Mock jury research on shooting burglars
"Jurors" were given written summaries of a situation and asked if they'd convict or acquit, and if they convicted, what sentence they would impose. The scenario involved a homeowner encountering a burglar under ambiguous conditions tending toward shooting not justified (burglar makes a verbal threat but no moves -- technically, that might not be enough. In Arizona, it's more than enough: one fewer burglar, where's the harm?).
Findings: mock jurors were told the homeowner used different firearms. If told was an AR-15 (and shown a picture) they were MUCH more likely to convict than if told it was a Ruger Mini-14, although both shoot the same cartridge. They also imposed sentences 50% longer if told it was an AR-15. Then the study's creators changed the scenario to a female homeowner/shooter. Her odds of conviction went up, over that of a male, and if she used an AR-15 the sentence went WAY up.
Caveat: the mock jury on the last was composed of university students rather than a segment of the community at large. [Correction in light of comments: all juries were students. A good reason to use pre-emptory challenges against university students!).
Here in AZ, with real juries, the results are quite different. A prosecutor once told me that he'd urged the County Attorney to stop prosecuting homeowners who shot burglars in the back. They'd just lost three of those cases in a row. Whatever the statute law might be, jurors saw one fewer burglar as a good thing and would not convict a fellow homeowner for having done a good thing.
Hat tip to reader Joe Olson....