Attorneys are perceived as credible or non-credible trial attorneys based on the behaviors they enact during trial. Attorney credibility at trial has been assessed by behavioral measurement of an attorney's persuasion, critical listening, oral expression, physical presence, interpersonal interaction, speech clarity, organization, adaptability, synthesis and social perceptiveness ... The issue is this: How does attorney credibility matter? For example: Does attorney credibility affect verdicts? Do credible attorneys make weak cases stronger? Do strong cases win even if the attorney is non-credible? Wood and colleagues (2019) examined the relationship of attorney credibility and evidence strength on mock jurors' civil litigation verdicts

Dangerous driving resulting in the death of another person is judged more harshly by jurors when alcohol is involved. Dolnik and colleagues (2003) investigated what might limit the impact of a defendant's alcohol use in a criminal case involving dangerous driving (speeding) that occasioned death. The case involved a defendant driving home from a party when a head-on collision occurred between two cars in which a young woman died and the defendant suffered only minor injuries. Mock jurors read a case summary that included testimony from both prosecution witnesses (a forensic police expert who examined the accident scene, ambulance officer,

Judicial rehabilitative questioning of jurors during voir dire is intended to ensure that biasing attitudes, beliefs and experiences of jurors will not influence their verdicts. Rehabilitative questioning serves as a buffer to possible juror bias. Judicial rehabilitative questioning can be considered to be an effective buffer if, after questioning and juror affirmation of the ability to set aside any bias and follow the law, jurors both with and without the biasing beliefs and experiences reach similar verdicts (i.e., based on case evidence and not their beliefs or experiences). Castrogiovanni (2022) studied the sufficiency of judicial rehabilitative questioning in voir dire

Information gathering about jurors is a central goal of voir dire. The choices lawyers make about the form and tone of questions affects both the quality and quantity of information obtained from jurors. Grosso and O'Brien (2019) analyzed attorney questions and juror answers of actual individualized voir dire of 729 potential jurors in 12 North Carolina capital cases. A detailed analysis was conducted of 8,583 general legal opinion questions lawyers asked these 729 jurors....

The law seeks to ensure that injured plaintiffs are compensated for their injuries regardless of their race, ethnicity or gender. Girvan and Marek (2016) investigated how jurors differentially award damages based on plaintiff race, ethnicity and gender. Damage awards were examined where jurors have less discretion in determining the amount (economic damages) and where jurors have more discretion in determining the amount (pain and suffering damages). Jury verdicts were analyzed from 1,133 tort cases in New York, Florida and Illinois ....

The goal of equality before the law depends on judges setting aside their biases. Judicial codes of ethics and judicial oaths demand that judges disregard prejudices based on race, gender, ethnicity, or other outsider status. . Judges make decisions differently based on the in-group or out-group status of a litigant....

The law assumes that proof beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing evidence, and preponderance of evidence are standards of proof providing defendants with different degrees of protection on a sliding scale, with beyond a reasonable doubt providing the most protection. White and Cicchini (2019) tested whether jurors distinguish between the high burden required by proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the lower burdens of proof required by clear and compelling evidence and preponderance of the evidence. A total of 495 jury-eligible adults in 45 states....

Opportunities for deception are common in negotiations, and expectations about negotiation deception matter. Mason and colleagues (2018) conducted eight studies on negotiation deception. Five studies identified the nature of negotiators' expectations about negotiation deception. Three studies tested how negotiators' expectations about others' ethical practices influence negotiators' own decisions to be deceptive or honest in negotiations....

In a legal case, misinformation consists of any faulty information that an eyewitness receives after a crime takes place. Morgan and colleagues (2103) studied how misinformation provided during a highly stressful experience influences eyewitness memories for the identity of a person.....

Using a general versus specific verdict form can affect the liability decision made by a jury. Schmidt and Diamond (1998) examined the effect of verdict forms on liability judgments in a products liability case. Jurors given a general verdict form were nearly twice as likely to favor the plaintiff as those with the special verdict form....Burd (2018) explored how liability decisions are influenced by the type of verdict form used and the necessity to justify the liability verdict in a defamation case....