Slow Motion Bias

Can slow motion replay improve jurors memory of evidence in a case? Caruso, Burns, and Converse (2016) examined the effect of video evidence on jury judgment of intentionality, the degree of which the harm caused was deliberate and premeditated, in criminal cases. Caruso et al. hypothesized that viewing a video in slow motion increases the perceived level of intent. After conducting four different studies, each with different variables, their results showed that slow motion footage perceives more intentionality in comparison to normal speed. This study suggests that providing the jury the opportunity to view video evidence at both regular speeds and in slow motion could mitigate intentionality biases. However, the jury will not always have
The body camera establishes a storyline through the eyes of the police whereas if the suspect is recording, it is from the suspects perspective. In cases involving security surveillance from a street view might be seen as a potentially less biased source than from a police officer being that it provides an overview of the scene. However, interpreting what brought forth the events or who is in the wrong is difficult and will vary based on individual characteristics, more or less on the narrator's perspective. In the Kahan, Hoffman, and Braman (2009) article, they discuss the importance of "whose eyes" are watching or who is speaking, implying that people respond more supportive to issues regarding their identity. In police brutality cases, for instance, the majority of society tend to react more favorably to police, as being protectors of the public and belonging to a less targeted group, which causes one to overlook cases involving the misuse of power. A minority, however, will acknowledge social factors that influence the misuse of authority and empathize with the accused. Kahan's et al. articles implies that video evidence narrated from the defendant rather than authority can have an impact on how the jury evaluates the defense