Are jurors affected by extralegal factors? Explain with a special focus on how race differences play out in the proceedings of a trial.

What will be an ideal response?

Answers may vary.Jurors do a reasonably good job in their role as legal decision makers: they put appropriate weight on the most important evidence presented during a trial, namely, the strength of the relevant evidence. They understand and utilize most expert testimony properly, and according to analyses of their deliberations, they understand most of their instructions. But jurors are also affected by irrelevant information such as the defendant's background or appearance, what they read in the newspaper or see online, and other sources of extraneous details, all of which constitute extralegal factors. As a very simple example, unattractive defendants are slightly more likely than attractive defendants to be convicted.Jurors' decisions in criminal trials are influenced by a complicated interaction of defendant's race, jurors' race, and the type of crime charged. There is a general tendency, albeit weak, for jurors to be harsher toward defendants of different races than their own. In one study, Black jurors rated White defendants as more aggressive, violent, and guilty than Black defendants, and White jurors were harsher on Black defendants than on White defendants, but only when the crime was not racially charged. When the crime was racially charged, the defendant's race did not influence White jurors' verdicts. Professor Samuel Sommers interpreted the race-based results in the context of aversive racism, a social-psychological concept that proposes that most White jurors are motivated to avoid showing racial bias and, when cued about racial considerations (e.g., when the crime was racially charged or when jurors were instructed to avoid prejudice), they tend to render color-blind decisions. But without those explicit reminders to be objective, subtle racial biases influence their decisions.