Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39882079›Full record

ArticlePsychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law2025

The effect of verdict system on juror decisions: a quantitative meta-analysis.

Elaine Jackson, Lee Curley, Fiona Leverick, Martin Lages

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Elaine JacksonSchool of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Lee CurleySchool of Psychology, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5829-4740
Fiona LeverickSchool of Law, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5245-9874
Martin LagesSchool of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4962-3116

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We study the effect of the Scottish three-verdict system (guilty, not guilty, not proven) and the Anglo-American two-verdict system (guilty, not guilty) on juror decisions by combining data sets from 10 mock trials reported in suitable studies. A logistic regression with random effects uses the exact number of convictions and acquittals in 10 mock trials from a total of 1778 jurors to reliably estimate the effect of verdict system. We found a statistically significant verdict effect suggesting that the odds for a conviction by a juror are about 0.6 times or 40% lower under the three-verdict system than under a conventional two-verdict system. Possible explanations and implications of this verdict effect are discussed. This finding helps to better understand juror decision making in the context of the current reform of the Scottish three-verdict system into a two-verdict system.

Indexed as

cognitive biasconviction ratejuror decisionslogistic regressionnot-proven verdictrandom effectsthree-verdict systemtwo-verdict system

Identifiers

PMID39882079
PMCPMC11774159

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.