The Influence of Instructions and Admissibility
The main finding of the study is that in the case of a court setting, the jury goes by the instructions of the judge on what is considered to be admissible or not. Conviction is then based only on evidence that the judge agrees to be admissible. However, jurors also take note of inadmissible evidence especially depending on its source. We conclude that jurors who hold the relevance of evidence with high regard have a likelihood of using inadmissible evidence to submit a guilty verdict.
The Role of Publicity in Decision Making
Notably, publicity seems to be an influencing factor in decision making for jurors in the case of inadmissible evidence. As such, publicity may raise the probability of a guilty verdict as compared to where there is no publicity since some jury members still remember it influencing their judgment. Additionally, the study notes that there is an effect on the guilty charge in the effect where the evidence has been considered inadmissible. Resultantly, it noted that the use of inadmissible evidence was not an issue, as long as its relevance and correctness stood out.
The Impact of the Source of Evidence
The study’s limitation was on the fact that previous studies only looked at the impact of inadmissible evidence without considering the effect its source could have. This study, therefore, had to prove whether the consideration would be the same if the testimony came from a prisoner or a law enforcement officer and its consideration in either case.
Expanding the Scope of Future Studies
While past studies have considered dynamics surrounding admissible and inadmissible evidence, having to delve into the source of the evidence or the person giving the testimony has not. Therefore, future studies should cast their nets wider into this topic in order to establish how the different situations influence the decisions that jurors make in particular instances.
