38

Criminal courts’ verdicts are not limited to culpability judgments. Jurors have also to make subjective decisions concerning attenuating circumstances, defendant’s responsibility and intentionality. It requires them to integrate both testimonial and factual evidence presented during the trial. The present study examines how jurors reach integration, by focusing on the joint effects of psychological report (clinical vs. research vs. no report) and crime category (murder, rape or armed robbery). It is assumed that a clinical report should lead to more lenient decisions, but only concerning subjective decisional items. The type of crime should influence objective decisional items only, leading to higher severity in case of crimes against people than against properties. Finally, psychological report effect should be more important when jurors have to judge an armed robbery than when they have to judge a murder or a rape. One hundred and thirty five participants were presented with the trial transcript of a criminal case which included either a clinical report (clinical assessments of the defendant), a research report (empirical data concerning criminality), or no report. Afterwards, they had to return both objective and subjective decisional judgments. Results confirm generally main effects hypotheses but not interaction one. They are discussed in terms of legal clear-sightedness and defensive attributions and in terms of practical implications.