The race of the jurors may affect their perceptions of the defendants with jurors who are a different race to the defendant being more likely to convict them.
Bradbury and Williams (2013) found juries with a high percentage of white jurors were more likely to convict black defendants so decisions are not objective.
Pre-trial publicity in the media about the defendant/crime/victim before the trial can influence jury decisions during the case.
Ruva, McEvoy and Bryant (2007) found that negative pre-trial publicity had a biasing effect on juror impressions of the defendant.
Investigating jury decision-making is often done through mock jury trials which replicate a court trial.
A mock jury trial uses video recorded trials so may not reflect real life trials as it lacks ecological validity, so jurors may be more objective where there are higher stakes and real people involved.
Evidence in trials presented by experts could bias the jurors towards the individual testimonies of those in high regard, like police officers.
Penrod and Cutler (1989) found jurors are influenced by the confidence/expertise of the eyewitnesses so their decisions are not objective.
Dion, Bersheid, and Walster (1972) claimed that attractiveness is associated with socially desirable characteristics and there is a perception that ‘what is beautiful is good’.
Landy and Aronson (1969) found attractive defendants were treated differently to unattractive defendants, being sentenced less harshly than an unattractive defendant even when rated similarly guilty of a crime.
