The Influence of Evidentiary Weight at Sentencing Post-Verdict: Judicial Responses to Hypothetical Case Scenarios

• In Event: A Look at How Courts Work: Weighing of Evidence, Processing Domestic Violence, Rape, and Child Support Cases

Abstract

The type and quantity of evidence in a criminal trial is a critical factor for deciding guilt, but should have little or no influence on the sentencing determinations of judges post-conviction; this is because case evidence goes to guilt decisions by triers of fact, whereas sentences are imposed upon those already convicted. This study analyzes judicial responses to a series of four vignettes, each describing a hypothetical scenario in which the defendant was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault or robbery. To explore the influence of evidentiary weight at sentencing, vignettes varied in the amounts and types (i.e. forensic and/or witness-based) of evidence available in the case. The findings reveal that judges who considered the evidence at sentencing imposed shorter sentences when the cases lacked physical or forensic evidence, while eyewitness evidence failed to affect sentencing punitiveness. Greater quantities of evidence in a case increased average sentence length as well. The findings show that judges expressed increased confidence in guilt when cases contained forensic evidence and more pieces of evidence. Perceptions that forensic evidence is more objective and reliable than witness-based evidence appears to be driving these results.

Author

• Esther Nir, Rutgers University