Jury simulation: The construction of victims in the courtroom

A series of jury simulation studies examined the impact of the clinicalization of victims' experiences in constructing victim status. In Experiment I, mock jurors (N = 184) viewed a simulated trial involving allegations of childhood sexual abuse premised on memories that were only recently recovered. As evidence of psychological impairment may be used by jurors in their evaluation of the legitimacy of the allegations, the complainant's symptomatology was varied to reflect either mild symptoms of psychological damage, symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) but without the diagnosis, or symptoms of PTSD that were diagnosed as such. While the PTSD diagnosis was not persuasive in enhancing the credibility of the complainant's allegations, jurors were nonetheless swayed by stereotypical notions of victimhood.; Clinical testimony supporting the veracity of recovered memories may have endorsed a standard upon which characteristics associated with the typical victim were evaluated. However, within the context of recovered memories, experimentally-based expert testimony that tends to be critical of recovered memories may also be introduced. Experiment II examined the impact of this form of testimony in terms of its potential to undermine the stereotypical victim that may emerge within a clinically-oriented framework. Mock jurors (N = 335) were exposed to either one of the two frameworks or to both conflicting frameworks. The clarity of the memory recalled could also be a contributing factor in the amount of credence that jurors place in the recovered memory, although this may be affected by the framework offered by the respective experts. The memory relayed by the complainant was varied to reflect either a vivid recall or one that was vague in nature. Expert testimony failed to influence jury or individual juror verdicts. Characteristics of the memory itself were influential in corroborating the complainant's claims with jurors being most persuaded by the vividly recalled memory. The clinical framework upon which recovered memories are based, appears to promote the pursuit for the authentic victim that may arise from a-priori stereotypical notions of victimhood.; Within the context of battered women who kill, expert testimony that endorses a clinicalized explanation may undermine the reasonableness of her response. Experiment III examined the effect of various forms of expert testimony in a trial involving a battered woman who pled not-guilty by reason of self-defense in the shooting death of her husband. Mock jurors (N = 433) were exposed to expert testimony that framed the woman's experiences within the battered woman syndrome (BWS), within the BWS specifying it as a subcategory of PTSD, within a social framework, or a no-expert control condition. In light of criticism levied against the BWS classification in terms of its potential to support a stereotypical victim, the characterization of the defendant was manipulated. Half of the jurors viewed testimony that portrayed the defendant as experiencing either a low or high degree of social isolation. The expert testimony frameworks were equally ineffective relative to the no-expert control condition in supporting the defendant's claim of self-defense. While the different expert testimony frameworks did not differentially support the claims of the woman as a function of how isolated she was, jurors were most likely to rate the defendant not-guilty when she experienced a high degree of social isolation. The implications of this research for evaluations of legitimate victim status within the courtroom are discussed.