Project Overview
Summary of ObjectivesTo identify the organising principles used by criminal juries to structure debate and reach decisions.
To determine the extent and use of visual evidence in jury trials.
To measure the impact of two emerging forms of interactive visual evidence -- computer simulations and 360o crime scene displays -- on jury decision-making.
To identify the contribution of visual evidence to informing the jury both factually ans emotionally.
To identify the impact of strategies designed to modify the impact of visual technologies on jury decision-making.
BackgroundA systematic empirical examination of the impact of visual evidence on juries is long overdue (Feigenson and Dunn, 2003). Courts increasingly take evidence in visual form and make use of display technologies. Lawyers use – or seek to use – maps, scientific charts, photos, closed-circuit television frames and video re-enactments. Judges use flow charts to illustrate the choices facing the jury. Even the constraints of space and time are relaxed as expert witnesses appear from remote locations, and child testimony comes in pre-recorded form. Interactive media allow visual products to be re-shaped before the eyes of the jury. Meanwhile virtual reality technologies and holograms are on the horizon. The criminal ‘hearing’ is becoming increasingly a ‘viewing’.
Jury comprehension and recall may increase with evidence given in visual form – effect estimates vary from a 25% improvement in juror recall (Morell, 1999) to a 6-fold increase (Ellenbogen, 1993). On the other hand, visual evidence may introduce bias into jury deliberations (Silbey 2004), whether from the camera angle (Lassiter et al, 2001), or by leaving more memorable impressions (Kassin and Dunn 1997). Juries can be ‘mesmerized’ by high-tech displays (Plowman, 1996, 1), and find the expert presenting it more credible that they might otherwise. Or the jurors might simply pay more attention to information presented in accessible form (Feigenson and Dunn, 116), particularly if they come from Generation X (Kirby, 1998).
SignificanceThis study provides an empirical basis for facilitating better-informed juries, and ensuring that momentous decisions about the liberties of individuals are based on the best quality evidence presented in the most accessible form. The data from this project will assist the development of guidelines for the use of visual evidence in criminal trials, taking into account both the possibilities of better informing juries using the best available display technologies and the potential for introducing prejudice. The methodology used allows information recall and prejudicial impacts to be distinguished, and for the effectiveness of counter-measures to possible unfair influences to be assessed.
The study contributes to the emerging field of architectural psychology by bringing together architects (and colleagues such as acoustics engineers) involved in designing buildings with users of those buildings in as close to ‘real life’ as is possible within the constraints of jury confidentiality. The dialogue between designers and users in itself provides a valuable source of data about issues such as visual and acoustic comfort. Technological advances pose challenges to the design and management of courts, the organization of trials and the conduct of prosecution and defence strategies. Many current courts are ill equipped to support new display technologies, although there are some good recent Australian examples with heritage courts. This study tests the suitability of two actual courtrooms, in the views of both users and professionals, and will identify protocols for modifying courts to support effective use of interactive visual technologies.
Collaborating OrganisationsThe partners will each be actively involved in relevant aspects of the project. The AFP will supervise the development of a 360o crime scene display for the study, provide clerical support and academic supervision for a student to document AFP use of visual evidence and develop audience reception guidelines. The ACT DPP will contribute staff both to making the trial video (stage 3), and to the live court performances (stage 4); they will allocate staff to document their use of visual evidence in trials.
The architects will contribute to the research operations, liaising with the two courts, participating in the observation and reflection sessions, and speaking at the subsequent conference. Both are already active participants in the Court of the Future Network, administered through the University of Canberra, an alliance between academics and professionals in relation to court architecture, practices and technology.
The two technology partners, Rod Louey-Gung and Mark Hanson will provide assistance with, and advice on, appropriate technology, engineering and court acoustics cash and considerable in-kind support. Both have been actively involved in planning and installing new technologies, including visual technologies, in courts in Australia, New Zealand and Asia.