Jurors presented with gruesome evidence, such as descriptions or images of torture and mutilation, are up to five times more likely to convict a defendant than jurors not privy to such evidence, UNSW research reveals.

The finding, from two published mock trial studies, lends support to concerns by the Australian Law Reform Commission that admitting gruesome evidence may prejudice juries by influencing them to make decisions based on emotion or a desire to punish defendants.

“The finding that gruesome evidence can be prejudicial suggests that such evidence should be excluded in court proceedings,” says one of the research authors and Psychology PhD student, David Bright. “Gruesome information in the form of pictures or descriptions appears to influence jurors’ decisions by increasing the incriminating value that they ascribe to such evidence.

“Australian case law tends to assume that post-mortem photographs, for example, have little or no prejudicial impact on juries,” says Associate Professor Jane Goodman-Delahunty, of the School of Psychology. “Gruesome photographs have been considered for exclusion by NSW criminal courts on several occasions but in each case courts have held that the probative value of post-mortem photographs outweighed any prejudicial impact on jurors.”

The UNSW research indicates that photographic evidence, irrespective of whether this evidence is neutral or gruesome, can increase the likelihood of conviction, according to Mr Bright. “Admitting gruesome photographic evidence appears to increase the incriminating value that jurors ascribe to prosecutorial evidence by influencing jurors’ emotional state.”

Please click here to read the full story.