Venire Jurors' Perceptions of Adversarial Allegiance

Psychological assessment instruments designed to assist mental health experts in conducting forensic evaluations have proliferated in the past 2 decades. These instruments are intended to increase objectivity and reliability and therefore theoretically reduce bias. However, a burgeoning body of research suggests that when such instruments are applied in adversarial settings, reliability is poor and their results are systematically biased toward the retaining party, so-called "adversarial allegiance." In this experiment, venire jurors read a synopsis of a sexually violent predator proceeding in which 2 experts presented the results of a structured risk assessment. The experts were either adversarial experts (i.e., called by the attorneys in the case) or court-appointed experts (i.e., called by the court), and their assessments were in conflict (i.e., the criteria for commitment either were or were not met). The order in which the conflicting expert assessments were presented was counterbalanced. Overall, jurors considered the assessments produced by court-appointed experts to be more objective, credible, and persuasive than the assessments produced by adversarial experts. With respect to the likelihood that jurors would commit the respondent, an interaction was observed such that jurors essentially discounted the assessment of adversarial experts, rendering them indistinguishable, but relied on the assessment provided by court-appointed experts in making their decisions. The results suggest that although adversarial allegiance is troubling to researchers, jurors appear to anticipate the presence of adversarial bias and adjust their evaluation of risk-assessment testimony accordingly.