ABSTRACT
This chapter draws on findings of the mock jury dataset and existing literature to discuss how sexual history evidence can divert juror attention towards perceptions of character and credibility of the complainant. It has long since been theorised that sexual history evidence often prompts negative judgements about the complainant, with numerous court observation studies illustrating this association at trial. The current chapter thereby builds on this existing literature, illustrating that sexual history evidence was regularly drawn upon in juror deliberative narratives, in a manner that called into question the perceived credibility of the complainant, whilst also serving to bolster the perceived credibility of the defendant. Alongside this, findings of the ‘Juror Decision Scale’ questionnaire equally illustrated that where sexual history had been included in the trial stimulus, this reduced the perceived believability of the complainant and increased that of the defendant, as reported by jurors. Furthermore, these findings equally showed a significant interaction effect, in which the impact of sexual history on both complainant and defendant believability became increasingly pronounced, the more that the complainant was seen as inconsistent in her account at trial, thereby revealing a complex and nuanced impact of sexual history evidence, which is fundamental to reform debates.
