Mock Juror Perceptions of a Young Defendant With Developmental Language Disorder: A Mixed-Methods Study

Abstract

Introduction

Developmental language disorder (DLD), difficulties with using and/or understanding language, is highly prevalent in young offenders but is often undiagnosed. Even if there is a DLD diagnosis, it may not be deemed relevant to disclose to jurors. This study aimed to investigate whether the provision of a diagnostic label and information about DLD influenced mock juror perceptions of a young defendant.

Method

Following the method of Maras et al. (2019), 158 participants read a fictional case study of a young defendant who was in court after assaulting a police officer in a misunderstanding at a train station. Half (n = 79) of the participants were informed that the defendant had DLD, and half (n = 79) were uninformed. Participants rated the defendant on his credibility (cognitive functioning, honesty and likeability) and culpability (blameworthiness, guilty verdict and sentencing leniency). They also indicated whether they thought the defendant committed the crime because of the situation he was in, because he was a bad person or both. Participants were asked to explain their reasoning behind each rating.

Results

Participants in the informed condition viewed the defendant as significantly more credible and less culpable and were less likely to assign him a guilty verdict. Content analysis revealed four themes: anger, mitigating factors, communication, and situational context and police officers. Participants in the informed condition were more empathetic towards the defendant on all themes.

Conclusion

Findings highlight the need for better detection of DLD in young people standing trial alongside the value of providing jurors with a defendant's diagnostic information.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on the subject

• It is well established that youth and young adult offenders have a high rate of undiagnosed developmental language disorder (DLD). However, very little is known about how juries may perceive defendants with DLD. One study of a nonviolent offence found that defendants with a disclosed diagnosis of DLD were viewed as more likeable and honest and less blameworthy and cognitively able, but there was no difference in guilty verdicts or sentencing dependent on DLD diagnosis disclosure.

What this paper adds to the existing knowledge

• This study looks at mock jury perceptions of a defendant with DLD who is charged with a violent offence. We found that when mock jurors were informed of the defendant's DLD diagnosis, they rated the defendant not only as more credible (more likeable and honest) but also less culpable, with a reduction in guilty verdicts and reduced sentencing when the defendant was found guilty.

What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?

• This study indicates that it may be beneficial for defendants with DLD to have their diagnosis disclosed at trial. The results indicate this could lead to a better, more nuanced understanding of the defendant and the motivations and drivers behind their actions. Increased provision of SLT assessment and diagnosis of offenders might be useful in order to facilitate this disclosure at trial.