Pickel

Question 1

what are the different types of inadmissible evidence?

Answer 1

hearsay- includes gossip, speculation and rumour. This kind of evidence might prejudice a jury, doesn’t prove anything
prior convictions- telling a jury about previous convictions may prejudice a jury against you
improper evidence- some ways of gathering information is illegal , like phone tapping or entering someone house without a warrant

Question 2

what subsection is pickle apart of ?

Answer 2

persuading a jury

Question 3

what are the other studies in the subsection?

Answer 3

Pennington
hosch
pickel

Question 4

what did pickel look into?

Answer 4

investigating instructions to disregard inadmissible evidence

Question 5

what was the first aim?

Answer 5

to look at the effects of prior convictions

Question 6

what was the second aim?

Answer 6

look at the role of the judges instructions when they were followed by a legal explanations

Question 7

what was the third aim?

Answer 7

to examine how much the credibility of the witness affects the jurors ability to ignore inadmissible statements

Question 8

who were the participants ?

Answer 8

256 psychology students from ball state university (part of the course)

Question 9

what happened during the study?

Answer 9

mock trial , were p/s were assigned to one of the conditions
all p/s listened to an audio recording of fictional trial for theft

Question 10

what was the design?

Answer 10

independent measures

Question 11

what happened during the case?

Answer 11

the defendant is accused of stealing $5000 from his supervisors office after being fired from his job at the factory

Question 12

what is the prosecutors theory?

Answer 12

that the defendant stole the money in order to take revenge for being fired

Question 13

what did the defendant claim?

Answer 13

he is innocent and both he and his wife testify that he was at home at the time

Question 14

what happened at one point?

Answer 14

a witness refers to the defendant as having previous convictions for theft

Question 15

what was the first IV?

Answer 15

the judge overrules the lawyer , deciding this is inadmissible evidence

Question 16

what was the second IV?

Answer 16

the judge upholds the lawyer and instructs the jury to ignore the evidence of the prior convictions, but offers no further explanation

Question 17

what was the third IV?

Answer 17

the judge instructs the jury to ignore the evidence and offers an explanation of why it is inadmissible e.g. suggesting it might suggest the defendant has a bad character

Question 18

what is the fourth IV?

Answer 18

control group- heard the trial without inadmissible evidence

Question 19

what happened once the p/s heard the case?

Answer 19

filled out a questionnaire asking them for their verdict, their confidence on their verdict and a rating on a 10 point scale measuring how much knowing about the previous convictions made them think the defendant was guilty

Question 20

what happened to the participants who received no explanation?

Answer 20

thy just ignored the evidence

we know this as they reached the same guilty verdict as control group

Question 21

what happened to the p/s that heard the explanation ?

Answer 21

didn’t disregard evidence as they reached the opposite verdict to the control group

Question 22

what evidence was gathered from questionnaire?

Answer 22

none of the p/s believed that evidence about prior convictions had influenced their verdict
there was no significant effect on the use of prior convictions as measured by the scale

Question 23

what an evaluation point of this study?

Answer 23

drawing attention to the reason for declaring evidence can backfire badley