# The Role of Stereotypes in Jurors’ Indian Status Determinations and Guilt Decisions

## TL;DR

This study explores how jurors in the U.S. decide if a defendant is an Indian and how that affects their guilt verdicts.

## Contribution

The study reveals that jurors' stereotypes influence guilt decisions if they believe a defendant is an Indian.

## Key findings

- Defendant's name or appearance did not predict Indian status determinations.
- Jurors who believed a defendant was an Indian were more likely to find them guilty.
- Factors beyond name and appearance influence Indian status decisions.

## Abstract

In the United States, courts say a jury must determine whether a defendant is an Indian subject to federal jurisdiction; however, jurors are provided little guidance regarding what to consider in their Indian status determinations. Given the jurisdictional and legal defense implications Indian status decisions have, we tested whether jurors consider two easily accessible potential indicators of Indian race: appearance and name. We examined whether mock jurors’ (N = 825) stereotypes of Indians influenced their determinations of whether a defendant is an Indian and whether that defendant is guilty of the crime alleged using a fully crossed 3 (defendant photo Indian stereotypicality: high, low, and none) × 3 (defendant name Indian stereotypicality: high, low, and none) between-participants design, controlling for participants’ feelings toward Indians as a group and internal and external motivations to respond without prejudice. In general, neither the defendant’s name nor photo stereotypicality predicted Indian status determinations, but jurors who thought the defendant was an Indian were more likely to find the defendant guilty. Thus, mock jurors consider factors other than the defendant’s name and appearance when deciding whether the defendant is Indian, but if the defendant is considered Indian, mock jurors are more likely to find the defendant guilty.