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: The ‘what the hell’ effect
3. Simple Jury Persuasion: The ‘one at a time’ effect
4. Simple Jury Persuasion: Using the ‘Nerd Defense’
5. Simple Jury Persuasion: “I transgressed. Please forgive me.”

1. Burkey says:

   December 16, 2010 at 7:01 PM

   The judge’s instruction actually said explicitly:

   “A finding of guilt as to any crime may not be based on circumstantial evidence unless the proved circumstances are not only, one, consistent with the theory that the defendant is guilty of the crime, but, two, cannot be reconciled with any other rational conclusion.

   ..”Also, if the circumstantial evidence as to any particular count permits two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to the defendant’s guilt and the other to his innocence, you must adopt that interpretation that points to the defendant’s innocence, and reject that interpretation that points to his guilt.”

   For example, Peterson may not have seemed remorseful because he didn’t do it. That would be an innocent explanation.

   But the jurors chose the explanation that he showed no remorse because he is a sociopath and a coldhearted killer.

   Reading the book by Mr. G. and six other jurors, I was struck by how many things were interpreted for guilt when they were easily explained otherwise. For example, jurors decided that Peterson deliberately stored a tarp so that gasoline spilled on it, which supposedly would cover up the scent of a dead body. But another explanation is this: Peterson’s wife had just gone missing and neatly storing a tarp might not have been foremost in his mind.
   Or, elsewhere in the book, one juror, upon viewing Peterson’s boat which had been in custody for years, noted how nice a boat it was and that there was water in the bottom and a pair of rusting pliers. “Now I look at the boat and he’s abusing the boat,” said that juror.
   But Peterson hadn’t had the boat for years at that point.
   There are other examples, but I think I’ll close here.
2. Douglas Keene says:

   October 19, 2010 at 7:21 AM

   John,

   Thanks for your comment, and for your jury service on this difficult case. Your comment, though, is exactly on point with this blog post. As you said, “Not showing any signs of remorse through the evidence presented before us contributed to aggravating factors that lead to a death penalty conviction”, which is the point of the research we cite in this post.

   I have a great deal of trust and confidence in juries and the jury system, and have no doubt about the care and intelligence you all brought to your duty, You did follow the judge’s instructions, and you weighed all of the evidence, including his behavior at trial. His aloofness was a factor in determining whether he was capable of the crime of which he was accused, which is a valid component of the evidence.

   Respectfully yours,

   Douglas Keene, PhD
3. john guinasso says:

   October 19, 2010 at 3:34 AM

   You got it wrong. The facts that were presented in the courtroom convicted Scott Peterson. Not showing any signs of remorse through the evidence presented before us contributed to aggravating factors that lead to a death penalty conviction.

   Jurys are smarter than you think. I was juror number eight on the trial, and we followed Judege Delucchi’s orders thoroughly.