Table 2.
Jury satisfaction regressed on trial process perceptions and outcome.
| b | Lower CI | Upper CI | seb | t | p | β | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Step 1 | F (3, 166) = 7.58, p < .001, adj. R2 = .11 (n = 169) | ||||||
| Case complexity | −.15 | −.26 | −.04 | .06 | −2.66 | .009 | −.21 |
| Relevant evidence | .23 | .10 | .36 | .07 | 3.41 | .001 | .27 |
| Jury comprehension | .01 | −.16 | .18 | .09 | 0.11 | .91 | .01 |
| Step 2 | F (4, 160) = 9.66, p < .001, adj. R2 = .17 (n = 164) | ||||||
| Case complexity | −.13 | −.24 | −.02 | .06 | −2.33 | .02 | −.18 |
| Relevant evidence | .24 | .11 | .36 | .06 | 3.68 | <.001 | .29 |
| Jury comprehension | .03 | −.14 | .20 | .09 | 0.39 | .70 | .03 |
| Trial outcome | .43 | .21 | .65 | .11 | 3.88 | <.001 | .28 |
Note: Jurors were asked to indicate the level of difficulty they experienced in understanding the evidence, not the degree to which they comprehended the evidence. For trial outcome, 1 = defendant won case.