Kellie R. Lynch

Who Bought the Drinks? Juror Perceptions of Intoxication in a Rape Trial

In this study, the perceptions of victim intoxication and the drinking context (i.e., who purchased the drinks) were investigated. Men and women mock jurors (N = 158) read a rape trial summary in which the victim was intoxicated or sober, and either the victim or the perpetrator purchased the drinks. Overall, participants who perceived a victim as intoxicated were less likely to render guilty verdicts and made lower ratings of victim credibility. In addition, when the perpetrator purchased the drinks, participants were more likely to render guilty verdicts and made more negative judgments about the defendant than when the victim bought the drinks. Mediation analyses explained the relationship between the independent variables and verdict. The results are discussed in terms of the factors that influence juror perceptions of rape cases in court.

Mock Juror Gender Biases and Perceptions of Self-Defense Claims in Intimate Partner Homicide

Findings are reported from an experiment that examined mock jurors’ gender biases regarding intimate homicide case adjudications. Mock jurors were more likely to convict a man than a woman who had killed an abusive partner, which was partially mediated by sympathy toward both the victim and defendant. Analyses revealed an abuser height and abuser gender interaction such that conviction rates for women defendants were higher when her abuser was taller compared to when he was shorter than she; abuser height did not influence conviction rates for men. Findings also suggested that when given information about a child being present, mock jurors perceived the killing of the abusive partner as an act to protect that child. The results are discussed in relation to how extra-legal factors impact juror perceptions of domestic violence cases in the courtroom.

Impeaching Rape Victims in Criminal Court Does Concurrent Civil Action Hurt Justice

The present study investigated the impact of impeaching a rape victim with evidence of a simultaneous civil suit during a criminal trial. In three experiments, male and female undergraduates (Experiment 1) and community members (Experiments 2 and 3) read a rape trial summary in which the victim accused the defendant of raping her in a hotel. In the impeachment condition, the Defense mentioned that the victim simultaneously sued either the hotel (Experiments 1, 2, 3) or the alleged perpetrator (Experiment 3) for US

Improving the Credibility of Child Sexual Assault Victims in Court: The Impact of a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner

1 million. In the control condition, the Defense did not mention a civil suit. In all experiments, mock jurors were more likely to render not guilty verdicts and had higher pro-defendant ratings (e.g., defendant credibility) when the Defense impeached the victim than when the Defense did not impeach her. In addition, victim credibility (Experiments 1, 2, 3) and victim greed (Experiment 3) mediated the impact of impeachment on verdict. Results are discussed in terms of the prejudice rape victims may face in criminal court when they also seek justice in civil court.

Courtroom Perceptions of Child Sexual Assault: The Impact of an Eyewitness

The present study investigated the influence of a sexual assault nurse examiners (SANEs) testimony on mock juror perceptions of a child or adolescent victim of child sexual assault. Community members (N = 252, 156 females) read a fictional criminal trial summary of a child sexual assault case in which the victim was 6 or 15 years old and the prosecution presented medical testimony from a SANE or a traditional registered nurse (RN), or did not present medical testimony. Mock jurors were more likely to render guilty verdicts when a SANE testified compared with the other two testimony conditions. In addition, pro-victim judgments (e.g., sympathy toward the victim) and negative defendant judgments (e.g., anger toward the defendant) mediated this relation. Finally, cognitive network representations of the case demonstrated that the RN and no-medical-testimony groups were similar and the SANE group was distinct from the other two conditions. We discuss these results in terms of the implications of SANE testimony in child sexual assault court cases.

“You Better Say Your Prayers and Get Ready” Guns Within the Context of Partner Abuse

One hundred eighty-two undergraduates (96 women) read a summary of a child sexual assault (CSA) criminal trial involving a 6-year-old alleged victim. The trial summaries differed as to whether an eyewitness to the CSA other than the victim testified in court and the age of that eyewitness (6 or 36 years old). The results showed that the additional witness did not affect women’s pro-victim judgments, but significantly increased men’s pro-victim judgments. Furthermore, compared with women, men felt more anger toward the defendant when the additional witness testified. A follow-up experiment (43 women) included an additional witness who did not witness the CSA. The results of this follow-up showed that rather than the number of witnesses, it was the additional witness to the CSA that increased pro-victim judgments. The results are discussed in terms of how additional corroborating testimony in a CSA case affects men and women jurors.

Participant gender, stalking myth acceptance, and gender role stereotyping in perceptions of intimate partner stalking: a structural equation modeling approach

The present study used focus groups to collect qualitative data to better understand the complexity of how women with domestic violence experiences feel about gun violence and protections from gun violence within the context of partner violence. Participants consisted of 42 women who were recruited through domestic violence shelters and programs in a single U.S. state. Three main themes were examined in the focus group discussions: (a) guns used within the context of partner abuse, (b) victims using guns as protection from an abuser, and (c) mandated gun restrictions as protection in partner abuse. A total of nine subthemes were organized under the three general themes. Within the first main theme, participants discussed that although abuse occurs with and without guns, guns are uniquely dangerous. In the second main theme, participants expressed concern regarding the dangers of using a gun for self-defense as well as the individual right to own a gun for self-defense. In the third main theme, participants expressed their frustrations that victims are not taken seriously by the justice system and the difficulties of enforcing mandated gun restrictions. The findings have implications for developing protective strategies against gun violence for victims of partner violence.

Associations Between Sexual Behavior Norm Beliefs in Relationships and Intimate Partner Rape Judgments

The present research used a mock juror experiment (N = 360) to assess two primary goals: (1) to examine the direct and indirect effects of participant gender, stalking myth acceptance, and gender role stereotyping on guilt ratings in a stalking trial; and (2) to examine the role of perceived victim fear and distress, and defendant intended danger on perceptions of a stalking trial. Using structural equation modeling, we found an indirect effect of participant gender, and both direct and indirect effects of stalking myth acceptance and gender role stereotyping on guilt ratings. Men and participants who endorsed more traditional gender role stereotypes were associated with adherence to stalking myth acceptance beliefs. Endorsement of particular stalking myth acceptance beliefs offers a partial explanation for why women and men differed on perceptions of the defendants intent to cause danger and the victims perceived fear and distress. Results provide insight into the efficacy of current anti-stalking legislation that relies on a jurors capacity to evaluate an ‘objective’ interpretation (i.e., ‘reasonable person’) standard of fear for intimate partner stalking.

The Impact of Gender Stereotypes on Legal Perceptions of Lesbian Intimate Partner Violence

Using a community sample (n = 296), we investigated the associations between sexual behavior norm beliefs, acceptance of partner rape, judgments that non-consensual partner sex is “wrong not rape,” and decisions if non-consensual partner sex should be charged as rape. Sexual behavior norm beliefs were associated both directly and indirectly with latter components in the model related to acceptance of non-consensual partner sex judgments and charging rape judgments. In addition, participant gender moderated the model, such that many of the associations between the variables were stronger for males than for females. The results have implications for understanding how individuals label rape between intimate partners.

Police Officers' Attitudes and Challenges With Charging Stalking.

The present study examined legal perceptions of lesbian intimate partner violence (IPV) in an experimental context. Undergraduate women and men from the Southeastern United States (N = 217) read a trial summary in which the defendant was charged with physically assaulting her same-sex partner. The trial varied as to whether the victim and defendant were depicted via images as either feminine or masculine. Participants rendered verdicts and made judgments about the victim and defendant (e.g., credibility). Results indicated that the victim’s and defendant’s masculine or feminine appearance affected these judgments. Female participants viewed a masculine victim as more credible than a feminine victim when the defendant was masculine. When the victim was masculine, they viewed a masculine defendant as more responsible for the victim’s injuries than a feminine defendant. Male participants had higher sympathy for a masculine versus feminine victim overall, but had more anger toward a masculine defendant versus a feminine defendant accused of assaulting a feminine victim. Finally, fewer participants mentioned the defendant’s history of violence as a reason for a guilty of felony verdict for a feminine victim with a feminine defendant versus all other combinations of victim and defendant masculine/feminine appearance. Results are discussed in terms of gender stereotypes influencing legal decision-making in IPV cases among lesbian couples.