New article in Journal of Criminal Justice

Maryanne, Yvonne, Helen, and Alice have just published, 'Proving atrocity crimes with user-generated evidence: Insights from mock jurors' in the Journal of Criminal Justice. This piece presents some key insights from our mock jury research.

Here is the abstract:

This study examined how jurors evaluate user-generated evidence (UGE) within a legal decision-making context. As UGE assumes an increasingly prominent role in investigations, particularly those involving atrocity crimes, understanding how laypeople assess its evidentiary weight is essential, yet remains largely unexplored. In this paper, we present findings from the first-ever mock jury study to investigate the impact of UGE in proving atrocity crimes, laying the groundwork for this line of inquiry. The study aimed to gain insights into how jurors interpret UGE when it forms a central component of the prosecution's case. Participants acted as jurors for a fictional war crimes trial. The case concerned a defendant accused of deliberately attacking civilians in an airstrike. A piece of UGE, a social media video depicting the alleged strike, served as key evidence. An expert witness, a professional open-source investigator, testified on how the UGE was verified. Eleven jury groups of 12 jurors (N = 132), representative of the local jury-eligible population, deliberated to reach verdicts. Jurors completed written questionnaires at several trial stages, capturing their reflections on the case and the evidence. Nine juries reached unanimous not guilty verdicts, and two failed to reach a decision, even when told that a majority verdict would be accepted. Questionnaire responses indicated that most jurors viewed the evidence as insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. While the expert was perceived as credible, many jurors expressed doubts about the video's authenticity, citing concerns regarding editing of the video's contents and uncertainty about the source. Findings highlight the need for further research on how editing, source ambiguity, and judicial guidance shape the evaluation of open-source evidence.