CAN JURORS DISREGARD INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE? (COURT, JURISPRUDENCE)

The purpose of this study was to determine whether jurors can disregard inadmissible evidence when instructed to do so, and to determine the effect, if any, that jury deliberations have on verdicts. Subjects were 420 adult subjects who are randomly assigned to six-member jury panels. Each panel was shown one of five variations of an edited actual civil trial, which varied according to the presence or absence of inadmissible evidence and the judge's instructions regarding the admissibility of that evidence. The five versions were (1) no inadmissible evidence ("Control"); (2) inadmissible evidence mentioned/no objection to it ("No Objection"); (3) inadmissible evidence mentioned/attorney objects/ruling: overruled ("Overruled"); (4) inadmissible evidence mentioned/attorney objects/ruling: sustained ("Sustained"); and (5) inadmissible evidence mentioned/attorney objects/ruling: sustained with an explanation ("Instruction"). In five of the conditions, the jurors viewed the trial, deliberated, reached and recorded a group verdict, and then indicated their individual postdeliberation verdicts. In two additional conditions, jurors also rendered individual predeliberation verdicts. Ten jury panels were randomly assigned to each condition (60 jurors). Jurors also indicated which factors they considered to be most important in reaching the verdict by responding to an open-ended question and then by rating points of evidence on a scale of 0-10 (not important-very important). Results indicated that subjects were unable to disregard inadmissible evidence in the Sustained condition but were able to do so in the Instruction condition. Both the importance ratings and the responses to the open-ended question indicated that the inadmissible evidence was the decisive factor accounting for the differences between the verdicts of the groups. There were no consistent systematic effects on the group or individual verdicts as a result of the deliberations.