This dissertation investigates the central research question: Are jurors relying on stereotypes in courtroom decisions?
If so, could training jurors in deception detection and biases improve verdict accuracy and trial fairness?
This dissertation meticulously examines the impact of juror bias on courtroom verdicts, focussing on the degree to which jurors rely on stereotypes in assessing credibility and whether specialised training can mitigate these biases, with particular attention to the Depp v. Heard and State v. Murdaugh trials as empirical case studies.
It systematically evaluates the impact of cognitive biases, media influences, and heuristic reasoning on jurors’ assessments of credibility.
This study compares public perceptions with forensic linguistic and behavioural science techniques to detect deficiencies in juror decision-making and explores potential solutions.
The research findings support the creation and integration of structured juror training programs encompassing deception detection methods, forensic linguistic assessment, and bias recognition training.
This dissertation analyses the broader societal consequences of juror bias, namely its effect on public confidence in the legal system and the increasing significance of mass media in shaping trial narratives and outcomes.
Furthermore, the study seeks to evaluate potential legislative enhancements, judicial procedures, and the necessity of integrating expert testimony into standard trial methods to further mitigate juror bias.