Jury Deliberations of Child Witnesses with Autism Spectrum Disorder

The growing prevalence of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in the legal system is creating a major dilemma for legal professionals in determining whether to inform jurors about the child’s diagnosis during child abuse trials. Yet, no research has examined jury deliberations and jury decision-making in cases involving children with ASD. The proposed study extends the work regarding ASD and jury perceptions to the context of jury deliberations. Building on my pilot study, I will examine how a community sample of mock jurors deliberate and make verdict decisions regarding a child sexual abuse case when the child’s diagnosis of ASD is versus is not provided. Specific aims include examining: (1) how diagnosis disclosure influences verdicts, (2) how diagnosis disclosure influences the frequency of discussion that promotes versus challenges the child’s credibility, and (3) whether the relationship between diagnosis disclosure and verdict determination is significantly stronger among groups with a higher proportion of discussions that promote versus challenge credibility. By simulating the jury deliberation process, this novel study addresses a major criticism in the mock jury research and findings from the present study will advance legal practice and policy by informing legal professionals, researchers, and psychologists about how diagnosis disclosure of ASD influences jury deliberations about child witness credibility and ultimately verdict determinations. Bringing research attention to child witnesses with ASD is essential for ensuring that professionals follow empirically-based legal practices, such as specified jury instructions when child witnesses have ASD. CA/NCF