Are jurors influenced by special courtroom measures?

Alleged adult rape victims are not disadvantaged in court if they choose to give evidence behind protective screens or via video links, according to new research. The study, jointly led by the University of Leeds and University of Nottingham, is the first of its kind in the UK to examine the impact of the use of technology and special measures in adult rape trials on juror decision-making. This follows concerns that such measures unduly influence the way jurors assess evidence in court, potentially causing less empathetic or sympathetic reactions, or that they lead to jurors attaching less weight to evidence due to a distancing effect. Research found the use of alternative trial arrangements, such as screens, live link technology and pre-recorded video evidence, had no consistent impact on juror’s evaluation of rape testimony or on their perceptions of a complainant’s credibility. It also found no clear or consistent evidence of reduced emotional impact when video-mediated testimony was used, relative to evidence delivered ‘live and in the flesh’ directly in the courtroom. Co-author of the study, Professor Louise Ellison from the School of Law at the University of Leeds, said: “Giving evidence in open court in the presence of an alleged assailant can be a harrowing experience and there are genuine fears that using special measures, aimed at reducing the stress of testifying, may work against the rape complainant.