions, will not be used to assess likelihood of guilt. The effect that the defendant's prior record has on mock jurors' assessments of credibility and guilt was tested in a two (cases) x four (type of prior conviction) factorial design. Adults' ratings of the defendant's credibility did not vary as a function of prior record and were consistently the lowest of the credibility ratings of all witnesses. Conviction rates did vary by prior record, however, with the highest conviction rate occurring when the prior conviction was the same as the present charge and the lowest conviction rate occurring in the no-prior-conviction condition. Defendants with a previous conviction for perjury or a dissimilar crime were convicted at an intermediate rate. We concluded that the risk of prejudice to the defense under existing policy is greater than the unrealized potential benefit to the prosecution.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0002877109&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0002877109&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/BF01044288

DO - 10.1007/BF01044288

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0002877109

VL - 9

SP - 37

EP - 48

JO - Law and Human Behavior

JF - Law and Human Behavior

SN - 0147-7307

IS - 1

ER -