Defendant-juror similarity and mock juror judgments.

Investigated the effect of juror–defendant similarity on leniency toward defendants when the evidence against defendants is weak or inconclusive, or strong. In Exp 1, 66 Jewish or Christian male college students evaluated 4 cases of alleged child molestation. Similar religious affiliation was related to evaluation of the defendant and leniency, but was unaffected by the strength of evidence. This was attributed to insufficiently strong evidence against the defendant and to the lack of anticipated jury deliberation. In Exp 2, 168 Black and White college students evaluated the same alleged child molestation cases, but racial backgrounds were manipulated. When evidence was strong against the defendant, juror–defendant racial similarity did increase the likelihood of conviction, but only when jurors anticipated being in the racial minority in their jury. Implications for psychological theory and voir dire are discussed.