The Effects of Expert Testimony concerning Rape on the Verdicts and Beliefs of Mock Jurors

Abstract

Mock jurors heard one of four versions of a ‘date rape’ case and deliberated, in small groups, to a verdict. Exposure to the direct examination of an expert who testified about rape myths undermined belief in the defendant's testimony that sex with the complainant had been consensual, and increased the frequency of guilty votes. However, exposure to the expert's cross-examination reversed the effects of the direct examination on the frequency of guilty votes. Women jurors disbelieved the defendant and voted him guilty to a greater extent than male jurors, while in both sexes profeminist attitudes correlated with disbelief in the defendant's testimony but failed to correlate significantly with final verdicts. Implications are discussed.