Juror Decision Making 1

The Effects of Race and Mortality Salience on Juror Decision Making

Nissa N. Fuller

Mansfield University of Pennsylvania

Dr. Francis Craig

 Juror Decision Making 2

Abstract

The following study examined the effects of mortality salience and race on jury decision making.

One hundred and fourteen Mansfield University students participated (Mean Age = 21.27, SD =

4.47). Participants were conveniently sampled and then randomly assigned into one of four

conditions, which varied by race of defendant (black/white) and mortality stimulus

(present/absent). A factorial ANOVA revealed no main effects or interaction among variable on

guilty verdict. Paired samples t-tests showed some difference in juror confidence and verdicts

when comparing the verdicts of “jurors of color” were in the individual and group deliberative

conditions. These findings and research contribute to the existing literature by exercising a

design that used actual group decision making (versus individual deliberation) to better

understand variables that may influence the jury decision-making process.

 Juror Decision Making 3

Introduction

Mortality salience has significant influence over decisions and worldviews through the

negative feelings it induces. Terror management theory suggests that people tend to think about

their own deaths in a way that produces defensive behaviors around their personal worldviews

and social/identity-related groups (Kastenmüller, Greitemeyer, Hindocha, Tattersall, & Fischer,

2013). Those who are affected by the terror management theory tend to go against those who

threaten them in some fashion and by doing so, they protect themselves from death (Jones &

Wiener, 2011). Terror management theory also increases negative reactions towards those who,

in the perceiver’s mind, violate their standpoints. TMT in a way can be related to cognitive

dissonance, in that people tend to behave and think in ways that will lessen anxiety.

When experiencing mortality salience, people are faced with anxiety surrounding their

own death and in order to ease this anxiety, they must become defensive of what they believe

will exceed their death. Jones and Wiener (2011) conducted a research study that, in total,

included 165 participants focusing on whether mortality salience (TMT) affects decision making

in death penalty trials. The study checked mortality salience with measurements that assessed

mood and affect using the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS-X; Kercher, 1992; Jones

& Wiener, 2011). The findings of this study concluded that while mortality salience did not work

on the population, the participants did make verdicts based on their attitudes and worldviews

(Jones & Wiener, 2011).

Several studies seem to struggle with implementing the mortality salience manipulation

as it concerns the amount of conscious mortality that should be used. Research has shown that

using mortality salience in a subtle way increases defensive judgments when it is not in the
 Juror Decision Making 4

conscious part of someone’s mind (Greenberg, Pyszczynski, Solomon, Simon, & Breus, 1994;

Jones & Wiener, 2011). This also can be helped by creating a delay after the manipulation is

administered. This time in-between can allow the manipulation to fall into the back of the

participant's mind which will, in turn, affect their decision-making process.

Time pressure can also influence the decision making process by possibly ending in a

reduced effort on the participant’s side. Psychology has shown that people have cognitive biases

and different heuristic approaches to making decisions. A more common bias that is seen is the

fundamental attribution error, although there are many more. A study conducted looked at what

happens when you add time pressure into “unnatural” decision making processes(Lehner,

Seyed-Solorforough, O’Conner, Sak, & Mullin, 1997).

Vulnerable-to-bias can be defined as a judgment or decision procedure that states that an

untrained decision maker would not reliably perform because of cognitive bias. Lehner et al.,

(1997) used a game to test their hypothesis with a total of 22 participants split into teams of two.

The game required the participants to assess aerial threats by figuring out what type of aircraft it

was while effectively communicating back and forth. The participants had to deal with new

information brought in from their assigned partner and make new choices/opinions accordingly.

The results of this study supported the hypothesis but the researchers also made note that

participants would adapt to the time pressure by ignoring the specific instructions laid out for

them (Lehner et al., 1997). This a concern to consider as participants could pass by important

parts of a study if time pressure is too strong. When the time pressure is too severe, the

participant could fall into a state of hypervigilance that results in poor information processing

and errors in judgment (Mann & Tan, 1993). This cognitive mishap could potentially get in the
 Juror Decision Making 5

way when hard choices need to be made, for example, in legal matters where you need the ability

to be level-headed.

In legal matters, there are a number of factors influencing decision procedures. Race can

play an important part in decision making by tapping into stereotypes and certain thinking

processes. When thinking about legal matters, race can be associated with certain crimes. For

example, Blacks are seen as those who commit crimes such as mugging or grand-theft auto while

Whites are seen as more likely to commit embezzlement or child molestation (Jones & Kaplan,

2003). This all has to deal with stereotypes of both racial groups that are most likely to come

from our perception of reality and what is received through media. While there are crimes that

are more associated with specific races, a Black person will receive more punishment than a

White person with the same charge. Jones & Kaplan (2003) conducted a study that included 360

participants and looked at whether race-crime congruence adds to judgment biases. This also

included initial guilt associated with the defendant. The participants were told to read a case

summary, deliver a verdict, and then compare it to the case’s actual verdict. The researchers also

had the participants deliver punishment on the defendant accordingly. The overall findings of the

study concluded that race had a direct effect on punishment given to Blacks, who received more,

regardless of the crime (Jones & Kaplan, 2003). The researchers also noted that when the crime

was controlled for, there seemed to be no difference racially (Jones & Kaplan, 2003). This is

likely based on vehicular manslaughter that is neutral for both races. The results also showed that

white jurors had a presumption of guilt towards the black defendant which would create certain

thinking processes to occur (Jones & Kaplan, 2003). Participants had taken measurements that

assessed attributes and it showed that when the crime is racially congruent it becomes due to
 Juror Decision Making 6

internal factors compared to external when the crime is not. Including race, many other variables

have been found to influence the jury’s cognitive processing.

It has been found that mortality salience has taken effect in the judicial system and

decisions resulting from it. Many factors can influence the decision made by people due to their

own psychological state of mind. Judges and juries have to decide sentencing and punishment

according to the law while they simultaneously think about their own belief systems. Many

factors such as personal emotions, attitudes, or political leanings can affect the judgment made

by those in the judicial system (Goodman-Delahunty, Martschuk, & Ockenden, 2016). Negative

emotions specifically can heighten stereotypes and impact information processing. If one is

influenced by mortality salience which causes negative emotions then it is more likely to impair

the judgment made. Mortality salience has been shown throughout the literature to affect the

treatment of those who commit certain crimes, attention to fairness, and influence the likelihood

of following the rules (Jones & Wiener, 2011).

Several studies conducted before the current one have looked at the jury process in a

narrow lense. When assessing verdicts that come out of juries, very few studies use the

participants as an actual jury instead opting to use them as individuals. The study conducted by

Goodman-Delahunty, Martschuk, & Ockenden (2016), for example, looked at juror decision

concerning specific charges. However, the jury process was an individual one with tasks like

reviewing the transcript and the final verdict were completed alone. The researchers of this study

acknowledged that individual differences may have had an impact of the study because of these

reasons. This is the complete opposite of what a jury process is and so possible benefits and

problems cannot be properly assessed. The current study improves on these limitations of past
 Juror Decision Making 7

literature with the hopes to recreate the jury process specifically, the deliberation process that is

the main factor when reaching a verdict.

The present study aims to look at the effects of race and mortality salience on juror

decision making. Based on the review of literature the following hypotheses are proposed: First,

that mortality salience will influence jury verdicts. Terror management theory, when those are

reminded of their own death they become defensive over their identities and worldviews. This is

in an attempt to surpass death and become symbolically immortal and so we expect mortality

salience to effect those decisions. Second, we expect that race of the defendant and race of the

juror will influence jury verdicts. Much of the literature coming from criminal justice and

psychology speak on how race can affect one’s decision about anything and in a criminal case,

these issues can be amplified. Third, we predict an interaction between mortality salience and

race that will in turn effect verdicts. As mentioned before, mortality salience and race can

influence decisions in different ways. Lastly, we predict that confidence levels of verdicts will be

influenced by individual and group settings. The deliberation process will give the participants a

chance to think about the case together like a real jury does to come to a decision. It is expected

that when the participants hear other opinions about the case their confidence in the original

verdict will be impacted.

Methods

Participants

In the current study participants were drawn from the student population at Mansfield

University. All participants were taken from several psychology and general education courses

with the incentive of extra credit. Participants had a mean age being 21.27 (SD = 4.47). Most
 Juror Decision Making 8

participants were female at 69.30% and 29.80% being men. Along with this, most of the

participants were White at 85% and 15% of the participants were Non-White (Black, Hispanic,

and Asian). All participants were divided into experimental and control groups through

randomization by counting off by 4 or 2 depending on the number of participants in a section.

All participants were treated according to APA guidelines for human research and all information

collected remained confidential. Participants were required to read and sign an informed consent

before starting the research study.

Materials

Every participant was given two packets at the start of the study. The first packet was a

case summary of the defendant which depending on the group was either a Caucasian or African

American man. The other packet included a Demographic Survey, the Collett-Lester Fear of

Death Scale, a Word Stem Completion Task, both an Individual and Group Verdict Form with

Confidence Scales, a Fact Check Questionnaire, and a Post-Deliberation Questionnaire. All

materials are listed and described below.

Demographic Survey. Information collected was gender, age, race, marital status,

employment status, major, class rank, and living status.

Collett-Lester Fear of Death Scale. This scale measures four fears: death of self, dying

of self, death of others, and dying of others. Cronbach alphas are Death of Self, 0.91; Dying of

Self, 0.92; Death of Others, 0.88; and Dying of Others, 0.92 (Lester & Abdel-Khalek, 2003).

Dental Pain Control. The researchers created a dental pain control that would be used in

place of the manipulation for the control participants (Forbes, Fuller, Temple, Walters & Wyant,

2019).
 Juror Decision Making 9

Word Stem Completion Task. Based on Greenberg, Pyszczynski, Solomon, Simon, &

Breus (1994) article on accessing death-related thoughts. The task included 10 words that could

be filled with either death-related words or neutral words (e.g., coffee or coffin; deep or dead).

Fact Check Questionnaire. The questionnaire included 10 statements which had to be

answered true or false. The questionnaire was there to check if the participants were following

along with the case summary (Forbes, Fuller, Temple, Walters & Wyant, 2019).

Trial Transcript. Participants were asked to read through a trial transcript that detailed

the offender, the crime committed, and police procedure (United States v. Delancy). Personal

names and information were changed as needed.

Other Study Material. Participants were asked to decide on both an individual and

group verdict and then to decide what their confidence in that verdict was. Additionally at the

end of group deliberation participants were asked open-ended questions about the deliberation

process.

Procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to either the experimental or the control group by

counting off by 4 (or 2). This way we would end up with four different conditions: White

Defendant with no Mortality Salience; White Defendant with Mortality Salience; Black

Defendant with no Mortality Salience, or Black Defendant with Mortality Salience. If there were

not enough participants in a section then only one race would be used. Participants were then

told to follow specific instructions as they would be switching between two packets. Participants

completed the demographic questions, mortality salience prime or dental pain control, and the

word stem completion task. After this, participants were told to read through the case summary
 Juror Decision Making 10

while paying specific attention to the defendant’s charges, defense and prosecution claims and

whether the police had a search warrant. When participants were done reading they were given

two minutes to decide an individual verdict and confidence rating. Then, participants were split

up into smaller juries within the larger group and given four minutes to deliberate the case. After

this, participants were asked to complete the group verdict, confidence rating, and a brief

questionnaire. When all participants were done, they were debriefed and let go.

Design and Statistical Analysis

This study utilized the experimental approach following the case/control methodology.

Participants were randomly assigned into groups of 2 (White or Black) x 2 (control or

experimental). Data was analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 21.0 using a factorial ANOVA and

paired t-tests.

Results

For analysis of experimental hypothesis 2x2 factorial ANOVAS and paired t-tests were

used to test whether random assignment procedures successfully produced equivalent groups.

Results of these tests revealed that the experimental and control groups were statistically

equivalent on all demographic and control items except for one item which was the black

control. Review of this group showed that there was a difference in distribution by year,

specifically Freshman and Senior who were lower in numbers compared to other experimental

and control groups (Freshman, 11.5%; Senior, 7.7%) (See Figure 1). The difference was

significant (See Figure 1) but there is no knowledge of class rank affecting research in jury

decision making.
 Juror Decision Making 11

For analyses of experimental hypothesis 2x2 factorial ANOVA and paired t-tests to test

whether differences existed among groups. The first set of hypotheses were that race of

defendant and mortality salience would have a main effect or interaction on jury verdict. A 2x2

factorial ANOVA revealed that no significant main effect or interaction existed among groups.

The second hypothesis was that would be a change in verdicts from individual to group

decisions. This hypothesis was partially supported. Paired t-tests revealed that non-white jurors

tended to change their verdict in group decision (73% to 82%) but it was not statistically

significant, p = .059. There was no change in decision made by Caucasian jurors. The third

hypothesis was that confidence levels of verdicts would be influenced by individual and group

settings. Paired t-tests revealed that there was a significant change in confidence, t = -.36, p <

.01.

Discussion

The examination of the first set hypotheses revealed that there was no main effect or

interaction concerning the variables mortality salience and race. This finding is consistent with

Jones & Wiener (2011) who did not find mortality salience in any of their conditions. The

researchers of the study discussed the importance of the amount of pressure that mortality

salience had. It has been explained that less could be more with mortality salience with

participants showing stronger effects of the manipulation when it was subtle (Jones & Wiener,

2011; Greenberg et al., 1994). The finding was also different from what was found in the study

conducted by Jones & Kaplan (2003). There was a significant relationship between race and

verdicts with defendants receiving more guilty verdicts if race matched with the crime (Jones &

Kaplan, 2003). In the current study, the crime was the same if the defendant was white or black
 Juror Decision Making 12

which could have been the problem. Jones and Kaplan (2003) discussed that there are

race-congruent crimes that could mediate attributions that effect guilty verdicts. Examples would

include embezzlement for white defendants and grand theft auto for black defendants (Jones &

Kaplan, 2003). The researchers also discussed possible neutral crimes that would not be effected

by attributions, which may have happened in the current study where the crime was drug related.

The examination of the second hypothesis revealed partial support that there would be a

change in verdicts from individual to group. The finding was consistent with a study conducted

by Lynch and Haney (2009) where they found a 12% shift towards the death penalty. The shift

was dependant on racial dynamics where non-white jurors would shift in their group decision. In

the current study, the shift is 11% which could mean it was moving towards significance (p =

.059). The examination of the third hypothesis revealed significant change in confidence levels

from individual to group settings. This finding is different from what was found in the Lynch &

Haney (2009) study where the participants change the verdict. In the current study, the mock

jurors experienced change in confidence but it was not enough for them to change their verdict.

Conclusion

The current research contributes to the existing literature by adding a crucial part in the

jury process. By adding the group dynamic from the actual jury process to research done in a lab,

it can be assessed whether certain theories or manipulations work in that environment. Some of

the hypotheses brought back results that were not expected, for example, the mortality salience

manipulation was expected to work. Other research also struggled to have the theory work in the

jury setting. It could also be due to having too many variables and measurements that eventually

took away from the mortality salience manipulation. Important to note that the trial used, in the
 Juror Decision Making 13

current study, did not have any death-related stimulus which would be important to include as we

were measuring death anxiety. For future research, it could be beneficial to look more carefully

at mortality salience and assess ways to produce optimal results from manipulations. The

hypothesis about race was approaching significance which is what the researchers expected.

However, it could be possible that it was not significant because of the population used for the

study. For future research, it would be interesting to find out what would happen if the

population was more racially diverse.

 Juror Decision Making 14

Figures and Tables

Table 1: Demographics

Variable Control-W Control-B Exp-W Exp-B P Value

Age 21 20 23 21 .27

Sex .38
Male 37.9% 23.1% 36.7% 36.7%
Female 62.1% 76.9% 63.3% 63.3%

Class Standing .012

Freshman 34.5% 11.5% 33.3% 27.6%
Sophomore 24.1% 30.8% 13.3% 34.5%
Junior 10.3% 38.5% 26.7% 17.2%
Senior 31.0% 7.7% 26.7% 20.7%

Race .16
White 89.7% 84.6% 84.7% 79.3%
Black 6.9% 13.3% 10.3%
Hispanic 7.7% 6.9%
Asian 7.7%
Other 3.4% 3.4%

Marital Status .29

Married 6.9% 10.0% 6.9%
Divorced 3.8% 3.3%
Engaged 3.3% 10.3%
Single 93.1% 96.2% 83.3% 82.8%

Children 3% 4% 10% 10% .61

Commute 62% 62% 53% 62% .81

Employed 62% 81% 70% 59% .31

 Juror Decision Making 15

Figure 2: Race and Verdicts, (p = .059)

Figure 3: Mortality Salience influencing verdicts, (p = .504)

 Juror Decision Making 16

Figure 4: Interaction between Mortality Salience and Race, (p = .504)

Figure 5: Individual and Group verdicts

 Juror Decision Making 17

Figure 6: Confidence Levels, (p < .01)

 Juror Decision Making 18

References

Forbes, T., Fuller, N., Temple, M., Walters, C., & Wyant, M. (2019). Dental pain control.

Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, Mansfield University of

Pennsylvania, Mansfield, Pennsylvania.

Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski,T., Solomon, S., Simon, L., & Breus, M. (1994). Role of

consciousness and accessibility of death-related thoughts in mortality salience effects.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 627-637.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.627

Goodman-Delahunty, J., Martschuk, N., & Ockenden, E. (2016). Effects of terrorist charges and

threatening conduct on mock jurors’ decisions. Psychiatry, Psychology & Law, 23(5),

696–708. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2015.1120247

Jones, C. S., & Kaplan, M. F. (2003). The effects of racially stereotypical crimes on juror

decision-making and information-processing strategies. Basic and Applied Social

Psychology, 25(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324834BASP2501pass:[_]1

Jones, M. B., & Wiener, R. L. (2011). Effects of mortality salience on capital punishment

sentencing decisions. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 33(2), 167–181.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2011.568852

Kastenmüller, A., Greitemeyer, T., Hindocha, N., Tattersall, A. J., & Fischer, P. (2013). Disaster

threat and justice sensitivity: a terror management perspective. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 43(10), 2100–2106. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12163

 Juror Decision Making 19

Kercher, K. (1992). Assessing subjective well-being in the old-old: The PANAS as a measure of

orthogonal dimensions of positive and negative affect. Research on Aging, 14, 131-168.

doi: 10.1177/0164027592142001

Lehner, P., Seyed-Solorforough, M. M., O'Connor, M. F., Sak, S., & Mullin, T. (1997). Cognitive

biases and time stress in team decision making. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and

Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, 27(5), 698-703.

Lester, D., & Abdel-Khalek, A. (2003). The Collett-Lester fear of death scale: a correction.

Death Studies, 27(1), 81–85.

Lynch, M., & Haney, C. (2009). Capital jury deliberation: Effects on death sentencing,

comprehension, and discrimination. Law and Human Behavior, 33(6), 481-496.

Mann, L., & Tan, C. (1993). The hassled decision maker: The effects of perceived time pressure

on information processing in decision making. Australian Journal of Management

University of New South Wales, 18(2), 197. https://doi.org/10.1177/031289629301800204

United States v. Delancy (United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit October 3, 2007),

United States FindLaw 06-13718.

 Juror Decision Making 20

Appendix A
Informed Consent Form
Explanation
I hereby voluntarily consent to participate in this research protocol. In this study, I will read a trial
transcript and try to make an accurate verdict.

Benefits to be Expected
The participants will receive free snacks and possible extra credit. The research community will
receive a study that includes deliberation in trial research. The researchers will be fulfilling a
requirement for graduation.

Risks and Discomforts

Some questions may be uncomfortable and/or personal.
If you feel like you need to talk to somebody, the counseling center is located on the first floor of
South Hall.

Freedom of Consent
I have read the information above and have had all my questions answered to my satisfaction. In
addition, I am aware that:
1. My name and information given will remain strictly anonymous.
2. My responses will be kept in a locked cabinet in a locked room South Hall 204.
3. I am entitled to further inquiries regarding this research.
4. I am free to withdraw from this research at anytime without penalty or prejudice.
5. My signature indicates that I have received and have carefully read this consent form.

Participant Name (Please Print Clearly) ______________________________

Date: _________________ Signed:_________________________________

The investigators of this research welcome any questions regarding the research protocol or
aspects of it. For questions or comments contact Nissa Fuller, Tabitha Forbes, Madison Wyant,
McKenzie Temple, or Casandra Walters at wyantml22@mansfield.edu or Dr. Francis Craig
(fcraig@mansfield.edu).
 Juror Decision Making 21

Appendix B
Demographics Form

Demographic Questionnaire
Please answer the following questions:
Age: _______________
Gender: ____________
Race (circle one):
1. Black/African American
2. White/Caucasian
3. Hispanic/Latino
4. Asian
5. Other
Marital Status (circle one):
1. Married
2. Divorced
3. Engaged
4. Single
5. Widowed
Do you have children? Yes No
Are you employed? Yes No
What is your major? ____________________________
What year are you? (circle one)
1. Freshman
2. Sophomore
3. Junior
4. Senior
5. Other
Do you commute or live on campus? (circle one)
1. Commute
2. On-Campus
 Juror Decision Making 22

Appendix C
Collett-Lester Fear of Death Scale

Read each item and answer it quickly. Don’t spend too much time thinking about your response. We want
your first impression of how you think right now. Circle the number that best represents your feeling. How
disturbed or made anxious are you by the following scenarios?

Your Own Death Not Somewhat Very

1) The total isolation of death. 1 2 3 4 5
2) The shortness of life. 1 2 3 4 5
3) Missing out on so much after you die. 1 2 3 4 5
4) Dying young. 1 2 3 4 5
5) How it will feel to be dead. 1 2 3 4 5
6) Never thinking or experiencing anything again. 1 2 3 4 5
7) The disintegration of your body after you die.
Your Own Dying
1) The physical degeneration involved. 1 2 3 4 5
2) The pain involved in dying. 1 2 3 4 5
3) The intellectual degeneration of old age. 1 2 3 4 5
4) That your abilities will be limited as you lay dying. 1 2 3 4 5
5) The uncertainty as to how bravely you will face the
process of dying. 1 2 3 4 5
6) Your lack of control over the process of dying. 1 2 3 4 5
7) The possibility of dying in a hospital away
from friends and family. 1 2 3 4 5
The Death of Others
1) Losing someone close to you. 1 2 3 4 5
2) Having to see the person’s dead body. 1 2 3 4 5
3) Never being able to communicate
with the person again. 1 2 3 4 5
4) Regret over not being nicer to the person
when he/she was alive. 1 2 3 4 5
5) Growing old alone without the person. 1 2 3 4 5
6) Feeling guilty that you are relieved
the person is dead. 1 2 3 4 5
7) Feeling lonely without the person. 1 2 3 4 5
The Dying of Others
1) Having to be with someone that is dying. 1 2 3 4 5
2) Having the person want to talk about
death with you. 1 2 3 4 5
3) Watching the person suffer from pain. 1 2 3 4 5
4) Seeing the physical degeneration of the
person’s body. 1 2 3 4 5
5) Not knowing what to do about your grief at
losing the person when you are with him/her. 1 2 3 4 5
6) Watching the deterioration of the person’s
mental abilities. 1 2 3 4 5
7) Being reminded that you are going to go
through the experience also one day. 1 2 3 4 5
 Juror Decision Making 23

Appendix D
Dental Pain Control
Read each item and answer it quickly. Don’t spend too much time thinking about your response.
We want your first impression of how you think right now. Circle the number that best represents
your feeling.
How disturbed or made anxious are you by the following scenarios?

Overall feelings towards the dentist Not Somewhat Very

1. Being alone at the dentist 1 2 3 4
2. The need for the dentist. 1 2 3 4
3. Taking time out of your day to go to the dentist. 1 2 3 4
4. First time you went to the dentist. 1 2 3 4
5. How you feel when you arrive at the dentist. 1 2 3 4
6. Going to the dentist every six months. 1 2 3 4
7. Never going to the dentist again. 1 2 3 4
Dental Experiences
1. The aging of your teeth 1 2 3 4
2. Pain involved in dental surgery. 1 2 3 4
3. Unfamiliarity with dental terminology/procedures. 1 2 3 4
4. Being in a dental chair. 1 2 3 4
5. Not being able to see your own teeth. 1 2 3 4
6. Getting x-rays taken. 1 2 3 4
7. Possibility of getting a tooth pulled. 1 2 3 4
Dental Procedures
1. Getting a filling. 1 2 3 4
2. Getting your teeth cleaned. 1 2 3 4
3. Getting a tooth pulled. 1 2 3 4
4. Having a root canal. 1 2 3 4
5. Getting wisdom teeth taken out 1 2 3 4
6. Getting false teeth. 1 2 3 4
7. Having missing teeth. 1 2 3 4
Second-hand Dental Experiences
1. Accompanying someone else to the dentist. 1 2 3 4
2. Seeing a family member in dental pain. 1 2 3 4
3. Hearing someone cry in the dentist office. 1 2 3 4
4. The sound of a dental drill. 1 2 3 4
5. The smell of a dentist’s office. 1 2 3 4
6. Seeing someone with broken teeth. 1 2 3 4
7. Witnessing someone lose a tooth. 1 2 3 4
 Juror Decision Making 24

Appendix E
Word Stem Completion Task

Word Stem Completion Task

Please finish the following words with the correct number of letters indicated by the blank

spaces.

1. Coff __ __

2. De __ __

3. Tor __ __ __ __

4. Cu __

5. Di __

6. Drea __

7. Pa__ __

8. Bu __ __

9. Gri__

10. Gra __ __
 Juror Decision Making 25

Appendix F
Individual Verdict

Individual Verdict

Circle your verdict decision. Guilty Not Guilty

Confidence in Verdict (please circle number):

Not Confident Somewhat Confident Very Confident

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Please circle true or false for the following statements:

1. The officers went to Godfrey’s apartment to search it. True False

2. The officers had a warrant to search the apartment. True False

3. The defendant had a history of arrests. True False

4. The defendant felt the search was too intrusive. True False

5. An officer spoke with Godfrey about the kids. True False

6. The defendant lives with Godfrey in the apartment. True False

7. The defendant consented to the search of the apartment and both cars. True False

8. The officers had probable cause to search the apartment. True False

9. The defendant hid something in the couch. True False

10. The defendant and Godfrey signed a consent form for the search to occur. True False
 Juror Decision Making 26

Appendix G
Group Verdict and Post Deliberation

Circle your group’s verdict decision. Guilty Not Guilty

Confidence in Jury Verdict (please circle number):
Not ConfidentSomewhat ConfidentVery Confident
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Please answer the following questions about your Verdict Confidence & Jury Experience.
Was your confidence in your initial (individual) verdict changed by jury deliberation? Yes No

If “Yes”, what is your current level of confidence in your initial (individual) verdict?
Not ConfidentSomewhat ConfidentVery Confident
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
For the following questions, Circle “Yes” or “No”
Do you feel like you had enough time to make an accurate individual verdict? Yes No
Do you feel like your group had enough time to make an accurate verdict? Yes No
Do you think your verdict decision was a fair decision? Yes No
Do you think the group verdict decision was a fair decision? Yes No

What did you think about the deliberation process?

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Describe your interaction with your group members during deliberation:
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Please share any additional comments here:
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
 Juror Decision Making 27

Appendix H
Trial Transcript

DEFENDANT: RYAN SMITH

On January 26, 2006 a federal grand jury returned with a verdict decision regarding Ryan Smith.
He was facing the following five counts of narcotics and firearms possession:
1. Possession with intent to distribute 50grams or more of crack.
2. Possession with intent to distribute 100 or more grams of cocaine.
3. Possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
4. Possession of a firearm in relation to drug trafficking.
5. Felon in possession of a firearm.
Initially police were looking to question Smith about other crimes (homicides related to drug
trafficking) for which he was a witness. They suspected they would locate him at the home of his
girlfriend Sarah Godfrey, because he had two vehicles registered at her address.
Before going to Godfrey’s home the officer briefing indicated Smith was a “dangerous person,”
that officers “should be on high alert for their safety,” and that Smith had a history of arrests for
narcotics and other offenses, as well as several narcotic convictions. At that time they did not
have an arrest warrant, probable cause to believe Smith had committed a crime, and no
pre-existing probable cause to search the home.
 Juror Decision Making 28

DEFENDANT: TYRONE WILLIAMS

On January 26, 2006 a federal grand jury returned with a verdict decision regarding Tyrone
Williams. He was facing the following five counts of narcotics and firearms possession:
1. Possession with intent to distribute 50grams or more of crack.
2. Possession with intent to distribute 100 or more grams of cocaine.
3. Possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
4. Possession of a firearm in relation to drug trafficking.
5. Felon in possession of a firearm.
Initially police were looking to question Williams about other crimes (homicides related to drug
trafficking) for which he was a witness. They suspected they would locate him at the home of his
girlfriend Sarah Godfrey, because he had two vehicles registered at her address.
Before going to Godfrey’s home the officer briefing indicated Williams was a “dangerous
person,” that officers “should be on high alert for their safety,” and that Williams had a history of
arrests for narcotics and other offenses, as well as several narcotic convictions. At that time they
did not have an arrest warrant, probable cause to believe Williams had committed a crime, and
no pre-existing probable cause to search the home.
 Juror Decision Making 29

On the morning of December 1, 2005, officers arrived at the home of Sarah Godfrey. Officers
approached the home with weapons drawn. Someone opened the screen door of the residence
and then immediately shut it. Officers say they could see Williams hide something in a couch
near the door. Shortly after a women exited the home followed by Williams. He was handcuffed
and taken into custody outside of the home. Then officers conducted a “protective sweep” of the
home – a limited search for individuals that may pose as a danger to the officers.
During the search they encountered Godfrey and her two children (infant and toddler) near or
inside the rear bedroom of the house. They were with her there for 10-20 minutes. Detective
Mercado spoke with her while Agent Leahy observed the exchange and watched the children.
During this time Godfrey called relatives to pick up the children. She also gave the officers
spoken and written consent to conduct a complete search of her home. The consent form was
signed and dated the day of the search. Some important items of the consent form included but
were not limited to:
● I understand that any contraband or evidence of a crime found during the search can
be seized and used against me in any court of law or other proceeding.
● I understand that I may withdraw my consent to this search at any time prior to the
search's termination.
● This consent to search has been given voluntarily without promises, threats, coercion
or force of any kind whatsoever.
Defense claims:
● The protective sweep was too broad, too long, too intrusive, and amounted to
“subterfuge” or a sham to give authorities reason to justify a full-scale search.
● Godfrey testified that she could hear officers searching her home before giving
consent (specifically in the kitchen), after the protective sweep. She also claims that
officers lifted to search under her mattress before she gave her consent.
● Godfrey also testified that officers pointed a rifle at her and her children. “I felt like a
hostage.” She claims officers threatened to have her children removed by social
services if she did not consent to the search. She also claims one of the officers
seemed to radio-request a call to social services for the children. Also, that another
officer asked her, “What’s more important, your children, or you going to jail?”
Prosecution Claims:
● The protective sweep was quick and unobtrusive. All officers went into the house and
returned, completing the search, within 1-2 minutes. No dangerous people were found
to be in the home.
● Narcotics and contraband was found after the consent.
● Godfrey seemed nervous but was coherent and conversational. Mercado suggested
she call a relative to take care of her children. Leahy corroborated this information.
● The search did not take place until the consent was signed.
● Officers denied anyone pointed a gun at Godfrey and the children.
 Juror Decision Making 30

● Earlier statements from Godfrey said the officers were polite, when questioned about
that she said yes the officers were nice, other than the statement about her children.
“Yes, he was polite. But the thing about my kids. He threatened me about my kids.
Other than that he was nice.”
● Leahy found a utility bill for the home in Williams' name. Upon finding this she gave
Williams the opportunity to sign the consent form as well, informing him that
Godfrey had already done so. He consented to the search of the home and one
vehicle. Williams claimed the second vehicle did not belong to him, despite both
vehicles being registered to him.

Items found and seized in search:

● Cookies of crack cocaine, bundles of cash, and individually bagged quantities of
cocaine in the kitchen oven.
● A semi-automatic AK-47 assault rifle loaded with two magazines of ammunition, one
duct-taped to the other. Quantities of crack cocaine, powder cocaine, and marijuana.
In the utility closet in the kitchen.
● Hundreds of small plastic bags marked with a red apple, which the government
argued at trial was a brand label for the drugs. Cash and “pay and owe” sheets
(narcotics accounting).

Two items were found before consent was given:

1. Detective Leahy noted seeing two boxes of ammunition on the bedroom windowsill.
Those items were not seized as they were spotted before consent was given.
2. DEA agent Frankhauser found a bag containing bundled money and several small
baggies of what appeared to him to be crack cocaine hidden beside the couch cushion.
Frankhauser claims that while Mercado and Leahy were with Godfrey and her
children in the back of the home. Officers decided to bring Williams back into the
home to question him, deciding it was inappropriate to conduct an interview with him
in view of the neighbors as he was only dressed in a tank top and boxers. He recalled
seeing Williams seeming to hide something in the couch when officers first arrived.
He wanted to make sure that the couch area was clear of contraband that Williams
could potentially use to harm officers.
Other than these two incidences, prosecution claims that all other items seized during the search,
was done so after consent was given.
Defense believes that the entire task force was “concocted to give authorities a colorable reason
to find and question, if necessary or appropriate, to search Mr. Williams or his place of residence
when in fact the real reason was to find and search for evidence of his criminal activity when
authorities had no probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant.”
 Juror Decision Making 31

Appendix I
Debrief Form

Debriefing Form
Thank you for participating as a research participant in our current study to see how mortality
salience, race, and time pressure affect juror decision making.

Again, we thank you for participating in our study. If you have any friends or acquaintances that
are eligible and may be participating in our study, we ask that you do not discuss any of the
materials or purpose of the study until they have had the chance to participate. Prior knowledge
of the purpose or questions could confound the results of our study. We thank you for your
cooperation.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding the current study you can ask the researcher(s)
now or contact Dr. Francis Craig at fcraig@mansfield.edu

Thanks again for your participation and cooperation