1932

Abstract

Because attorneys are essential to a fair legal process, it is important to understand the experience of a legal career. This article first reviews research on the influence of attorneys on the legal system, focusing on the effect on the influence of trial attorneys on () juries, with a particular focus on attorney skill, behavior, trial decisions (i.e., joinder/severance, jury selection, opening arguments, witness selection, questioning style, cross-examination, objections, closing arguments), and characteristics (gender, race/ethnicity, attractiveness), and () clients. The article then reviews the limited research on the role and impact of attorneys outside the litigation context, followed by the influence of the legal system on attorneys, with a focus on attorney distress (prevalence, causes, and consequences). The review concludes with a discussion of the overall relationship between attorneys and the legal system.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-051120-014122
2020-10-13
2024-06-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/16/1/annurev-lawsocsci-051120-014122.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-051120-014122&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abrams DS, Yoon AH. 2007. The luck of the draw: using random case assignment to investigate attorney ability. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 74:41145–78
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahtirski EA. 2011. Abraham Lincoln had it right—“He who represents himself has a fool for a client. .” Avvo Legal Guide Sept. 8. https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/abraham-lincoln-had-it-right—he-who-represents-himself-has-a-fool-for-a-client
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Albiston CR, Edelman LB, Milligan J 2014. The dispute tree and the legal forest. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 10:105–31
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Alschuler AW. 1975. The defense attorney's role in plea bargaining. Yale Law J 84:61179–314
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Am. Bar Assoc 1991. At the Breaking Point: The Report of a National Conference on the Emerging Crisis in the Quality of Lawyers’ Health and Lives, and Its Impact on Law Firms and Client Services: April 5–6, 1991, Arlie House, Arlie, Virginia Chicago: Am. Bar Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Am. Bar Found 2014. After the JD III: Third results from a national study of legal careers Rep., AM. Bar Found., NALP Found. Law Career Res. Educ Dallas, TX.: http://www.americanbarfoundation.org/uploads/cms/documents/ajd3report_final_for_distribution.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Antonio ME, Arone NE. 2005. Damned if they do, damned if they don't: jurors’ reaction to defendant testimony or silence during a capital trial. Judicature 89:60–66
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Austin DS. 2015. Drink like a lawyer: the neuroscience of substance use and its impact on cognitive wellness. Nev. Law J. 15:826–81
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Austin JL, Kovera MB. 2015. Cross-examination educates jurors about missing control groups in scientific evidence. Psychol. Public Policy Law 21:3252–64
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Baer EL. 2008. Juror reactions to attorney characteristics: a look at gender, age, and presentation style PhD Diss., Alliant Int. Univ Fresno, CA: UMI No. 3339743
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Barge JK, Schlueter DW, Pritchard A 1989. The effects of nonverbal communication and gender on impression formation in opening statements. South. Commun. J. 54:4330–49
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Batson v. Kentucky 476 U.S. 79 1986.
  13. Beck CJA, Sales BD, Benjamin GAH 1995. Lawyer distress: alcohol-related problems and other psychological concerns among a sample of practicing lawyers. J. Law Health 10:1–60
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Benjamin GAH, Darling EJ, Sales BD 1990. The prevalence of depression, alcohol abuse, and cocaine abuse among United States lawyers. Int. J. Law Psychiatry 13:233–46
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Benjamin GAH, Kaszniak A, Sales B, Shanfield SB 1986. The role of legal education in producing psychological distress among law students and lawyers. Law Soc. Inq. 11:2225–52
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Bernard JL, Cohen R, Lupfer M 1985. The influence of juror's level of moral reasoning and the nature of closing arguments in determining the verdict in a civil case: a report of two experiments. Law Psychol. Rev. 9:93–102
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Bibas S. 2013. Shrinking Gideon and expanding alternatives to lawyers. Wash. Lee Law Rev. 70:1287–308
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Black D. 1983. Crime as social control. Am. Sociol. Rev. 48:134–45
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Boliver SE. 1999. The effects of attorney race and use of racially relevant arguments on juror decision making PhD Diss., Calif. Sch. Prof. Psychol San Diego, CA:
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Bordens KS, Horowitz IA. 1985. Joinder of criminal offenses: a review of the psychological and legal literature. Law Hum. Behav. 9:33954
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Bornstein BH. 2004. The impact of different types of expert scientific testimony on mock jurors’ liability verdicts. Psychol. Crime Law 10:4429–46
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Boylan RT. 2004. Salaries, turnover, and performance in the federal criminal justice system. J. Law Econ. 47:75–92
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Broeder DW. 1964. Voir dire examinations: an empirical study. South. Calif. Law Rev. 38:4503–28
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Brown RL, Campbell S. 1997. How the public views female and black attorneys. Ark. Law Rev. 32:22–28
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Burman JM. 1997. Alcohol abuse and legal education. J. Legal Educ. 47:39
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Caldwell HM, Perrin LT, Frost CL 2002. The art and architecture of closing argument. Tulane Law Rev 76:961–1072
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Cohen DL, Peterson JL. 1981. Bias in the courtroom: race and sex effects of attorneys on juror verdicts. Soc. Behav. Personal. 9:181–87
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Colbert DL, Paternoster R, Bushway S 2002. Do attorneys really matter? The empirical and legal case for the right of counsel at bail. Cardozo Law Rev 23:1719–94
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Daicoff SS. 2004. Lawyer, Know Thyself: A Psychological Analysis of Personality Strengths and Weaknesses Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Devenport JL, Stinson V, Cutler BL, Kravitz DA 2002. How effective are the cross-examination and expert testimony safeguards? Jurors’ perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:61042–54
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Devine DJ. 2012. Jury Decision Making: The State of the Science. New York: N.Y. Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Diamond SS, Casper JD, Heiert CL, Marshall AM 1996. Juror reactions to attorneys at trial. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 87:117–47
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Easterbrook FH. 1992. Plea bargaining as compromise. Yale Law J 101:81969–78
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Edkins VA. 2011. Defense attorney plea recommendations and client race: Does zealous representation apply equally to all. Law Hum. Behav. 35:5413–25
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Effron RJ. 2012. The shadow rules of joinder. Georgetown Law J 100:3759–822
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Elwork A. 2007. Stress Management for Lawyers: How to Increase Personal & Professional Satisfaction in the Law North Wales, PA: Vorkell Group
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Elwork A. 2008. A lawyer's guide to dealing with burnout: Does burnout mean I should leave my job or the law altogether. Lawyers with Depression May 16. http://www.lawyerswithdepression.com/articles/a-lawyers-guide-to-dealing-with-burnout-does-burnout-mean-i-should-leave-my-job-or-the-law-altogether/
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Erlanger HS, Chambliss E, Melli MS 1987. Participation and flexibility in informal processes: cautions from the divorce context. Law Soc. Rev. 21:4585–604
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Espinoza RK, Willis-Esqueda C. 2008. Defendant and defense attorney characteristics and their effects on juror decision making and prejudice against Mexican Americans. Cult. Divers. Ethn. Minor. Psychol. 14:4364–71
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Evans AD, Lee K, Lyon TD 2009. Complex questions asked by defense lawyers but not prosecutors predicts convictions in child abuse trials. Law Hum. Behav. 33:3258–64
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Feeney F, Jackson PG. 1991. Public defenders, assigned counsel, retained counsel: Does the type of criminal defense counsel matter. Rutgers Law J 22:2361–456
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Felstiner WLF, Abel RL, Sarat A 1980–1981. The emergence and transformation of disputes: naming, blaming, claiming…. Law Soc. Rev. 15:631–54
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Frederick JT. 2018. Mastering Voir Dire and Jury Selection: Gain an Edge in Questioning and Selecting Your Jury. , 4th ed.. Chicago: Am. Bar Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Fulero SM, Penrod SD. 1990. Attorney jury selection folklore: What do they think and how can psychologists help. Forensic Rep 3:3233–59
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Gatland L. 1997. Dangerous dedication: Studies suggest long hours, productivity pressures can cause serious health problems and a higher suicide rate for attorneys. Am. Bar Assoc. J. 83:28–30
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Gibbs MS, Sigal J, Adams B, Grossman B 1989. Cross‐examination of the expert witness: Do hostile tactics affect impressions of a simulated jury. Behav. Sci. Law 7:2275–81
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Greenberg MS, Ruback RB. 1982. Social Psychology of the Criminal Justice System Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Greene E, Loftus EF. 1985. When crimes are joined at trial. Law Hum. Behav. 9:2193–207
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Greiner DJ, Pattanayak CW, Hennessy J 2012. The limits of unbundled legal assistance: a randomized study in a Massachusetts district court and prospects for the future. Harvard Law Rev 126:901–89
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Hahn PW, Clayton SD. 1996. The effects of attorney presentation style, attorney gender, and juror gender on juror decisions. Law Hum. Behav. 20:5533–54
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Hans VP, Jehle A. 2003. Avoid bald men and people with green socks: other ways to improve the voir dire process in jury selection. Chicago-Kent Law Rev 78:31179–202
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Hastie R. 1991. Is attorney-conducted voir dire an effective procedure for the selection of impartial juries?. Am. Univ. Law Rev. 40:2703–26
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Helm RK, Reyna VF, Franz AA, Novick RZ, Dincin S, Cort AE 2018. Limitations on the ability to negotiate justice: attorney perspectives on guilt, innocence, and legal advice in the current plea system. Psychol. Crime Law 24:9915–34
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Hendry SH, Shaffer DR, Peacock D 1989. On testifying in one's own behalf: interactive effects of evidential strength and defendant's testimonial demeanor on mock jurors’ decisions. J. Appl. Psychol. 74:4539–45
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Hessick FA III, Saujani RM 2002. Plea bargaining and convicting the innocent: the role of the prosecutor, the defense counsel, and the judge. BYU J. Public Law 16:2189–242
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Hobbs P. 2003. ‘Is that what we're here about?’: a lawyer's use of impression management in a closing argument at trial. Discourse Soc 14:3273–90
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Hodgson S, Pryor B. 1984. Sex discrimination in the courtroom: attorney's gender and credibility. Psychol. Rep. 55:2483–86
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Horowitz IA, Bordens KS. 1988. The effects of outlier presence, plaintiff population size, and aggregation of plaintiffs on simulated civil jury decisions. Law Hum. Behav. 12:209–29
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Horowitz IA, Bordens KS. 2000. The consolidation of plaintiffs: the effects of number of plaintiffs on jurors’ liability decisions, damage awards, and cognitive processing of evidence. J. Appl. Psychol. 85:909–18
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Horowitz IA, Bordens KS, Feldman MS 1980. A comparison of verdicts obtained in severed and joined criminal trials. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 10:444–56
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Iyengar R. 2007. An analysis of attorney performance in the federal indigent defense system NBER Work. Pap13187
    [Google Scholar]
  62. J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B. 511 U.S. 127 1994.
  63. Johnson C, Haney C. 1994. Felony voir dire: an exploratory study of its content and effect. Law Hum. Behav. 18:487–506
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Kassin SM, Williams LN, Saunders CL 1990. Dirty tricks of cross-examination. Law Hum. Behav. 14:4373–84
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Kerr NL, Sawyers GW. 1979. Independence of multiple verdicts within a trial by mock jurors. Represent. Res. Soc. Psychol. 10:16–27
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Kluegel AJ. 2016. The firm as a nexus of organizational theories: sociological perspectives on the modern law firm. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 12:459–78
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Kovera MB, McAuliff BD, Hebert KS 1999. Reasoning about scientific evidence: effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case. J. Appl. Psychol. 84:3362–75
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Kramer GM, Wolbransky M, Heilbrun K 2007. Plea bargaining recommendations by criminal defense attorneys: evidence strength, potential sentence, and defendant preference. Behav. Sci. Law 25:4573–85
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Krauss DA, Sales BD. 2001. The effects of clinical and scientific expert testimony on juror decision making in capital sentencing. Psychol. Public Policy Law 7:2267–310
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Krill PR, Johnson R, Albert L 2016. The prevalence of substance use and other mental health concerns among American attorneys. J. Addict. Med. 10:146–52
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Lafler v. Cooper 566 U.S. 156 2012.
  72. Leipold AD, Abbasi HA. 2006. The impact of joinder and severance on federal criminal cases: an empirical study. Vanderbilt Law Rev 59:349–402
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Levine BJ, Herman SA. 1996. A difference in perceptions: the final report of the North Dakota Commission on Gender Fairness in the Courts. N.D. Law Rev. 72:1113–342
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Lieberman JD, Carrell CA, Miethe TD, Krauss DA 2008. Gold versus platinum: Do jurors recognize the superiority and limitations of DNA evidence compared to other types of forensic evidence. Psychol. Public Policy Law 14:127–62
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Lindsay RCL, Wells GL. 1983. What do we really know about cross-race eyewitness identification?. Evaluating Witness Evidence: Recent Psychological Research and New Perspectives SMA Lloyd-Bostock, BR Clifford 219–33 Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Linz D, Penrod S, McDonald E 1986. Attorney communication and impression making in the courtroom. Law Hum. Behav. 10:4281–302
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Malloy LC, Shulman EP, Cauffman E 2014. Interrogations, confessions, and guilty pleas among serious adolescent offenders. Law Hum. Behav. 38:2181–93
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Marisco RD. 1995. Working for social change and preserving client autonomy: Is there a role for “facilitative” lawyering. Clin. Law Rev. 1:639–63
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Marshall AM, Hale DC. 2014. Cause lawyering. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 10:301–20
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Mauet TA, Eichelbaum T, Bungay M, Arnold T, Wilson DA 1989. Mauet's Fundamentals of Trial Techniques Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  81. McAllister HA, Bregman NJ. 1986. Plea bargaining by prosecutors and defense attorneys: a decision theory approach. J. Appl. Psychol. 71:4686–90
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Melilli KJ. 2006. Succeeding in the opening statement. Am. J. Trial Advocacy 29:3525–62
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Mogill KM, Nixon WR. 1986. Practical primer on jury selection. Mich. Bar J. 65:52–57
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Murrie DC, Boccaccini MT. 2015. Adversarial allegiance among expert witnesses. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 11:37–55
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Mydans S. 1995. Not guilty: the lawyers. New York Times Oct. 4 A11
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Neil M. 2014. DOJ says bar officials violate ADA by asking applicants too much about their mental health. ABA Journal Feb. 12. http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/doj_says_bar_officials_violated_ada_by_asking_applicants_too_much_about_the
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Nelson MS. 2004. The effect of attorney gender on jury perception and decision-making. Law Psychol. Rev. 28:177–94
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Nietzel MT, Dillehay RC. 1982. The effects of variations in voir dire procedures in capital murder trials. Law Hum. Behav. 6:11–13
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Organ JM, Jaffe DB, Bender KM 2016. Suffering in silence: the survey of law student well-being and the reluctance of law students to seek help for substance use and mental health concerns. J. Leg. Educ. 66:1116–56
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Parker v. United States 404 F.2d 1193 1968.
  91. Paul RA. 1976. A new role for lawyers in contract negotiations. ABA J 62:93–97
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Perry NW, McAuliff BD, Tam P, Claycomb L, Dostal C, Flanagan C 1995. When lawyers question children. Law Hum. Behav. 19:6609–29
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Poppe E, Rachlinski JJ. 2016. Do lawyers matter? The effect of legal representation in civil disputes. Pepperdine Law Rev 43:4881–944
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Powell v. Alabama 287 U.S. 45 1932.
  95. Press A. 1999. The good life: Law firm partners agree. The American Lawyer June 1. http://law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTAL.jsp?id=900005510963
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Pyszczynski TA, Wrightsman LS. 1981. The effects of opening statements on mock jurors’ verdicts in a simulated criminal trial. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 11:301–13
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Quintanilla VD, Allen RA, Hirt ER 2017. The signaling effect of pro se status. Law Soc. Inq. 42:41091–121
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Ramos MR 1995–1996. Legal malpractice: reforming lawyers and law professors. Tulane Law Rev 70:2583–630
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Reed K. 2010. Hot or not? The influence of attorney attractiveness and gender on juror decision-making Unpubl. undergrad. thesis, Claremont McKenna Coll Claremont, CA:
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Reed K. 2015. Culpable by association: Juror decision making in joined civil cases Master's Thesis, Univ. Nebr.-Lincoln Lincoln, NE:
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Reed K. 2019. Calls for speculation: an experimental examination of juror perceptions of attorney objections. Buffalo Law Rev 67:53–88
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Reed K, Bornstein BH. 2013. A stressful profession: the experience of attorneys. Trauma, Stress, and Wellbeing in the Legal System MK Miller, BH Bornstein 217–44 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Reed K, Bornstein BH. 2015. Juries, joinder, and justice. Jury Expert 27:334
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Reed K, Bornstein BH. 2018. Objection! Psychological perspectives on jurors' perceptions of in-court attorney objections. S.D. Law Rev. 63:1–43
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Reed K, Bornstein BH, Jeon AB, Wylie LE 2016. Problem signs in law school: fostering attorney well-being early in professional training. Int. J. Law Psychiatry 47:148–56
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Reed K, Dellapaolera KS, Thimsen S, Bornstein BH 2018. An empirical analysis of law-psychology journals: Who's publishing and on what? In Advances in Psychology and Law 3 MK Miller, BH Bornstein 285–99 New York: Springer Sci. Bus. Media
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Reed K, Weisz V, Henningsen C, Suder J 2018. Youth perceptions of procedural justice Paper presented at the American Psychology-Law Society Memphis, TN:March 8–10
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Rothstein L. 2008. Law students and lawyers with mental health and substance abuse problems: protecting the public and the individual. Univ. Pittsburgh Law Rev. 69:531–66
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Rubin PH, Bailey MJ. 1994. The role of lawyers in changing the law. J. Leg. Stud. 23:2807–31
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Ryo E. 2018. Representing immigrants: the role of lawyers in immigration bond hearings. Law Soc. Rev. 52:2503–31
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Saks MJ. 1997. What do jury experiments tell us about how juries (should) make decisions. South. Calif. Interdiscip. Law J. 6:11–54
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Salerno JM, McCauley MR. 2009. Mock jurors’ judgments about opposing scientific experts: Do cross-examination, deliberation and need for cognition matter. Am. J. Forensic Psychol. 27:337–60
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Salerno JM, Phalen HJ, Reyes RN, Schweitzer NJ 2018. Closing with emotion: the differential impact of male versus female attorneys expressing anger in court. Law Hum. Behav. 42:4385–401
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Sandefur RL. 2015. Elements of professional expertise: understanding relational and substantive expertise through lawyers’ impact. Am. Sociol. Rev. 80:5909–33
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Sarat A, Felstiner WL. 1989. Lawyers and legal consciousness: law talk in the divorce lawyer's office. Yale Law J 98:81663–88
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Seron C, Frankel M, Muzzio D, Pereira J 1997. A report of the perceptions and experiences of lawyers, judges, and court employees concerning gender, racial and ethnic fairness in the federal courts of the Second Circuit of the United States. Annu. Surv. Am. Law 1997:1415–528
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Shinall JB. 2010. Slipping away from justice: the effect of attorney skill on trial outcomes. Vanderbilt Law Rev 63:1267–306
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Shirkey HB. 2010. Last attorney to the jury box is a rotten egg: overcoming psychological hurdles in the order of presentation at trial. Ohio State J. Crim. Law 8:581–601
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Sigal J, Braden-Maguire J, Hayden M, Mosley N 1985. The effect of presentation style and sex of lawyer on jury decision-making behavior. Psychology 22:313–19
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Skead NK, Rogers SL. 2016. Running to well-being: a comparative study on the impact of exercise on the physical and mental health of law and psychology students. Int. J. Law Psychiatry 49:66–74
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Smith RH. 1919. Justice and the Poor Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Spiecker SC, Worthington DL. 2003. The influence of opening statement/closing argument organizational strategy on juror verdict and damage awards. Law Hum. Behav. 27:4437–56
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Stallard MJ, Worthington DL. 1998. Reducing the hindsight bias utilizing attorney closing arguments. Law Hum. Behav. 22:6671–83
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Steblay N, Hosch HM, Culhane SE, McWethy A 2006. The impact on juror verdicts of judicial instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence: a meta-analysis. Law Hum. Behav. 30:469–92
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Stinson V, Devenport JL, Cutler BL, Kravitz DA 1996. How effective is the presence-of-counsel safeguard? Attorney perceptions of suggestiveness, fairness, and correctability of biased lineup procedures. J. Appl. Psychol. 81:164–75
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Stinson V, Devenport JL, Cutler BL, Kravitz DA 1997. How effective is the motion-to-suppress safeguard? Judges’ perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures. J. Appl. Psychol. 82:2211–20
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Tanford S. 1985. Decision-making processes in joined criminal trials. Crim. Justice Behav. 12:367–85
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Tanford S, Penrod S. 1982. Biases in trials involving defendants charged with multiple offenses. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 12:453–80
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Trachtman JP. 2013. The Tools of Argument: How the Best Lawyers Think, Argue, and Win North Charleston, SC: Create Space Indep. Publ. Platf.
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Turow S. 1995. Simpson prosecutors pay for their blunders. New York Times Oct 4:A21
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Tyler TR. 1987. Procedural justice research. Soc. Justice Res. 1:141–65
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Tyler TR. 2003. Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime Justice 30:283–357
    [Google Scholar]
  133. United States v. Foutz 540 F.2d 733 (4th Cir. 1976)
  134. US Sentencing Comm 2018. 2017 Federal Sentencing Statistics Washington, DC: US Sentencing Comm https://www.ussc.gov/research/data-reports/geography/2017-federal-sentencing-statistics
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Viljoen JL, Klaver J, Roesch R 2005. Legal decisions of preadolescent and adolescent defendants: predictors of confessions, pleas, communication with attorneys, and appeals. Law Hum. Behav. 29:3253–77
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Villemur NK, Hyde JS. 1983. Effects of sex of defense attorney, sex of juror, and age and attractiveness of the victim on mock juror decision making in a rape case. Sex Roles 9:8879–89
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Walters v. Radiation Survivors 473 U.S. 3 05 1985.
  138. Warshawsky KD 1993–1994. The judicial canons: a first step in addressing gender bias in the courtroom. Georgetown J. Leg. Ethics 7:1047–82
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Weiss DC. 2007. Lawyer depression comes out of the closet. ABA Journal Dec. 13. http://abajournal.com/news/lawyer_depression_comes_out_of_the_closet
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Weld HP, Danzig ER. 1940. A study of the way in which a verdict is reached by a jury. Am. J. Psychol. 53:4518–36
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Wells GL, Olson EA. 2003. Eyewitness testimony. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 54:27795
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Wilson MJW. 2004. Objecting to objections: the paradoxical consequences of courtroom interruptions PhD Diss., Univ. Va Charlottesville, VA:
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Wylie LE, Hazen KP, Hoetger LA, Haby JA, Brank EM 2018. Four decades of the journal Law and Human Behavior: a content analysis. Scientometrics 115:2655–93
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Zafiro v. United States 506 U.S. 534 1993.
  145. Zajac R, Cannan P. 2009. Cross-examination of sexual assault complainants: a developmental comparison. Psychiatry Psychol. Law 16:136–54
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Zajac R, Hayne H. 2003. I don't think that's what really happened: the effect of cross-examination on the accuracy of children's reports. J. Exp. Psychol. 9:3187–95
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Zottoli TM, Daftary-Kapur T, Winters GM, Hogan C 2016. Plea discounts, time pressures, and false-guilty pleas in youth and adults who pleaded guilty to felonies in New York City. Psychol. Public Policy Law 22:3250–59
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-051120-014122
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error