Juror perceptions of rape involving Rohypnol

The prevalence of drug-facilitated sexual assault (DFSA) ranges from 33-35% of cases. Yet, there is a dearth of legal decision-making research on this issue. This study investigated the impact of a victim claiming to have been given the drug Rohypnol prior to a sexual assault. Online participants were randomly assigned to read a trial summary involving one of three Rohypnol conditions (positive-test, negative-test, no-test result). Positive evidence of Rohypnol led to greater pro-victim judgments (e.g. guilty verdicts) compared to negative–and no-test results, as did no-test (vs. negative) results. Women (vs. men) were also more likely to render pro-victim judgments. Indirect-association analyses revealed that jurors in the positive (vs. no and negative) condition were more likely to perceive the victim as credible and the defendant less credible, and in turn were more likely to convict. The same pattern emerged in the no-test (vs. negative) condition. Finally, jurors in the positive and negative conditions referred to this evidence as a primary reason for voting guilty or not guilty, respectively. Cognitive networks showed that jurors in the no-test condition varied in their reasoning as a function of their verdict. Implications regarding how best to prosecute cases of involuntary drugging are discussed.