The Influence of Defendant Immigration Status, Country of Origin, and Ethnicity on Juror Decisions: An Aversive Racism Explanation for Juror Bias

Transcription

1 620374HJBXXX / Hispanic Journal of Behavioral SciencesMinero and Espinoza research-article2015 Article The Influence of Defendant Immigration Status, Country of Origin, and Ethnicity on Juror Decisions: An Aversive Racism Explanation for Juror Bias Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 2016, Vol. 38(1) The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalspermissions.nav DOI: / hjb.sagepub.com Laura P. Minero 1 and Russ K. E. Espinoza 2 Abstract This study examined prejudicial attitudes toward immigrant defendants who vary on legal status, country of origin, and ethnicity. Three hundred twenty mock juror participants read a trial transcript that varied defendants immigration status (documented or undocumented), defendant country of origin (Canada or Mexico), and defendant race/ethnicity (Caucasian or Latino). Dependent measures included verdict, sentencing, culpability ratings, and trait assessments. European American mock jurors found undocumented, Latino immigrants from Mexico guilty significantly more often, more culpable, and rated this defendant more negatively on various trait measures in comparison with all other conditions. Latino mock jurors did not demonstrate ingroup favoritism or outgroup bias. This study examines aversive racism as a factor of this bias. Limitations and future directions are discussed. Keywords aversive racism, immigrant status, mock juror, prejudicial attitudes, Latino defendants 1 University of Wisconsin Madison, USA 2 California State University, Fullerton, USA Corresponding Author: Laura P. Minero, University of Wisconsin Madison, 335 Education Building, 1000 Bascom Mall, Madison, WI 53706, USA. laura.minero@wisc.edu

2 56 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 38(1) Given the current state of immigration in the United States, and the recent images of unaccompanied immigrant children from Central America and Mexico crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, immigration is once again at the forefront of political discussion. Because of this discussion, it is not surprising that contemporary views toward immigrants have been rapidly changing. One national poll in 2006 found that 68% of adults believe immigrants would not be more or less likely than native U.S. citizens to be involved in criminal activity (Public Policy Institute of California, 2008). These results were contrary to previous public perceptions where 73% of Americans believed that more immigrants cause higher crime rates (Smith, Marsden, & Hout, 2000). Perhaps nowhere is the perception of immigrants more important than in the legal system where the public jurors decide the fate of immigrant defendants. Y. T. Lee and Ottati (2002) found that immigration policy has traditionally favored individuals of European and Canadian descent. More explicitly, they pointed out that U.S. immigration nationality quotas have restricted immigrants from Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean. T. L. Lee and Fiske (2006) also found that attitudes toward immigrant groups depended largely on their country of origin. These findings raise the following question: Does the legal status of immigrants affect juror decisions, and if so, are the immigrants country of origin and ethnicity the primary factors for potential bias? Perception of Immigrants as Criminals Despite recent public opinion surveys that appear to illustrate a growing acceptance of immigrants, Kruh, Frick, and Clements (2005) found that the U.S. criminal courts are significantly trying more immigrant defendants compared with a decade ago. At the same time, negative attitudes toward particular ethnic groups (e.g., Hispanics, Arabs, and Muslims) may indicate that certain immigrant groups are more susceptible to prejudicial attitudes (Reyna, Dobria, & Wetherell, 2013) and, consequently, may be more likely to face subtle forms of racism in the legal system. However, there is minimal research examining immigrant defendants interaction with the legal system. Immigrants are commonly depicted as being criminals, especially when describing undocumented immigrants (Murray & Marx, 2013). From 1990 to 2010, the foreign-born population of the United States grew from 7.9% to 12.9% with the unauthorized immigrant population tripling from 3.5 million to 11.9 million (Passel & Cohn, 2011). In addition, in the year 2000, 73% of Americans agreed that more immigrants cause higher crime rates (Smith et al., 2000). Interestingly enough, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) data indicate that during the same time period ( ), violent crime

3 Minero and Espinoza 57 rates declined by 45% and crime rates fell by 42% (Immigration Policy Center, 2000). This decline in crime rates was also evident in border cities and cities with large immigrant populations such as Miami, Chicago, El Paso, San Diego, Los Angeles, and New York. Despite the contrary relationship between crime rates and immigration influx rates, this misconception of immigrants remains prominent (Martinez & Lee, 2000). Given this rise in these trends, it is important to examine whether the legal status (documented vs. undocumented) of immigrants is a primary motivator of this form of prejudice, or whether simply being an immigrant is enough to promote these acts of violence and prejudices. In addition, if immigrant status does influence juror decisions, does the country of origin of the immigrant affect juror decisions? Immigrants Country of Origin and Bias A possible explanation for these persistent negative attitudes and opinions of immigrants may be found by examining how an immigrant s country of origin influences biases. An examination of this topic by Y. T. Lee and Ottati (2002) found that immigration policy has traditionally favored individuals of European and Canadian descent. They more explicitly pointed out that U.S. immigration nationality quotas have restricted immigrants from Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean. T. L. Lee and Fiske (2006) have also found that attitudes toward immigrant groups depended largely on their country of origin. They described that some groups such as Asians are more likely associated with high status and legal immigration, whereas other groups (Latinos) are associated with lower status and unauthorized immigration. Asians have been commonly portrayed as model minorities and are seen to be more likely to be successful, intelligent, and hardworking (Kitano & Sue, 1973; Lin, Kwan, Cheung, & Fiske, 2005). In comparison, Latinos and persons of African heritage are perceived as lazy and burdens on society and are much more likely to be the target of prejudiced behaviors (Cowan, Martinez, & Mendiola, 1997; Guenther, Pendaz, & Fortunata, 2011). The increase in the Latino population within the United States has influenced prejudicial attitudes that stereotype Mexican Americans as illegal aliens, poor, lazy, and uneducated (Brigham, 1971; Cowan et al., 1997). Considering that the largest immigrant ethnic group that currently resides in the United States is Mexican (Batalova & Terrazas, 2010) with 76% of the unauthorized immigrant population being of Hispanic descent, this may increase the perception of threat for European Americans. These perceptions of threat may in turn lead to discrimination against these specific populations through exclusion from school and governmental resources as well as juridic

4 58 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 38(1) decisions against Hispanic defendants (Perez, Hosch, Ponder, & Trejo, 1993) regardless of their immigration status. Juror and Defendant Race/Ethnicity Juror and defendant race/ethnicity have been extensively examined in the psychology and law literature, and though results have been mixed, there generally tends to be an ingroup-outgroup bias effect for defendants (Espinoza, 2010; Mazzella & Feingold, 1994; Pickel, Warner, Miller, & Barnes, 2013; Sommers & Ellsworth, 2009). The bulk of these studies, however, have examined Black and White dyads between juror and defendant race. For example, Sommers and Ellsworth (2001) examined race salience, hypothesizing that most contemporary American jurors hold egalitarian values. Because of this, when race is salient in a trial, jurors tend to be less biased in decision making. Only when race is regarded peripherally, do White jurors tend to demonstrate bias toward Black defendants. This was an important study as it outlined a shift in juror decision-making bias from blatant to a more subtle form. More recently, research has begun to examine the largest minority group in the United States and the fastest growing prison population Hispanics. In one study, ethnicity of the defendant and defense attorney was manipulated (either European American or Mexican American) as well as defendant socioeconomic status (SES). Results showed only interaction biases. When the defendant and defense attorney were Mexican American, and the defendant was of low SES, mock jurors found this defendant more culpable and jurors found this defendant guilty more often compared with all other conditions (Espinoza & Willis-Esqueda, 2008). In addition, this study found that attorneys who represented the low SES Mexican American defendants were judged to be less competent, less trustworthy, and less intelligent (Espinoza & Willis-Esqueda, 2008). In another study, Willis-Esqueda, Espinoza, and Culhane (2008) also examined defendant ethnicity (Mexican American or European American), SES (low or high), and status of crime (low status: carjacking, or high status: embezzling) on juror decision making. In this study, they found similar results to the defense attorney study. Only when defendant ethnicity was coupled with other perceived negative variables did jurors demonstrate bias. When the defendant was Mexican American, of low SES, and committed to a low-status crime (e.g., carjacking), jurors showed bias. They found this defendant guilty more often, more culpable, and they rated this defendant more negatively on a number of trait measures compared with all other conditions. Again, there were no main effects for defendant ethnicity.

5 Minero and Espinoza 59 Although the race/ethnicity of both the immigrant and host community members may influence prejudicial attitudes, there have been very few studies that have examined this possible influence in a legal setting (Berg, 2010). In one study where college student attitudes toward documented and undocumented immigrants were examined, participants reported greater realistic threats when responding to questions about undocumented immigrants when compared with documented immigrants (Murray & Marx, 2013). Results also found a race correlation in which Caucasian participants had higher realistic threat scores than did non-caucasian participants. This leads us to believe that European American and Latino jurors will view immigrant defendants quite differently. In addition, based on these results, European American jurors may tend to be more punitive toward undocumented immigrant defendants compared with Latino jurors. Aversive Racism The results of the Espinoza and Willis-Esqueda (2008) and Willis-Esqueda et al. (2008) studies may best be accounted for by the theory of aversive racism (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2004). The theory of aversive racism suggests that negative attitudes are manifested in subtle, indirect, and rationalized ways (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2005). Briefly stated, aversive racism postulates that people genuinely believe that they have egalitarian values, but yet feel uncomfortable when interacting with members of minority groups. This prejudicial aversive feeling that arises because of race can be ameliorated when it is displaced onto another perceived negative variable such as low SES. Thus, individuals do not feel guilty for being prejudiced toward members of minority groups when they have another perceived negative variable to substitute for race and/or ethnicity (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1989). Does aversive racism play a role in prejudice against immigrants? Short and Magana (2002) examined the role of prejudicial attitudes toward immigrants from an aversive racism perspective. They found that survey respondents voiced harsher immigration attitudes when they were provided with a non-race-based opportunity to exhibit such attitudes. Immigrant Mexican defendants who had accumulated several parking tickets were more likely to be perceived as criminals, an economic drain, and a threat to sovereignty. They were also more likely to be deported by survey respondents in comparison with English Canadian defendants who had also accumulated several parking tickets. There was no difference found when both Mexican and English Canadian immigrants were described without having accumulated several parking tickets. Respondent attitudes should have been equivalent between the undocumented, Mexican and English Canadian immigrant

6 60 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 38(1) scenarios with accumulated parking infractions had prejudicial attitudes not have been a factor. The theoretical explanation for these findings would suggest that the parking tickets served as a non-race-based rationale to express prejudicial attitudes toward undocumented, Mexican defendants without threatening ones non-discriminatory self-concept (Short, 2004). The purpose of this study is to examine how immigrant status (documented or undocumented), country of origin (Canada or Mexico), and ethnicity (Caucasian or Latino) affect juror decisions. Based on the theory of aversive racism, it was hypothesized that European American mock jurors would demonstrate prejudice toward Latino, undocumented immigrant defendants from Mexico. Specifically, mock jurors would find these defendants guilty significantly more often, recommend lengthier sentences, and give higher culpability and trait ratings than Caucasian, undocumented immigrants from Mexico as well as Latino and Caucasian defendants from Canada, regardless of immigration status. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that Latino mock jurors would not demonstrate biases based on immigration status, country of origin, or ethnicity on the same four dependent measures of verdict, sentencing, culpability, and trait ratings. Method Participants Three hundred twenty undergraduate psychology students were recruited from a large Southern California university and participated in this study. All participants were 18 years of age or older with a mean age of There were no other exclusionary criteria for this study. One hundred sixty participants in this study were European American, while the other one hundred sixty participants were Latino. Two hundred nine participants were female (65.3%), and the remaining one hundred eleven participants were male (34.7%). Materials and Procedure Participants were run in small groups and were provided with a consent form before the study began. The description of the study informed participants that the study was examining jury decision making. They were informed that they were to treat the study as if they were an actual juror and deciding an actual court trial and that they would render a decision in the case. After individuals gave their consent to participate in the study, they read through the criminal court trial packet. We manipulated

7 Minero and Espinoza 61 immigrant status (legal or illegal), country of origin (Canada or Mexico), and ethnicity (White or Latino) to form a between-participants design. We used the terms legal and illegal in the court packet materials; however, we choose to use the terms documented and undocumented throughout the manuscript as these terms are less offensive. The information of the case that was provided to participants included a detailed description of the crime (murder), the charges against the defendant (murder in the second degree), the defendant s background, the defendant s plea, and summaries of the cases for both the defense and prosecution. Defendants were also identified by a 2 3 head and shoulders picture on the front page of the trial packet. These pictures were pretested for character traits such as attractiveness, aggressiveness, and so on, and there were no significant differences based on ethnicity. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the eight conditions. After reading the trial transcript, participants were asked to render a verdict in the case with the options being either not guilty or guilty. If the participant found the defendant guilty, they were asked to recommend a sentence. Possible sentences included 20 years to life in prison, 30 years to life in prison, or life in prison without the possibility of parole. Participants were also asked to rate the defendant on various culpability measures (i.e., responsibility, confidence, etc.), personality traits (i.e., attractiveness, trustworthiness, etc.), as well as juror memory and demographic questions. Following participation in the study, individuals were debriefed in a thorough and sensitive manner. Results There were four main dependent measures for this study: verdict, sentencing, culpability, and trait ratings. To examine the effect of the categorical independent variables of defendant immigration status, country of origin, and ethnicity on mock juror decisions for the categorical dependent measure of verdict, a logit chi-square analysis was conducted. A logit chi-square analysis was also conducted to examine the effect of the categorical independent variables of defendant immigration status, country of origin, and ethnicity on mock juror decisions for the categorical dependent measure of sentence. To examine the effect of the categorical independent variables of defendant immigration status, country of origin, and ethnicity on mock juror decisions for the culpability measures, a MANOVA was conducted. A MANOVA was also conducted to examine the effect of the categorical independent variables of defendant immigration status, country of origin, and ethnicity on mock juror decisions for the trait ratings.

8 62 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 38(1) Table 1. European American Juror Verdicts. Not guilty Guilty Total Condition Mexican Latino Mexican Latino Mexican White Mexican White Canadian Latino Canadian Latino Canadian White Canadian White Total European American Jurors Analyses Verdict Significant differences for verdict were found based on the combined effects of ethnicity, immigration status, and country of origin, χ 2 (7) = 17.64, p =.01. As hypothesized, European American mock jurors found the undocumented, Latino defendant from Mexico guilty significantly more often than all other conditions (see Table 1). Recommended Sentence European American mock jurors who found the defendant guilty (n = 75) were required to recommend a sentence (20 years to life in prison, 30 years to life in prison, or life in prison without the possibility of parole). Contrary to the second hypothesis, no significant three-way interaction between defendant immigration status, country of origin, ethnicity, and sentence recommendation was found, χ 2 (14) = 21.32, p =.09. Although European American mock jurors who found the defendant guilty gave the undocumented, Latino defendant from Mexico condition the life in prison without possibility for parole more than all other conditions, the results were only a trend and were not significant. Defendant Culpability Ratings As hypothesized, a significant three-way interaction between defendant immigration status, country of origin, and ethnicity on culpability measures was

9 Minero and Espinoza 63 found, F(14, 139) = 3.99, p =.000, η 2 =.29. Follow-up univariate ANOVAs for the culpability measures demonstrated significant effects for the items How confident are you in your decision? F(14, 139) = 5.05, p =.03, η 2 =.03; How much blame should the defendant receive? F(14, 139) = 15.62, p =.000, η 2 =.09; and How much did immigration status impact your decision? F(14, 139) = 8.95, p =.01, η 2 =.06. As shown in Table 2, participants were most confident in their decisions for the undocumented, Latino defendant from Mexico and placed the most blame on this defendant compared with all other conditions. In addition, European American mock jurors stated that immigration status affected their decision the least for the undocumented, Latino defendant from Mexico. We also found a two-way interaction between defendant s ethnicity and legal status, F(14, 139) = 2.02, p =.02, η 2 =.17. Follow-up univariate ANOVAs for the culpability measures demonstrated significant effects for the items How much do you believe the defendant s version of crime? F(14, 139) = 5.05, p =.04, η 2 =.03, and How much blame should the defendant receive? F(14, 139) = 15.62, p =.000. Participants believed the documented Latino defendants version the most in comparison with all other conditions. In addition, participants believed that the undocumented, Latino defendant should receive more blame in comparison with all other conditions (see Table 2). Defendant Trait Ratings A MANOVA was also conducted in order to examine how mock jurors rated the defendant on a number of trait measures. Though we found a trend in the expected direction, no significant three-way interaction was found between defendant legal status, country of origin, and ethnicity for trait ratings of European American mock jurors, F(11, 140) = 1.78, p =.06, η 2 =.12. However, follow-up univariate ANOVAs for the culpability measures demonstrated a significant effect for aggressiveness, F(11, 140) = 8.32, p =.01, η 2 =.05. European American jurors rated the undocumented, Latino defendant from Mexico more aggressive compared with all other conditions. We did find a significant two-way interaction between the defendant s ethnicity and country of origin on the dependent measure of trait ratings, F(14, 139) = 3.72, p =.001, η 2 =.23. Follow-up univariate ANOVAs for the trait measures demonstrated significant effects for the item of attractiveness, F(1, 157) = 11.54, p =.01, η 2 =.07. Participants rated the White defendant from Canada (M = 5.05) as the most attractive, compared with the White defendant from Mexico (M = 3.24) or the Latino defendant from either Canada (M = 3.03) or Mexico (M = 3.15).

10 Table 2. European American Juror Culpability Ratings Three-Way and Two-Way Interactions. Mexican Latino Mexican Latino Canadian Latino Canadian Latino Mexican White Mexican White Canadian White Canadian White Confidence 6.00 a 5.00 b 5.15 b 4.65 b 4.95 b 5.05 b 4.75 b 3.70 c Blame 5.85 a 3.15 b 3.90 b 3.70 b 2.50 c 4.60 b 4.05 b 4.05 b Immigration 2.85 a 3.80 b 4.50 c 3.40 b 3.40 b 3.10 a 3.50 b 3.90 b status Latino Latino White White Blame 4.88 a 3.43 c 3.28 c 4.33 b Believe 3.35 b 3.78 a 3.75 b 3.23 b defendant Note. Means with differing subscripts within rows are significantly different at the p <.05 based on Tukey s HSD post hoc comparisons. Higher scores indicate more of the attribute. HSD = honest significant difference. 64

11 Minero and Espinoza 65 Latino Jurors Analyses Verdict In order to examine the combined effects of defendant immigration status, country of origin, and ethnicity on Latino juror verdicts, a logit chi-square analysis was conducted. As hypothesized, no significant differences for verdict were found based on the combined effects of ethnicity, immigration status, and country of origin for Latino jurors, χ 2 (7) = 1.64, p =.97. Recommended Sentence The Latino participants who found the defendant guilty (n = 66) were required to recommend a sentence (20 years to life in prison, 30 years to life in prison, or life in prison without the possibility of parole). A crosstabs chi-square analysis revealed no significant three-way interaction between defendant immigration status, country of origin, ethnicity, and sentence recommendation for Latino jurors, χ 2 (21) = 15.18, p =.81. Defendant Culpability Ratings In order to examine multiple dependent measures and control for intercorrelations, a MANOVA was conducted. Contrary to the hypothesis that Latino mock jurors would not show culpability differences based on our independent variables, a significant three-way interaction between defendant immigration status, country of origin, and ethnicity on culpability measures was found, F(14, 139) = 1.77, p =.05, η 2 =.15. Follow-up univariate ANOVAs for the culpability measures demonstrated significant effects for How confident are you in your decision? F(14, 139) = 6.35, p =.01, η 2 =.04, and How much blame should the defendant receive? F(14, 139) = 4.55, p =.03, η 2 =.03. Using Tukey s (honest significant difference [HSD]) follow-up tests, Latino mock jurors were least confident about their decisions for the White documented defendants from Canada compared with all other conditions. In addition, Latino participants ascribed the least amount of blame to the undocumented White defendant from Mexico compared with all other conditions. Analysis results are shown in Table 3. There was also two-way significant interaction found between the defendant s ethnicity and country of origin, F(14, 139) = 1.83, p =.04, η 2 =.16. Follow-up univariate ANOVAs for the culpability measures demonstrated significant effects for Latino mock jurors confidence in their ratings, F(1, 159) = 5.02, p =.02, η 2 =.03. As shown in Table 3, participants were most confident in their culpability ratings for the White defendant from Mexico.

12 Table 3. Latino Juror Culpability Ratings Three-Way and Two-Way Interactions. Mexican Latino Mexican Latino Canadian Latino Canadian Latino Mexican White Mexican White Canadian White Canadian White Confidence 5.35 a 5.15 a 4.90 a 4.85 a 5.45 a 5.30 a 5.05 a 3.25 b Blame 5.18 a 4.35 b 4.00 b 4.25 b 3.20 c 4.30 b 4.50 b 4.05 b Mexican Latino Canadian Latino Mexican White Canadian White Confidence 5.23 b 5.38 a 4.88 c 4.15 c Latino Latino White White Confidence 5.13 b 4.98 b 5.25 a 4.28 c Note. Means with differing subscripts within rows are significantly different at the p <.05 based on Tukey s HSD post hoc comparisons. Higher scores indicate more of the attribute. HSD = honest significant difference. 66

13 Minero and Espinoza 67 There was also a two-way interaction found between defendant s ethnicity and legal status, F(14, 139) = 1.77, p =.05, η 2 =.15. Follow-up univariate ANOVAs for the culpability measures demonstrated that Latino participants had confidence that they had made the correct decision, F(1, 159) = 4.23, p =.03. As shown in Table 3, participants had higher confidence in their decision for the undocumented, White defendant in comparison with all other decisions. Defendant Trait Ratings A MANOVA was also conducted in order to examine how Latino mock jurors rated the defendant on a number of trait measures. As hypothesized, there was no significant three-way interaction found between defendant legal status, country of origin, and ethnicity for trait ratings of Latino mock jurors, F(11, 139) = 1.78, p =.06, η 2 =.12. In addition, no two-way interactions or main effects were found for Latino mock juror trait ratings. Discussion The purpose of this study was to examine whether the extralegal factors of defendant immigration status, country of origin, and SES bias juror decision making. Based on past research (Espinoza & Willis-Esqueda, 2008; Short, 2004; Willis-Esqueda et al., 2008), it was hypothesized that European American jurors would only show bias toward ethnic minority defendants when other perceived negative variables were coupled with ethnicity. Specifically, it was expected that undocumented defendants from Mexico who were ethnically Latino would be found guilty significantly more often, given lengthier sentences, found more culpable, and rated lower on a number of trait rating measures compared with documented ethnically White defendants from Canada or Mexico. As hypothesized, the results of the three-way interaction for defendant immigration status, ethnicity, and country of origin indicated that European American jurors demonstrated prejudice against the undocumented Latino defendants from Mexico. This result is consistent with the theory of aversive racism, in that European American jurors did not have similar punitive culpability assignment for ethnically White defendants from Mexico or ethnically Latino defendants from Canada. These findings expand the existing literature that has found how extralegal characteristics, particularly those that are viewed as negative, have a significant impact on juror decision making (Mazzella & Feingold, 1994). Despite European American jurors finding the undocumented, Latino defendants from Mexico guilty significantly more often than all other conditions, no significant three-way interaction was found for recommended sentencing.

14 68 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 38(1) However, there was a trend noticed in sentencing recommendation giving the undocumented, Latino defendant from Mexico condition the life in prison without possibility for parole more than all other conditions, though the results only approached significance. Once again, underlying the theory of aversive racism. As predicted, there was also a three-way interaction found for defendant immigration status, ethnicity, and country of origin and culpability measures for European American mock jurors. The interaction demonstrated that participants found the undocumented, Latino defendant from Mexico more blameworthy and reported being more confident about their decision. This interaction also found that European American mock jurors stated that immigration status affected their decision the least for the undocumented, Latino defendant from Mexico. This is an interesting finding because jurors seem to be emphatic about stating that immigrant status did not affect their decisions, but then they found this defendant more culpable. In addition, another interesting finding was the significant two-way interaction that was found between defendant s legal status and ethnicity, demonstrating that participants believed the legal Latino defendants version the most in comparison with all other conditions. This may be due to stereotype change on the part of European American jurors who may stereotype Latinos as unauthorized. When it is shown that a person of Latino ethnicity is in fact authorized, jurors may be much less likely to find fault in this person as it contradicts their own belief system (see Tausch & Hewstone, 2010). Furthermore, participants believed that the undocumented, Latino defendant should receive more blame in comparison with all other conditions. These findings can once again be explained through the theory of aversive racism. Although participants reported that the legal status did not influence the culpability they assigned toward defendants, the undocumented Latino was found to be more blameworthy while believing the legal Latino s version of the crime the most. A separate two-way significant interaction was found between the defendant s ethnicity and country of origin, which demonstrated that European American jurors were most likely to see themselves in the same situation as the Latino defendant from Mexico in comparison with all other conditions. These findings were surprising, considering their harsher culpability ratings toward Latino defendants from Mexico specifically in comparison with White defendants from Canada. A possible explanation may be due to European American participants not wanting to appear as though they were not being biased toward Latino participants, particularly in their culpability ratings toward them, thus, outwardly appearing to identify with this defendant. Again, this finding, though unique, would still be best explained through

15 Minero and Espinoza 69 the theory of aversive racism. In addition, a significant two-way interaction was found between defendant s ethnicity and country of origin on the dependent measure of trait ratings where European American participants rated the White defendant from Canada as the most attractive in comparison with all other conditions. There was no significant two-way interaction found between the defendant s ethnicity and immigration legal status. As hypothesized for Latino mock jurors, there was no three-way interaction found between defendant immigration status, country of origin, and ethnicity for both juror verdicts and sentence recommendations. These findings supported the final hypothesis that Latino mock jurors would not demonstrate the same biases that were found to be demonstrated by European American mock jurors. Contrary to both these findings and our hypothesis, however, a significant three-way interaction between defendant immigration status, country of origin, and ethnicity on culpability measures was found. Latino participants ascribed the least amount of blame to the undocumented, White defendants from Mexico compared with all other conditions and were least confident about their decisions for the White documented defendant from Canada compared with all other conditions. These findings appear to be related to the culpability ascribed by European American participants. While European American mock jurors felt most confident about their decisions toward the undocumented Latino from Mexico, Latino jurors were found to be least confident about their culpability measures for the documented White defendants from Canada. Furthermore, a significant two-way interaction between the defendant s ethnicity and country of origin found Latino participants to be more confident in their culpability ratings for the White defendants from Mexico. Contrarily, a two-way interaction between defendant s ethnicity and legal status found that Latino participants had higher confidence in their decision for the undocumented, White defendant in comparison with all other conditions. The above-described findings are not supportive of a clear discriminatory or biased attitude toward any defendant from any particular country of origin or ethnicity, particularly in comparison with the clear discriminatory pattern in culpability ratings that were made toward undocumented, Latino defendants from Mexico on behalf of the European American participants. The defendant s country of origin was independently found to have an impact on culpability ratings of Latino mock jurors. Particularly, Latino participants were found to attribute higher culpability ratings to the defendant from Mexico, thought they deserved lengthier sentences than the defendant from Canada, and were thought to be more responsible for committing the crime. Similar to the findings from European American participants, Latino mock jurors saw themselves in the same situation as the defendant from

16 70 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 38(1) Mexico. Latino jurors indicated that immigration status played a significantly greater role in their decisions toward the defendant from Mexico than the defendant from Canada. These jurors also believed that the defendant from Mexico was more likely than the defendant from Canada to have committed similar past crimes. Finally, Latino participants felt most confident about their decision made regarding the defendant from Mexico. These findings were demonstrative of the impact that defendants ethnicity alone had on Latino mock jury culpability ratings. The defendant s immigration legal status was also found to independently affect culpability ratings of Latino participants. Results indicated that Latino participants attributed the impact of defendant s immigration status was higher for the undocumented defendant, had higher confidence in their culpability rating for the undocumented defendant, and saw themselves in the documented defendant s position more than their undocumented counterparts. Although both significant two-way interactions and main effects were found for Latino participants, this may best be explained based on the facts of the case and that Latino mock jurors simply are more familiar with this type of defendant. As predicted, no significant three-way interaction was found between defendant legal status, country of origin, and ethnicity on behalf of the Latino mock jurors for trait ratings. In addition, no two-way interactions or main effects were found. Although there was no full support for all the hypotheses proposed in this study, European American mock jurors did give the undocumented, Latino defendant from Mexico significantly more guilty verdicts and higher ratings on several measures of culpability. In addition, although the Latino mock jurors did not show significant difference in their verdicts or sentencing of defendants, they were also found to give the undocumented, Latino defendant from Mexico higher ratings on a couple of measures of culpability. The theory of aversive racism may still be a reasonable explanation for the bias that was demonstrated against Latino defendants, particularly on behalf of European American participants. The results of this study suggest that, when paired with variables perceived as negative, such as undocumented immigration status and country of origin, negative and prejudicial attitudes toward this group of people can still exist in a more subtle manner. Although most individuals in today s society might believe themselves to be egalitarian and free of racial biases, these findings along with a growing body of research demonstrate the presence of underlying prejudice that is very much present in our surrounding societies. Limitations and Future Directions These findings demonstrate the importance of taking into consideration that undocumented immigrant defendants may face severe consequences

17 Minero and Espinoza 71 that are not relevant to U.S. citizens and permanent residents (i.e., being deported, losing any hope of returning to the United States), and that are based on extralegal factors. However, several limitations of the study are worth mentioning. The sample population were undergraduate students (M age = 19.49) and not absolutely representative of an actual jury. In addition, the study was conducted at a Southern California Hispanic serving institution. Future studies should attempt to examine venire persons to better understand the ecological validity of our findings. In addition, future studies may want to examine attitudes toward other immigrant defendants who belong to other racial minority groups such as Black and Asian immigrants and other marginalized groups (e.g., gay/lesbian defendants). Based on our results, there is a great need for parties in the U.S. legal system to be made aware of this juror decision-making bias. Judges and lawyers, as well as legislators at the local, state, and federal levels, need to be aware of the negative influence of defendant immigrant status on jurors. Disseminating the results of this study will aid in ameliorating prejudice in the U.S. legal system, so that a defendant s guilt or innocence lies in the hands of the fact and evidence of a trial. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. References Batalova, A., & Terrazas, J. (2010). US in focus: Frequently requested statistics on immigrants and immigration in the United States. Retrieved from migrationinformation.org/feature/display.cfm?id=818#1 Berg, J. A. (2010). Race, class, gender, and social space: Using an intersectional approach to study immigration attitudes. The Sociological Quarterly, 51, doi: /j x Brigham, J. C. (1971). Ethnic stereotypes. Psychological Bulletin, 76, Cowan, G., Martinez, L., & Mendiola, S. (1997). Predictors of attitudes toward illegal Latino immigrants. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 19, Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1989). Aversive racism and selection decisions. Psychological Science, 11, Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2004). Aversive racism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 1-51.

18 72 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 38(1) Espinoza, R. K. E. (2010). Juror bias in the U.S. legal system: Examining problems and solutions. Saarbrücken, Germany: Lambert Academic. Espinoza, R. K. E., & Willis-Esqueda, C. W. (2008). Defendant and defense attorney characteristics and their effects on juror decision making and prejudice against Mexican Americans. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14, Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, S. F. (2005). Understanding and addressing contemporary racism: From aversive racism to the common in-group identity model. Journal of Social Issues, 61, Guenther, K., Pendaz, S., & Fortunata, S. M. (2011). The impact of intersecting dimensions of inequality and identity on the racial status of Eastern African immigrants. Sociological Forum, 26, Immigration Policy Center. (2000). Immigrants and crime: Are they connected? A century of research finds that crime rates for immigrants are lower than for the native-born. Retrieved from immigrants-and-crime-are-they-connected-century-research-finds-crime-ratesimmigrants-are Kitano, H. H., & Sue, S. (1973). The model minorities. Journal of Social Issues, 29, 1 9. doi: /j tb00069.x Kruh, I. P., Frick, P. J., & Clements, C. B. (2005). Historical and personality correlates to the violence patterns of juveniles tried as adults. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, Lee, T. L., & Fiske, S. T. (2006). Not an outgroup, not yet an ingroup: Immigrants in the stereotype content model. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, doi: /j.ijintrel Lee, Y. T., & Ottati, V. (2002). Attitudes toward to American immigration policy: The role of ingroup-outgroup bias, economic concern, and obedience to law. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, Lin, M. H., Kwan, V. Y., Cheung, A., & Fiske, S. T. (2005). Stereotype content model explains prejudice for an envied outgroup: Scale of anti-asian American stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, doi: / Martinez, R., & Lee, M. T. (2000). Immigration and crime. In G. LaFree, R. J. Bursik Sr., J. F. Short, & R. B. Taylor (Eds.), Criminal justice The nature of crime: Continuity and change (Vol. 1, pp ). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Mazzella, R., & Feingold, A. (1994). The effects of physical attractiveness, race, socioeconomic status, and gender of defendants and victims on judgments of mock jurors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, Murray, K. E., & Marx, D. M. (2013). Attitudes toward unauthorized immigrants, authorized immigrants, and refugees. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 19, doi: /a

19 Minero and Espinoza 73 Passel, J. S., & Cohn, D. V. (2011). Unauthorized immigrant population: National and state trends, Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Research Center. Perez, D. A., Hosch, H. M., Ponder, B., & Trejo, G. C. (1993). Ethnicity of defendants and jurors as influences on jury decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, Pickel, K. L., Warner, T. C., Miller, T. J., & Barnes, Z. T. (2013). Conceptualizing defendants as minorities leads mock jurors to make biased evaluations in retracted confession cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19, doi: / a Public Policy Institute of California. (2008). Just the facts: Immigrants and crime. Retrieved from pdf Reyna, C., Dobria, O., & Wetherell, G. (2013). The complexity and ambivalence of immigration attitudes: Ambivalent stereotypes predict conflicting attitudes toward immigration policies. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 19, Short, R. (2004). Justice, politics, and prejudice regarding immigration attitudes. Current Research in Social Psychology, 9, Short, R., & Magana, L. (2002). Political rhetoric, immigration attitudes, and contemporary prejudice: A Mexican American dilemma. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, Smith, T. W., Marsden, P. V., & Hout, M. (2000). General Social Survey [Cumulative File] (ICPSR31521-v1). Storrs, CT: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut/Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributors], doi: / ICPSR31521.v1 Sommers, S. R., & Ellsworth, P. S. (2001). White juror bias: An investigation of prejudice against Black defendants in the American courtroom. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, doi: // Sommers, S. R., & Ellsworth, P. S. (2009). Race salience in juror decision-making: Misconceptions, clarifications, and unanswered questions. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27, doi: /bsl.877 Tausch, N., & Hewstone, M. (2010). Social dominance orientation attenuates stereotype change in the face of disconfirming information. Social Psychology, 41, doi: / /a Willis-Esqueda, C. W., Espinoza, R. K. E., & Culhane, S. E. (2008). The effects of ethnicity, SES, crime status on juror decision making: A cross-cultural cultural examination of European American and Mexican American mock jurors. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 30, Author Biographies Laura P. Minero is currently a PhD student in the Counseling Psychology Department at the University of Wisconsin Madison. She received her bachelor s degree in

20 74 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 38(1) psychology with a minor in sociology from California State University, Fullerton, where she also went on to receive her master s degree in psychology. Her research interests include examining how policy affects the lived experiences of undocumented immigrant and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer (LGBTQ+) communities in hopes of being able to identify how to better serve these populations through more inclusive implementation of policy and distribution of services. Russ K. E. Espinoza, PhD (2005, University of Nebraska, Lincoln), is a social psychologist and associate professor in the Department of Psychology at California State University, Fullerton. His current research interests include the examination of sociocultural contributing factors to juror decision making. Specifically, he examines how race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and other sociocultural variables interact to influence criminal case outcomes and juror decisions. In addition, he is a trial consultant in the Southern California area specialized in jury decision making and voir dire.