Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 1: Gehring, K. S., & van Voorhis, P. (2014). Needs and pretrial failure: Additional risk factors for female and male pretrial defendants. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 943–970.

URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/stoken/default+domain/nHxhzMSXzQGRGGVUXKat/full

Abstract: Since the 1980s, increasing numbers of individuals entering into the criminal justice system have caused criminal justice professionals and researchers concern about the phenomenon of individuals continually returning to the system. It is possible that identifying and addressing needs in the pretrial stage of the criminal justice system could interrupt this cycle and contribute to pretrial success. Furthermore, attention to gender-responsive needs at this stage of the criminal justice process may prove beneficial for female pretrial defendants. This study contributes to both the pretrial and gender-responsive literature by investigating whether pretrial needs are predictive of pretrial outcomes and if there are gender differences in these needs. Results indicate that many of the examined needs are risk factors for pretrial failure, there are gender differences in the composition of several of these needs, and gender-responsive pretrial needs are important to predicting pretrial outcomes.

Journal Article 2: Clark, J., Boccaccini, M. T., Caillouet, B., & Chaplin, W. F. (2007). Five factor model personality traits, jury selection, and case outcomes in criminal and civil cases. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 641–660.

URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/stoken/default+domain/t5nUidUR7f9gMWE3RpNV/full

Abstract: Actual venire members (N = 764) completed the Big Five Inventory before going through the jury selection process for 1 of 11 criminal or 17 civil trials. Jury selection decisions by attorneys were not associated with juror personality traits but were associated with juror race and sex, especially in criminal cases. In the 17 juries that deliberated to a verdict (n = 285), high levels of juror extraversion were associated with not guilty verdicts or verdicts for the defendant, especially in criminal cases. Extraversion was also associated with being selected as a jury foreperson, and foreperson extraversion was associated with longer jury deliberation times and perceived foreperson influence in criminal cases.