Stranger Rape or Impromptu Consensual Sex? Investigating Mock Juror Decision-Making in a Genuine Contested Rape Trial.

The aim of this study was to better understand juror decision-making in a less typical rape trial scenario where even prior acquaintance is disputed. Adopting an improved mock trial paradigm including a video-recorded recreation of a genuine rape allegation and jury-group deliberation, 156 jury-eligible participants took part in 1 of 13 identical 12-person mock trials. Pre-trial, a psychosocial questionnaire was conducted and post-trial, juries deliberated attempting to reach a unanimous verdict. Regression analyses revealed that male jurors, those with greater belief in rape myths and lower scores in interpersonal manipulation were most likely to return not guilty verdicts pre-deliberation. Post-deliberation, increased self-esteem and rape myth acceptance scores were associated with not guilty verdict selections. Female and Caucasian jurors were most likely to change their decision following group-deliberation. This research has important implications for understanding the role that juror biases can have on rape trial outcomes with jury reform initiatives discussed.