How mock jurors’ cognitive processing and defendants’ immigrant status and ethnicity relate to decisions in capital trials

Objectives: This study examined how defendants’ immigrant status and ethnicity interact with evidence strength and mock jurors’ cognitive processing traits to influence decisions in a capital trial. Methods: A sample of jury-eligible participants acted as mock jurors and read a trial summary in which defendant immigrant status, defendant ethnicity, and evidence strength were experimentally manipulated. They then weighed aggravators relative to mitigators, recommended a sentence, and completed measures of rational and experiential processing. Logistic regression was used to test predicted interactions. Results: Mock jurors weighed aggravators over mitigators when the defendant was a Latino citizen and when the defendant was an undocumented immigrant. There were no interactions on sentencing decisions. Evidence strength and experiential processing were positively related to rendering a death sentence. Conclusions: A defendant’s immigrant status and ethnicity might indirectly lead to punitive decisions in capital cases because they influence how jurors weigh aggravators and mitigators.