While re-reading a summation of research on jury decision-making, I ran across this finding that brought Scott Peterson to mind. This doesn’t happen often for me—although I hear some women dream of marrying violent criminals. Evidently the allure of marrying a notorious man (the ultimate ‘bad boy’) remains powerful.

But, I digress. The important thing is not the (likely disturbed) women who want to marry notorious and violent men—but the lack of remorse seen by jurors (and courtroom cameras) from Scott Peterson. A young, beautiful and very pregnant woman was killed. Shouldn’t we have seen remorse? Sadness? Grief? Is this why Scott Peterson was convicted?

The research in this area is somewhat counter-intuitive. A literature review completed in 2001 came to some conclusions about the display of remorse in capital murder trial defendants:

• Defendant display of remorse was not related to final penalty outcomes (and most jurors reported the defendants were not remorseful).
• Indirect non-verbal displays of remorse implying the defendant took responsibility for actions were seen as more credible by jurors than direct verbal statements.
• Best predictor of penalty outcome was the defendant’s attitude toward the trial process itself. If the defendant was seen as uncaring or nonchalant, disdainful or contemptuous—they were more likely to receive the death penalty.

So, in essence, it’s better for your defendant to not say s/he is remorseful but to appear sincerely remorseful non-verbally. Jurors may think they are secretly observing true remorse if they see it but don’t ‘hear’ it.  “Walk the walk…”

Some interesting (perhaps related) research finds that if we ‘overhear’ information, we find it more persuasive than communication directed at us. If ‘they’ didn’t know we were listening, it must be true. Those Dean Witter ads in which crowds of people crave the juicy information gleaned from eaves-dropping ran for years.  It’s possible, that jurors surreptitiously observing non-verbal remorseful behavior would be more convinced than if they heard the defendant directly express remorse.   It follows the notion that we believe the inadvertent moment of candor more than a rehearsed statement.

If your defendant appears to mock or disrespect the courtroom proceedings—it does not bode well for them (unless perhaps they have unusually powerful family connections which frighten the jurors).

Devine, D., Clayton, L., Dunford, B., Seying, R. and Pryce, J. (2001). Jury Decision Making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 7(3), 622-727.

Related posts:

1. Simple Jury Persuasion: The ‘attitude alignment’ effect & persuasion
2. Simple Jury Persuasion: Don’t confuse argument with persuasion
3. Simple Jury Persuasion: It feels good to get along
4. Simple Jury Persuasion: Alpha and Omega Persuasion Strategies
5. Simple Jury Persuasion: Got charisma?