3.6 The Psychology of Juries

Question 1

origin of juries

Answer 1

• in Egypt 4000 years ago
• ordinary citizens selected by lottery
• until 1670 juries could be fined/imprisoned if disagreed with judge verdict

Question 2

Australia: who can be member of jury

Answer 2

citizens, >= 18, no ex-prisoners within 10 yrs, senators, judges, MP, med, armed forces, police exempt

Question 3

Main jury function

Answer 3

apply the law to evidence and render a verdict of guilt or innocence
- use wisdom of 12
- act as community conscience
- protect against out-of-date laws

Question 4

Jury nullification

Answer 4

juries may ignore the law and render a verdict based on other criteria, where juries believe law is unfair

Question 5

Impartiality + threats to impartiality

Answer 5

• lack of bias from jurors
  threats: pre-existing bias, prejudice, negative pretrial publicity

Question 6

representativeness

Answer 6

• representative of community via random selection
• affected by how panel selected, % turning up to court, who avoids, disqualified

Question 7

process of jury selection

Answer 7

• random selection from voter lists
• selected = summoned to pretrial gathering from which jurors selectedt

Question 8

peremptory challenge

Answer 8

right to reject potential juror w/o reason. LIMITED

Question 9

challenge for a cause

Answer 9

unlimited right to challenge with REASON e.g. clear bias, conflict of interest, prior knowledge, inability to understand case

Question 10

US vs Aus jury selection

Answer 10

US: use trial consultants to select jury sympathetic to case (have more peremptory generally)
Aus: unheard of trial consultants

Question 11

what does the evidence suggest about most important determining factors of jury verdicts?

Answer 11

• demographic variables do NOT consistently predict verdicts
• AVAILABLE EVIDENCE much better predictor
• if evidence is ambiguous, juror personalities have effect

Question 12

scientific jury selection pros/cons

Answer 12

+
favour: picking jury w/ science better than intuition, problem in peremptory
-
tips scales of justice towards wealthy who can afford it

Question 13

post-trial interviews uses + limitations

Answer 13

uses: data source for judges, challenges etc
limitations: impossible in many countries, forbidden from discussing case, social desirability of responses, inaccurate recall

Question 14

archival records

Answer 14

using records of trials (transcripts, police interviews)
limitations: can’t establish cause-effect, can’t ask specific questions

Question 15

simulation techniques

Answer 15

mock jurors participate in simulated trial, make verdict
+ve: Independent variables can be manipulated
-ve: not necessarily generalisable to real life`

Question 16

field studies

Answer 16

research conduced within a real trial
+ve: enables real-time research, high ecological validity
limitations: court permission difficult, no controlling variables

Question 17

List the stages involved in reaching a verdict in order

Answer 17

1. listening to the evidence
2. disregarding inadmissible evidence
3. judge’s instructions
4. juror decision-making
5. deliberations
6. the final verdict

Question 18

listening to evidence

Answer 18

1

• jurors can ask questions to witnesses via judge + take notes (notes generally helpful aid), questions may clarify but don’t help in uncovering truth

Question 19

disregarding inadmissible evidence

Answer 19

2

• inadmissible statements/evidence can be instructed to be disregarded
• can make it worse - draw attention, jurors won’t actually ignore it (want to reach truth regardless of legal technicalities)

Question 20

judge’s instructions

Answer 20

3

• jurors don’t remmeber, understand, accurately apply judicial instructions
• reforms suggested: rewrite instructions, provide written copy

Question 21

juror decision-making no. + model types

Answer 21

4

mathematical models
explanation models

Question 22

mathematical models

Answer 22

views jury decision-making as set of mental calculations - mathematical weight attached to each piece of evidence, BUT jurors DON’T put a value to each piece of evidence

Question 23

explanation models

Answer 23

suggest evidence organised into coherent whole e.g. STORY model: impose story structure, more CONSISTENT w/ how jurors make their decisions

Question 24

jury deliberation

Answer 24

5

Question 25

leniency bias

Answer 25

tendency for jury deliberation to tilt towards acquittal

Question 26

group polarisation

Answer 26

individuals become more extreme in initial position following group discussion

Question 27

minority influence

Answer 27

not overly likely in jury situations BUT
* minority that favours acquittal stands better chance than one favouring conviction
* more vocal, persuasive, logical reason can persuade

Question 28

the final verdict

Answer 28

6

• 2/3 majority schemeL jury verdicy is usually what is favoured by at least 2/3 of jury at outset
• as of 2011, 11:1 are accepted after failing unanimity

Question 29

hung jury

Answer 29

jury that cannot reach a verdict

Question 30

predictor: Demographics

Answer 30

• relation small + inconsistent
• may be interaction between demographics of jury + defendant/nature of offence
• jurors likely harsher towards other race defendants
• when defendants’ race salient, white bias towards black reduced

Question 31

predictor: Personality

Answer 31

• moderate link: authoritarian personality + guilty verdict
• male, extrovert, tall = more persuasive

Question 32

predictor: Attitudes

Answer 32

• jurors willing to give death penalty more lkikely to give guilty verdict

Question 33

predictor: Defendant Characteristics

Answer 33

• criminal history impacts verdicts
• less attractive defendants found to be guilty when jury didn’t deliberate, but attractive more likely to be found guilty when jury deliberates

Question 34

similarity-latency hypothesis

Answer 34

jurors who share characteristics with defendant will be lenient

Question 35

black-sheep effect

Answer 35

similarity between defendant and mock jurors predicted leniency EXCEPT WHERE EVIDENCE AGAINST DEFENDANT WAS VERY STRONG: in which case more severe

Question 36

Arguments against juries

Answer 36

• trial by peers doesn’t guarantee fairness
• jury not always represent comm unity
• no accountability in reason for decision by jury
• often rsult in mistrial/hung juries
• expensive + slow
• juries sometimes don’t understand/remember evidence
  TOO IMPORTANT TO BE LEFT TO AMATEURS

Question 37

Arguments FOR juries

Answer 37

• important civic responsibility, community involvement in justice
• decsision of group of peer more acceptable to defendant than decision of single representative judge
• jurors possess common sense
• can deviate from letter of law if feel appropriate

Question 38

judge or jury?

Answer 38

• judges return same verdict as jury in 78% of cases
• most legal experts agree retain juries