CHAP 7 (Jury PT 2 / Deliberations) Flashcards
Process issues in the jury
There are differences in the way we focus on, and process, information
- Elaboration likelihood model (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986)
-The more we add to content, the greater the depth of the processing
The Elaboration Likelihood model consists of
- Systematic (central) Route
- Heuristic (peripheral) Route
a theory that explains how people process information and how that processing influences their attitudes and behaviors change through two routes
The Elaboration Likelihood model
- Motivated audience
- systematic , high effort
- Logical, reasoning
- Good arguments produce change
Systematic (central) route of ELM
- Not highly motivated
- Low effort, heuristics, short cuts, Not systematic
- Cues, emotions, produce change
Heuristic (Peripheral) route of ELM
You are a juror in a case like the original OJ Simpson trial
- Days and days of complex DNA testimony
- How do you process all of it?
- Give examples to this scenario based on the central and peripheral routes
(Central / Systematic): Pay strict attention to evidence, logic, reasoning, strength of the arguments
(heuristic / peripheral) Look at how nicely the lawyer is dressed
- “If the gloves don’t fit, you must acquit” (Speech, Confidence, Tone, Catchy)
- Base position of emotion or feelings (even biases)
Characteristics of the defendant: Attractiveness
Castellow (1990) sexual harassment trial; photos are altered of defendant and plaintiff to attractive/unattractive defendant and plaintiff, workplace setting, facts of the case are identical in both scenarios only difference is the alterations of the photos for who is/isn’t attractive
83% guilty when he was unattractive/she was attractive
41% guilty when he was attractive/she was unattractive
Characteristics of the defendant: Similarity
Someone like us couldn’t have done it (familiarity in appearance) sways people to be more likely to find them innocent
**- Career, Gender, Age **
Characteristics of the defendant: Speech
Do they appear confident? Good, talking fast is a sign of a confidant person, making them more likely to appear innocent
Characteristics of the defendant: Ethnicity
- Stereotypes and profiling, race plays a factor in case
-** Even if 2 people were accused of the exact same crime with the exact same evidence, someone who is more stereotypical appearing is found guilty more often**
Characteristics of bias: Inadmissible testimony
“I object”
“Move to strike”
Wegner (1993) - “Dont think of ___” thinks of __
*Rebound effect
Thought suppression*
Jury Nullification
They may ignore a ‘bad’ or ‘immoral’ law
- But usually are not informed of this power
Why allow it?
- We have juries for 2 reasons
- To resolve the facts and apply the law
Also to represent the breadth of community values (The “conscience of the community”)
- Ideally, this power should be used for when the jury thinks a law is wrong, rather than how they feel about a particular defendant
Story model
Pennington and Hastie (1988)
- What do we do with information that doesn’t fit with our schema?
- The schema will “fill in the gaps” and accommodate it, dispose of it
- Manipulated evidence order
- More coherent the story, verdict shift
The end of the trial
Judges instructions; how clear?
- How well do people understand the instructions (few to no one)
What is reasonable doubt? - No concrete definition or standard for what it has to be, its whatever the defense/crown or judge tells the jury it means
What is it like to work as a group? - Different ideas of what needs to be done/how to do it, convincing each other that your view is the correct one,
- The person who is appointed forejury is typically a white man
- Do groups make better decisions than individuals?
Dan Bias Case
Tried to stop wife from killing herself and the gun went off he claimed
Dan Bias neglected to tell the officer he tried to pull the gun away, and kept it to himself for a period of time, insists Bias changed his story, prosecutor introduces a video tape statement to reduce Bias’ credibility, shoot was fired beyond range of self-infliction, doctor’s credibility was attacked after his testimony of the gun being fired from a far distance by defense, prosectuors had multiple expert testimonies that claim the shot was not self-inflicted, another expert witness claims evidence of the self inflicted shot was removed by poor procedure and that the wound was self inflicted, prosecution used this against them and showed it was also likely that if the gun were pulled, it would be moved out of the way
After the 3rd and final retrial, was convicted of a lesser charge, (reckless firearm safety[?])
