Procedural and legal motivations to correct for perceived judicial biases

The question of whether procedural or legal concerns per se can motivate corrections of jurors' judgments when in conflict with accuracy concerns was examined. Mock jury members were exposed to diagnostic incriminating evidence that was obtained in either serious or mild violation of due process and that was ruled as admissible or inadmissible. When the evidence was obtained in serious violation of due process,jurors corrected for it whether or not it was ruled as inadmissible, consistent with a personal concern with procedural justice. When the evidence was obtained in mild violation of due process, jurors corrected for the evidence when it was inadmissible but not when it was admissible, consistent with a legal motivation. We suggest that corrections made in a social role (i.e., juror) can be motivated by both procedural and legal concerns, even when they conflict with perceived accuracy. (C) 1999 Academic Press.