Mock jurors' evaluations of insanity defense verdict selection: The role of death penalty attitudes

The present study examined the impact of mock jurors' attitudes toward the death penalty on their evaluations of critical components of an insanity defense trial. These critical components included jurors' evaluations of the efficacy of the insanity defense, expert psychological testimony, the defendant's mental status and, importantly, their subsequent verdicts. A mock trial was presented to 137 college student participants by means of an audio tape and slide show. Following the reenacted trial, participants answered a series of questions regarding the case. Statistical analyses revealed significant associations between jurors' attitudes toward the death penalty and their evaluations of the efficacy of the insanity defense, the accuracy of expert testimony, the defendant's mental status, and their final verdict selections. Mock jurors who favored the death penalty were more accepting of the prosecution's expert testimony, less believing that the crime was a result of the defendant's mental illness, and less believing in the efficacy of the insanity defense itself: Moreover, those mock jurors who held pro-death penalty attitudes were significantly less willing to find the defendant Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity.