The Jury on Trial: Assessing the Impact of Courtroom Design and Juror Ideology on Defendant Guilt Perception

Objectives: This study investigated how courtroom design and jurors' ideological attitudes influence guilt perceptions and sentencing decisions, addressing a gap in research on their combined impact. Hypotheses: We predicted higher guilt likelihood and harsher sentencing for defendants in secure docks versus those at the bar table. We also expected higher ideological attitude scores to increase guilt likelihood and explored the interaction between ideological attitudes and dock conditions. Method: In a between-subjects design, 556 participants were randomly assigned to secure dock or no dock conditions. Online questionnaires measured ideological attitudes. Participants reviewed courtroom sketches and case summaries, then assessed guilt likelihood and suggested sentences. Results: Secure dock conditions resulted in higher guilt likelihood. Ideological attitudes partially influenced guilt likelihood. Dock condition significantly moderated the relationship between guilt likelihood and ideological attitudes, with a significant relationship only in the no dock condition. Conclusions: Findings highlight the complexity of juror decision-making and advocate for interventions to mitigate biases in legal proceedings. This research informs policy on courtroom design and addresses ideological attitudes' impact on juror perceptions, promoting fair legal outcomes. Further research is needed to understand the interplay between biases, courtroom dynamics, and legal decision-making.