NCJ Number
75140
Date Published
1980
Length
28 pages
Annotation
A theoretical explanation of judge expectancy is presented, based on experimenter expectancy research, present legal remedies and suggested remedies to reduce the possibility of judge expectancy effects on juries are included.
Abstract
The possibility that judges' expectancy effects may adversely affect the results of jury trials is a problem that needs careful theoretical analysis and innovative methods of resolution. Traditional efforts by the legal community to counteract the threat of verbal/nonverbal bias by judges include the Code of Judicial Conduct, curative instructions (admonitions to the jury following certain courtroom behaviors), and mistrials or motions for mistrials. Unfortunately, these methods are not based on any theoretical scheme, do not always eliminate judge expectancy effects, and sometimes even promote expectancy effects. The research literature indicates that six major conditions must be present if an expectancy effect is to occur in the experimental setting or, by analogy, in the criminal jury trial. The judge must appear professional, personal, and important; the judge must communicate expectancy through both auditory and visual channels; and the expectancy cues must not be blatant. In addition, the task at hand must be ambiguous in nature, the courtroom must convey high status and appear in a worklike disorder, and the judge must have some existing expectancy. These factors can be viewed either as a series of hypotheses to be tested or as a form of proof. They can be applied to the formation of rules that will eliminate expectancy effects from the courtroom. Some of the proposals to reduce judge expectancy effects are the use of process instruction, juror training and orientations, and modifying and codifying methods for giving final instructions to juries. Thiry-eight reference notes are included in the paper. (ERIC abstract modified).