For judges, evaluating a defendant’s remorse can influence some of the most consequential decisions they make, including sentencing and rehabilitation opportunities. What if judges’ assessments are shaped by not only facts, but unconscious assumptions? Does a judge view a defendant as sincere or cold, remorseful or indifferent? How well does a judge understand the behavior the defendant might be exhibiting?

These are the questions that have driven new research by Colleen M. Berryessa, an associate professor at Rutgers University-Newark’s School of Criminal Justice (SCJ), who has spent her career examining how psychology, social contexts, and bias quietly shape the criminal justice system and courtroom decisions. Since arriving at Rutgers in 2018, Berryessa has examined judicial decision-making, becoming a leading voice on how implicit bias, stereotypes, and social cognition can influence courtroom outcomes and how education and training can help legal decision-makers recognize and reduce those effects.

In a recent article published in the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Berryessa explored the concept of “remorse bias,” when legal decision-makers misread or misinterpret a defendant’s expressions of remorse because of implicit assumptions, social cognition, and broader societal stereotypes. In the article, Berryessa highlights how a defendant’s criminal history, offense type, mental health, substance use issues, and racial or cultural background can shape how remorse is perceived or evaluated. She notes that assessing remorse is subjective and shaped by human cognition and concludes that misunderstanding remorse can produce serious inequities in legal outcomes.

In a companion article published in the Journal of Criminal Justice, Berryessa and co- author Emily Greberman, a doctoral student at SCJ, examine if judges exhibit remorse bias toward defendants and how it could negatively influence their perspectives on sentencing defendants. Berryessa and Greberman interviewed 61 state trial court judges to explain how cognitive processes can affect sentencing decisions and potentially reinforce existing disparities.

While Berryessa’s research identifies the existence and potential sources of bias, it goes further and underscores the need for greater awareness and training to help judges and other decision-makers understand how social cognition influences decision-making and provides strategies for evaluating defendants more objectively and holistically.

Following the publication of her research on remorse bias, Berryessa was invited to present a dedicated webinar on remorse bias and its implications for legal decision- making for sitting judges hosted by the National Judicial College, the nation’s premier institution for judicial education and training. She also recently gave a continuing legal education webinar, hosted by the Beverly Hills Bar Association, to California-based attorneys on remorse bias and how it may affect their interactions with defendants. Berryessa’s webinars have translated her research findings into institutional practice that will equip judges and other decision-makers with research-based tools to make more equitable decisions.

As the criminal justice system continues to explore ways to strengthen fairness and reduce disparities, Berryessa’s work demonstrates that academic research can extend far beyond scholarly journals. By translating evidence into practical training for judges through organizations like the National Judicial College, her research is helping to shape how legal professionals recognize and address unconscious bias in the courtroom. It is a powerful example of how university research can inform policy, improve professional practice, and ultimately contribute to a more equitable justice system, showing that rigorous scholarship can have a meaningful impact on the decisions that affect people’s lives every day.