Graphic images can influence jury verdicts, tapping into deeper prejudices and emotions. Based on their learning preference, some jurors understand oral accounts provided by the lawyers and witnesses; others need visual illustrations to make sense of the evidence and arguments. The overall effect of the experimental interventions was to reduce disparities between different groups in the mock juror sample. Differences in the perceived culpability of the defendant and the conviction rates returned by mock jurors with visual versus verbal learning preferences in Study One and Study Two were narrowed by the experimental interventions in the form of defence interactive virtual environment and jury instructions. A similar convergence was found between the verdicts of men and women, although not between those with higher or lower thresholds for conviction. The results suggested that lawyers, expert witnesses and the trial judge influenced how jurors perceived the visual evidence and its persuasive force.
|Title of host publication||Juries, science and popular culture in the age of terror|
|Subtitle of host publication||The case of the Sydney bomber|
|Editors||Daivd Tait, Jane Goodman-Delahunty|
|Place of Publication||London|
|Number of pages||20|
|Publication status||Published - 2017|