Abstract
The aim of the present experiment was to understand how potential jurors' decision-making is influenced by the assistance that they receive to evaluate the evidence before them in a case involving memory. Mock jurors were presented with a transcript from an historic case of sexual abuse in which an adult female complainant alleged that she had been abused by her uncle 26 years earlier when she was 6-years old. In addition to a transcript that included testimony by the complainant, the complainant’s mother, the defendant, and the defendant’s wife, some jurors received specialised information about the potential impact of delay on memory. For these jurors, the same information was either presented by a memory expert or by the presiding judge. Jurors in the control group read only the transcript of the testimony and did not receive additional information about memory. All jurors were asked to provide a verdict, rate their level of confidence in their verdict, indicate the timing of when they reached their verdict, and the reasons for their verdict. Overall, there was no difference in the pattern of verdicts nor in the reasons for verdicts as a function of experimental condition. Most importantly perhaps, a large proportion of the jurors indicated that they reached their decision before they were exposed to additional information from the expert or the judge. These findings add to a growing body of research showing that although the Court relies heavily on judicial instructions and expert evidence, there is limited impact of these additional sources of information on jurors’ decision-making. These findings have important implications for courtroom practice and for future research.