Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2381/33506
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMunro, Vanessa E.-
dc.contributor.authorEllison, L. E.-
dc.date.accessioned2015-11-09T10:54:49Z-
dc.date.available2015-11-09T10:54:49Z-
dc.date.issued2013-09-02-
dc.identifier.citationSocial and Legal Studies, 2014, 23 (1), pp. 3-29en
dc.identifier.issn0964-6639-
dc.identifier.urihttp://sls.sagepub.com/content/23/1/3.abstracten
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2381/33506-
dc.description.abstractThis article discusses the findings of a study in which 160 volunteer members of the public observed one of four mini rape trial reconstructions and were asked to deliberate as a group towards a verdict. In a context in which research into the substantive content of the deliberations of real jurors is prohibited by the Contempt of Court Act 1981, these discussions were analysed to assess whether, and in what ways, perceptions of adult rape testimony are influenced by different modes of presentation. While lawyers and other observers have speculated about the possible undue effects of alternative trial arrangements on juror perceptions and the evaluation of evidence in rape trials, the issue has received scant empirical attention. In an effort to bridge this knowledge gap, this study investigated the influence upon mock jurors of three special measures currently made available in England and Wales to adult sexual offence complainants by the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, namely (1) live-links; (2) video-recorded evidence-in-chief followed by live-link cross-examination and (3) protective screens. Following a careful and contextual exploration of the content of the mock juries’ deliberations, the researchers conclude that there was no clear or consistent impact as a result of these divergent presentation modes, suggesting that concerns over the use of special measures by adult rape complainants (at least in terms of juror influence) may be overstated.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherSAGE Publicationsen
dc.rightsCopyright © the authors, 2013. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page(http://www.uk.sagepub.com/aboutus/openaccess.htm).en
dc.subjectEvidenceen
dc.subjectjuriesen
dc.subjectrape trialsen
dc.subjectspecial measuresen
dc.subjectvulnerable witnessesen
dc.titleA 'Special' Delivery? Exploring the Impact of Screens, Live Links and Video-Recorded Evidence on Mock Juror Deliberation in Rape Trialsen
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0964663913496676-
dc.identifier.eissn1461-7390-
dc.description.statusPeer-revieweden
dc.description.versionPublisher Versionen
dc.type.subtypeArticle-
pubs.organisational-group/Organisationen
pubs.organisational-group/Organisation/COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, ARTS AND HUMANITIESen
pubs.organisational-group/Organisation/COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, ARTS AND HUMANITIES/School of Lawen
Appears in Collections:Published Articles, School of Law

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
SM Article 1 - FINAL FULL - table info.docPost-review (final submitted)274 kBMicrosoft WordView/Open
SM Article 1 - FINAL FULL - table info.pdfPost-review (final submitted)480.07 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Social & Legal Studies-2014-Ellison-3-29.pdfPublished (publisher PDF)416.69 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in LRA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.