Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 212–226 | Cite as

The Effects of Rehabilitative Voir Dire on Juror Bias and Decision Making

Original Article


During voir dire, judges frequently attempt to “rehabilitate” venirepersons who express an inability to be impartial. Venirepersons who agree to ignore their biases and base their verdict on the evidence and the law are eligible for jury service. In Experiment 1, biased and unbiased mock jurors participated in either a standard or rehabilitative voir dire conducted by a judge and watched a trial video. Rehabilitation influenced insanity defense attitudes and perceptions of the defendant’s mental state, and decreased scaled guilt judgments compared to standard questioning. Although rehabilitation is intended to correct for partiality among biased jurors, rehabilitation similarly influenced biased and unbiased jurors. Experiment 2 found that watching rehabilitation did not influence jurors’ perceptions of the judge’s personal beliefs about the case.


Jury selection Juror decision making Insanity defense 



This research was supported by grants from the American Psychology-Law Society and the American Society of Trial Consultants and funds from the Provost’s Office at John Jay College. Portions of this research were presented at the 2008 meetings of the American Psychology-Law Society in Jacksonville, FL. We would like to thank Brian Cutler for his suggestion to include the unbiased juror—rehabilitative questioning condition and to Michael Leippe and Steven Penrod for their comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.


  1. Barefoot v. State, 596 S.W.2d 875 (Tex. Crim. App., 1980).Google Scholar
  2. Barnhill v. State, 834 So. 2d 836 (Fla., 2002).Google Scholar
  3. Carlson, K. A., & Russo, J. E. (2001). Biased interpretation of evidence by mock jurors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 91–103.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Cialdini, R. B. (1995). Principles and techniques of social influence. In A. Tesser (Ed.), Advanced social psychology (pp. 257–281). Boston: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  5. Clark v. State, 593 S.E.2d 28 (Ga. App., 2003).Google Scholar
  6. Conde v. State, 860 So. 2d 930 (Fla., 2003).Google Scholar
  7. Cooper, J., & Fazio, R. H. (1984). A new look at dissonance theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 17, pp. 229–266). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cortez v. HCCI-San Antonio, Inc. D/B/A Alta Vista Nursing Center, 159 S.W.3d 87 (2005 Tex. Sup. J.).Google Scholar
  9. Cosper, C. A. (2003). Rehabilitation of the juror rehabilitation doctrine. Georgia Law Review, 37, 1471–1508.Google Scholar
  10. Edwards, K., & Bryan, T. S. (1997). Judgmental biases produced by instructions to disregard: The (paradoxical) case of emotional information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 849–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ForsterLee, L., Horowitz, I. A., & Bourgeois, M. J. (1993). Juror competence in civil trials: Effects of preinstruction and evidence technicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 14–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gall v. Parker, 231 F.3d 265, 308 (6th Cir. 2000).Google Scholar
  13. Gum and Gum v. Schaefer, 683 S.W.2d 803 (Tex. App., 1984).Google Scholar
  14. Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 723 (1961).Google Scholar
  15. Ivey v. State, 574 S.E.2d 663 (Ga. App., 2002).Google Scholar
  16. Johnson, C., & Haney, C. (1994). Felony voir dire. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 487–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jones, S. E. (1987). Judge- versus attorney-conducted voir dire: An empirical investigation of juror candor. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1988). The American jury on trial: Psychological perspectives. New York: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
  19. Kovera, M. B., Dickinson, J. J., & Cutler, B. L. (2003). Voir dire and jury selection. In Handbook of psychology: Forensic psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 161–175). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Living v. State, 796 So.2d 1121 (Ala. Crim. App., 2000).Google Scholar
  21. Marshall, L. L., & Smith, A. (1985). The effects of demand characteristics, evaluation anxiety, and expectancy on juror honesty during voir dire. The Journal of Psychology, 120, 205–217.Google Scholar
  22. McElhaney, J. W. (2000). Picking a jury: Who are you talking to? Tennessee Law Review, 67, 517–522.Google Scholar
  23. Mu’min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415 (1991).Google Scholar
  24. Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794 (1975).Google Scholar
  25. Nisbett, R., & Wilson, T. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. O’Dell v. Miller, 565 S.E.2d 407 (W. Va. 2002).Google Scholar
  27. Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025 (1984).Google Scholar
  28. People v. Goldstein, 14 A.D.3d 32, 786 N.Y.S.2d 428 (N.Y., 2004).Google Scholar
  29. Poulin, A. (1994). The jury: The criminal justice system’s different voice. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 62, 1377–1438.Google Scholar
  30. Pyszczynski, T. A., Greenberg, J., Mack, D., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1981). Opening statements in a jury trial: The effect of promising more than evidence can show. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11, 434–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rosenthal, R. (2002). Covert communication in classrooms, clinics, courtrooms, and cubicles. American Psychologist, 57, 839–849.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Skeem, J. L., Louden, J. E., & Evans, J. (2004). Venirepersons’ attitudes toward the insanity defense: Developing, refining, and validating a scale. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 623–648.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith, V. L. (1991). Impact of pretrial instruction on jurors’ information processing and decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 220–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sommers, S. R., & Kassin, S. M. (2001). On the many impacts of inadmissible testimony: Selective compliance, need for cognition, and the over-correction bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1368–1377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. State v. Walden, 183 Ariz. 595, 905 P.2d 974 (Ariz., 1995).Google Scholar
  36. Suggs, D., & Sales, B. D. (1981). Juror self-disclosure in the voir dire: A social science analysis. Indiana Law Journal, 56, 245–271.Google Scholar
  37. Thompson v. State, 894 P.2d 375 (Nev., 1995).Google Scholar
  38. United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 49, 50 (1807).Google Scholar
  39. Vidmar, N. (1997). Generic prejudice and the presumption of guilt in sex abuse trials. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 5–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Walls v. Kim, 549 S.E.2d 797, 799 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).Google Scholar
  41. Wegner, D. M. (1994). Ironic processes of mental control. Psychological Review, 101, 34–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Wenzlaff, R. M., & Wegner, D. M. (2000). Thought suppression. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 59–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Wright, K. (2001). Friends and foes in the jury box: Walls v. Kim and the mission to stop improper juror rehabilitation. Mercer Law Review, 53, 929–943.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal JusticeCity University of New YorkNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations