How Length of and Reason for Delayed Reporting Influence Mock-Jurors' Judgments in a Sexual Assault Trial

We examined how a victim's length of delayed reporting (2 months, 10 years, 20 years) and reason for delayed reporting (lack of evidence, fear of retaliation, not wanting family to know) influenced mock-jurors' decision-making. Mock-jurors (N = 709) read a trial transcript of an alleged sexual assault involving a female victim and a male defendant. Jurors were asked to render a dichotomous verdict and rate how truthful they perceived both the victim's and defendant's testimony. Among many findings, results identified that mock-jurors were significantly more likely to render a guilty verdict and rate the defendant's testimony less truthful when the victim delayed reporting by 2 months compared to when she delayed reporting by 10 or 20 years. Further, mock-jurors were significantly more likely to render a guilty verdict and rate the victim's testimony more truthful when the victim delayed reporting due to concerns about her family finding out compared to when she delayed reporting due to lack of evidence. Moreover, the current study also examined whether jurors' individual rape myths would influence their perception of the victim's speed of reporting (immediate reporting vs. delayed reporting). Results identified that individual rape myths moderated the effect of speed of reporting on jurors' decision-making. Jurors endorsing many rape myths rated the victim's testimony significantly more truthful when she reported immediately compared to when she delayed reporting; for jurors endorsing few rape myths, speed of reporting did not influence perceptions of the truthfulness of the victim's testimony.