Mock Jurors' Perceptions of Child Sexual Abuse Cases Involving Sexual and Gender Minority Victims

Public Significance Statement Findings reveal novel evidence that antitransgender courtroom biases arise in the context of child maltreatment and peak when the victim is a transgender girl. The prevalence of those who identity as gender minority individuals has proliferated in recent years, demonstrating the need for further research investigating legal perceptions of this population. Sexual and gender minority youth are at high risk of maltreatment and subsequent criminal justice system involvement, yet jurors' perceptions of these individuals have yet to be investigated. In the current research, we examined mock jurors' decisions after reading a case summary manipulating victim gender (boy, girl), gender identity (cisgender, transgender), and sexual orientation (straight, gay). Jury-eligible community member participants (N = 368) read a case summary describing an alleged incident of child sexual abuse between a male teacher and an adolescent victim then rendered various case judgments. Mock jurors rendered more proprosecution case judgments when the victim was cisgender versus transgender. When the victim was cisgender versus transgender, mock jurors were more likely to convict, rated the defendant less credible, and rated the victim more credible. Effects of victim gender identity varied as a function of gender, but only when the victim was transgender. When the victim was a transgender boy versus girl, jurors were more likely to convict, rendered higher ratings of defendant degree of guilt, rated the defendant less credible, and rated the victim more credible. Findings have implications for jury instructions and voir dire processes when gender minority individuals encounter the justice system.