Understanding Acquittals: Race and Judicial Perceptions of the Accuracy of Not-Guilty Verdicts

• In Event: Race, Crime and Justice: Understanding the Death and Trial of Trayvon Martin

Abstract

The acquittal of George Zimmerman raises important questions about the accuracy and legitimacy of not-guilty verdicts. Like many high-profile acquittal cases (e.g. O.J. Simpson, Casey Anthony and Robert Blake), the case of State v. Zimmerman may have helped solidify public perceptions about the criminal justice process, particularly the notion that acquittals are errors of justice. Unfortunately, the public forms opinions about the criminal justice system based on high-profile criminal trials, despite the fact that these cases and their outcomes are often departures from routine criminal cases, even those involving serious crimes. Using data from the National Center for State Courts, this chapter provides a more realistic baseline of acquittals of criminal defendants in U.S. courts. We examine the circumstances in which judges indicate disagreement with a jury’s finding of not guilty, and then assess whether judicial perceptions of the accuracy and legitimacy of not-guilty verdicts differ in cases involving minority defendants, minority victims and minority jurors.

Authors

• Amy Farrell, Northeastern University

• Patricia Warren, Florida State University

• Devon Johnson, George Mason University