Lost in Translation: The Effect of How Intoxication is Communicated on Mock Juror Decision-Making

Introduction: Eyewitness testimony can be pivotal in criminal trials, yet witnesses intoxicated at the time of a crime are often perceived as less credible. In court, intoxication is typically communicated using imprecise and inconsistently selected terminology, potentially leading jurors to misinterpret intoxication evidence and unfairly discount witnesses. The present study examined whether juror perceptions and decisions vary as a function of how intoxication is described (termed here “indicator”), and witness role, while accounting for juror characteristics.Method: A 4 (intoxication indicator: drink count, numerical scale, behavioural symptoms, cognitive symptoms) × 2 (witness role: victim, bystander) mock juror experiment was conducted. Undergraduate participants (N = 128) read a trial transcript describing a robbery, and witness reported being “moderately intoxicated” using one of four indicators. Participants provided verdicts, rated defendant guilt, and evaluated witness credibility, honesty, and cognitive competence. Juror demographics, drinking beliefs, and alcohol service experience were also assessed.Results: Guilty verdicts were more likely when intoxication was described using a numerical scale than other indicators. Witness role did not influence juror perceptions or interact with intoxication indicator. Alcohol service training was linked to lower perceived witness credibility, and negative drinking-related beliefs predicted lower credibility and honesty ratings.Conclusion: These findings highlight the importance of how intoxication is communicated in legal contexts and suggest that juror characteristics may play a greater role in shaping perceptions of intoxicated witnesses than indicator or witness role. Nevertheless, improving the clarity and consistency of intoxication evidence may support fairer evaluations of eyewitness testimony in court.