Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

PSYC 2400 > Chapter 7: Juries: Fact Finders > Flashcards

Chapter 7: Juries: Fact Finders Flashcards

1
Q

criminal cases

A

cases in which an act was allegedly committed as found in the Criminal Code of Canada

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

civil cases

A

those that involve a breach of contract or other claims of harm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

juries in civil vs. criminal trials

A
  • Both criminal and civil cases can be heard by jury or judge alone
  • The process for jury selection is very different for civil and criminal cases
  • Criminal cases have 12-person juries while civil cases have 6- or 8-person juries
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Three main types of offences in Canada

A
  1. Summary offences
  2. Indictable offences
  3. Hybrid offences
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Summary offences

A

involve a sentence of fewer than 6 months in prison and a fine of less than $2,000

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

how are summary offences tried in Canada?

A

by judge alone

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Three categories of indictable offences

A
  1. Less serious indictable offences found in section 553 of the Criminal Code, which include theft, obtaining money or property by false pretences, and failure to comply with a probation order
  2. Highly serious offences, found in section 473 of the Criminal Code, which include treason, murder, and piracy
  3. Indictable offences not listed in section 553 or 473 of the Criminal Code, which include robbery, sexual assault with a weapon, and arson
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

how are category 1 indictable offences tried in Canada?

A

Heard by judge alone

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

how are category 2 indictable offences tried in Canada?

A

Heard by judge and jury, unless the attorney general and the accused agree that the trial can proceed without a jury

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

how are category 3 indictable offences tried in Canada?

A

The defendant can choose between 3 options:
1. To be tried by a provincial or territorial court judge without a jury and a preliminary inquiry
2. To have a preliminary inquiry and be tried by a judge without a jury
3. To have a preliminary inquiry and be tried by a judge and jury

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

what happens if the defendant of a category 3 indictable offence does not make a decision?

A

they will be tried by a judge and jury

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

hybrid offences

A

a cross between indictable and summary offences

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

how are hybrid offences tried in Canada?

A
  • It is up to the Crown attorney to decide whether to proceed with the case as an indictable or a summary offence
  • If they choose indictment, the maximum sentence is 5+ years in prison
  • If they proceed summarily, the maximum penalty is 6 months (or 18 months in some cases)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

juries act

A

provincial and territorial legislation that outlines the eligibility criteria for jury service and how prospective jurors must be selected

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

differences in the juries act across jurisdictions

A

Differences across jurisdictions include the minimum age to be a juror and the professions that keep individuals exempt from jury duty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

jury summons

A

a court order that states a time and place to go for jury duty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

does receiving a jury summons guarantee that you will be a juror?

A

no

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

2 types of challenges that lawyers can use to reject potential jurors

A

Preemptory challenge & challenge for cause

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Preemptory challenge

A

when a lawyer believes that a juror is unlikely to reach a verdict in their favour. They do not need to provide a reason for rejecting the prospective juror.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Bill C-75

A

a bill passed in 2019 that removed preemptory challenges

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Challenge for cause

A

a request that a prospective juror be dismissed because there is a specific and forceful reason to believe that the person cannot be fair, unbiased, or capable of serving as a juror

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

two fundamental characteristics of juries

A

representativeness & impartiality

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Representativeness

A

a jury composition that represents the community where the crime occurred

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Impartiality

A

a characteristic of unbiased jurors

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

how is representativeness achieved?

A

through randomness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

who can challenge the composition of a jury?

A

The Crown or the defence can challenge the composition of the jury, arguing that it does not represent the community on some characteristics

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

R. v. Nepoose (1991)

A

the defendant was an Indigenous woman and the jury composition for her trial was successfully challenged for having too few women

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Indigenous people on juries in Canada

A

Indigenous people remain underrepresented on juries because those living on reserves are not part of the municipal assessment lists that can be used to identify possible jurors, particularly in Ontario

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Iacobucci’s recommendations for improving representativeness on juries (these were implemented by the Ontario government)

A
  1. Increased the period to complete juror questionnaires from 5 days to 30, and removed intimidating language regarding non-compliance
  2. Created a new division within the Ministry of the Attorney General: the Indigenous Justice Division
  3. Created the Indigenous Justice Group, which provides advice to the attorney general on judicial issues impacting Indigenous peoples in Ontario
  4. Funded studies to improve services for Indigenous speakers in Ontario
  5. Increased the number of First Nation liaisons and expanded the Indigenous
    Courtworker Program
  6. Allowed the creation of volunteer juror lists in Thunder Bay and Kenora.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

The Juries Review Implementation Committee

A

committee comprised of First Nations community leaders, elders, and chiefs, alongside criminal policy directors and lawyers that is responsible for addressing the implementations outlined in Iacobucci’s report

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

The Indigenous Justice Advisory Group

A

an advisory group comprised of multiple First Nations members, law enforcement officials, and legal professionals, that aims to act as an intermediary between the attorney general and Indigenous leaders and communities in addressing how the Ontario justice system impacts Indigenous people

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

The Assistant Deputy Attorney General of Indigenous Justice

A

a new leadership position at the Ministry of the Attorney General in Ontario that aims to develop new programs and services to support Indigenous people in the justice system

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

3 issues central to impartiality

A
  1. Jurors setting aside pre-existing biases, prejudices, and attitudes
  2. Jurors ignoring information that is not part of admissible evidence
  3. Jurors having no connections to the defendant
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

R. v. Find (2001)

A

a potential juror and father of two was peremptorily challenged by the defence because of his strong feelings against rape and violence against young children. The trial judge dismissed this request

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

R. v. Davey (2012)

A

the jury panel list of names was provided 3 weeks before the trial and shown to the local law enforcement community. Mr. Davey appealed his conviction and argued that this was a miscarriage of justice, but the appeal was dismissed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

why was Davey’s appeal dismissed in R. v. Davey (2012)?

A
  1. There was no requirement for the information provided by police to be disclosed
  2. The early release of the jury had no impact on the fairness of the trial
  3. The privacy right of prospective jurors was not breached
  4. There would have been no change in the selected jury members had the comments made by police officers been disclosed
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Pretrial publicity

A

that negatively portrays the defendant may influence a juror’s decision

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

current research findings on pretrial publicity

A
  • A meta-analysis found a modest positive relationship between exposure to negative pretrial publicity and judgments of guilt
  • Recent research has confirmed this
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Steggs & Landreville, 2017 pretrial publicity and punishment severity study

A

found that pretrial publicity influenced people’s perceptions of James Holmes, the Colorado theatre shooter, as malicious and increased the severity of punishment that individuals believed he deserved

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Ruva & Guenther, 2015 pretrial publicity, verdicts, and memory study

A

found that mock jurors exposed to negative pretrial publicity were more likely to have errors in their memory and reach guilty verdicts. All juries exposed to negative pretrial publicity discussed it despite being told not to do so

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

positive pretrial publicity

A

Positive pretrial publicity biased jurors positively toward the defendant, but this kind of press is relatively rare in real-life cases

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

preliminary hearing

A

the Crown presents the evidence against the defendant and the judge determines whether there is sufficient evidence for the case to proceed to trial

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

media reporting in preliminary hearings

A

During preliminary hearings, the judge typically places a ban on media reporting of the evidence, but details often get leaked

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Methods for increasing the likelihood of an impartial jury

A
  1. change of venue
  2. adjournment
  3. challenge for cause
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Change of venue

A

moving a trial to a community other than the one in which the crime occurred to obtain an impartial jury

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

what factors lead to a biased community?

A

extensive pretrial publicity, a heinous crime, and a small community in which many people know the victim or the defendant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

what is the most common method for increasing the likelihood of an impartial jury?

A

challenge for cause

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

where does the trial move to during a change of venue?

A

typically somewhere within the province or territory in which the crime occurred

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

adjournment

A

delaying the trial until sometime in the future

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

limitations of adjournments

A

prospective jurors and witnesses’ memories can fade and witnesses can move or die

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

challenge for cause

A

an option to reject biased jurors

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

what happens if a judge grants a challenge for cause?

A

prospective jurors can be probed with a set of predetermined questions approved by the judge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

who determines challenge for cause?

A

the judge, who must consider 3 issues

54
Q

3 issues that a judge must consider during a challenge for cause

A
  1. Jurors can alter their answers according to whether they want to serve on the jury
  2. Prospective jurors may find it difficult to be honest when answering questions about bias
  3. Prospective jurors must be aware of some of their biases and how they influence behaviour, but classic studies suggest that individuals are unaware of their biases and how they affect their behaviour
55
Q

challenge for cause before Bill C-75

A

Before Bill C-75, a challenge for cause was done by 2 selected jurors who acted as triers for a third juror

56
Q

main legal function of a jury

A

to apply the law by assessing the admissible evidence in the case and rendering a verdict of guilt or innocence

57
Q

4 other functions of juries

A
  1. To use the wisdom of 12 (rather than the wisdom of 1) to reach a verdict
  2. To act as the conscience of the community
  3. To protect against out-of-date laws
  4. To increase knowledge about the justice system
58
Q

jury nullification

A

occurs when a jury ignores the law and the evidence, rendering a verdict based on some other criteria

59
Q

when does jury nullification typically occur?

A

when the case involves controversial issues

60
Q

chaos theory

A

the theory that when jurors are guided by their emotions and personal biases rather than by the law, chaos in judgments results

61
Q

Meissner et al., 2003 jury nullification instructions in a euthanasia case study

A

examined the influence of a jury nullification instruction in a euthanasia case. They found that mock jurors were more likely to find the defendant guilty with nullification instructions when they had a positive attitude toward euthanasia. When they were given a standard jury instruction, they reported referring to the legal aspects of their case to make their decisions. However, when they were given a nullification instruction, they reported that they relied on their attitudes toward euthanasia and their perceptions of the defendant’s behaviour

62
Q

Kerr et al., 2008 nullification instructions and emotional biases study

A

examined the influence of nullification instructions and emotional biases. They found that those who heard the nullification instructions were more sensitive to emotionally biased information compared to the standard judicial instructions. Emotional biases also influenced verdicts, providing support for chaos theory

63
Q

Post-trial interviews

A

asking jurors why they reached the verdicts they did

64
Q

ways of studying jury behaviour

A
  • post-trial interviews
  • archives
  • simulation
  • field studies
65
Q

post-trial interviews in Canada

A
  • In Canada, jurors cannot discuss what occurred during deliberation
  • Other countries like the U.S. do not have this rule
66
Q

strength of post-trial interviews

A

high external validity

67
Q

weakenesses of post-trial interviews

A

jurors’ accounts may not be reliable, cause-and-effect relationships cannot be established

68
Q

archives

A

using records of trials to uncover relationships among variables

69
Q

strength of archives

A

high external validity

70
Q

weakenesses of archives

A

cause-and-effect relationships cannot be established, the researcher is restricted to the data available, the researcher is unaware of how the information was collected and the reliability of that information

71
Q

simulation

A

creating a mock trial, or aspects of a trial, using a written, audio, or video format

72
Q

strengths of simulations

A

high internal validity, cause-and-effect relationships can be established

73
Q

weakenesses of simulations

A

low external validity, the participants may not be representative or real jury pools

74
Q

field studies

A

involve using actual jurors while they are serving on jury duty

75
Q

strength of field studies

A

high external validity

76
Q

weakenesses of field studies

A

receiving approval from the courts is difficult, there are many confounding variables

77
Q

deliberation

A

when jury members discuss the evidence privately among themselves to reach a verdict that is provided to the court

78
Q

note-taking controversy

A

There is some controversy as to whether jurors should be allowed to take notes during a trial

79
Q

Penrod & Heuer (1997) conclusions on juror note-taking

A
  • Jurors’ notes serve as a memory aid.
  • Jurors do not overemphasize the evidence that they have noted at the expense of evidence they have not recorded.
  • Notes do not produce a distorted view of the case.
  • Note-takers can keep up with the evidence as it is being presented.
  • Note-takers do not distract jurors who do not take notes.
  • Note-takers do not have an undue influence over those who do not take notes.
  • Jurors’ notes are an accurate record of the trial.
  • Juror note-taking does not favour either the prosecution/Crown or the defence.
80
Q

juror note-taking in Canada

A

The trial judge in each case decides whether jurors will be allowed to take notes

81
Q

quantity and type of jury questions

A

Juries typically have few questions and their questions tend to be concerned with the meaning of key legal terms

82
Q

A meta-analysis by Penrod & Heuer (1997) came to the following conclusions regarding jury questions

A
  • Jury questioning promotes juror understanding of the facts and the issues.
  • Juror questions do not clearly help to get to the truth.
  • Juror questions do not increase the jurors’, judges’, or attorneys’ satisfaction with the trial and verdict.
  • Jurors ask legally appropriate questions.
  • If counsel objects, and the objection is sustained, the jury does not draw inappropriate inferences from unanswered questions.
  • Jurors do not become advocates.
83
Q

Diamond et al., 2006 juror questions study

A

examined the juror questions submitted throughout 50 trials and found that the number of questions that jurors submitted increased the longer a witness testified. Most of the questions were “cross-checking” type questions that aimed to determine the plausibility of the witness account. Information gained from juror questions did not appear to dominate deliberations, but instead helped to clarify understanding of the evidence presented

84
Q

what does the research conclude about the importance of jury questions?

A

Juror’s questions don’t seem to be particularly helpful or harmful

85
Q

jury questions in Canada

A

Jurors may submit their questions to the judge in writing after the lawyers have completed their questioning of the witness. The judge then determines if the question is permissible and poses it to the witness if it is permissible

86
Q

Kassin & Sommers, 1997 disregarding admissible evidence study

A

presented mock jurors with a piece of evidence that was admissible, inadmissible because it was illegally collected, or inadmissible because it was difficult to comprehend. Jurors who received the inadmissible evidence that was difficult to comprehend, they rendered similar verdicts to the control group, suggesting they disregarded it. Jurors who received the inadmissible evidence that had been illegally collected rendered similar verdicts to those who were told the evidence was admissible, demonstrating that they considered it.

87
Q

Kassin & Sommers, 1997 disregarding admissible evidence study takeaway

A

jurors will disregard evidence when they are provided with a logical and legitimate reason for the judge’s decision to disregard it

88
Q

backfire effect

A

a judge’s instruction to disregard evidence simply makes the evidence more memorable than if no instruction were given

89
Q

memorable inadmissible evidence

A

if inadmissible evidence was memorable, it was harder for the jury to ignore

90
Q

problem of judge’s instructions in jury trials

A
  • Studies show that jurors do not remember, understand, or accurately apply judges’ instructions
  • It is not uncommon to find levels of juror comprehension of judicial instructions that is less than 50% because jurors’ comprehension for instructions is generally poor
91
Q

4 proposed reforms for judges’ instructions

A
  1. Rewriting instructions
  2. Providing a written copy of the instructions to jurors
  3. Providing jurors with pre- and post-evidence instructions
  4. Having lawyers clarify legal instruction during their presentation to the jury
92
Q

have the 4 judge’s instructions propasal been implemented in Canada?

A

The 4 proposals have not been consistently implemented in Canada

93
Q

types of jury-decision making models

A

mathematical and explanation models

94
Q

mathematical models

A

view jurors as conducting a set of mental calculations regarding the importance and strength of each piece of evidence. A guilty or not guilty verdict is determined by the outcomes of the calculations for all the relevant evidence

95
Q

are mathematical models accurate?

A

Studies show that the mathematical approach is inconsistent with how jurors report that they reach verdicts; they don’t necessarily update their prior beliefs in light of new evidence or conform to the principles of probability

96
Q

explanation models

A

suggest that evidence is organized into a coherent whole

97
Q

most common explanation model

A

the story model

98
Q

the story model

A

proposes that jurors are active at understanding and processing the evidence. They interpret and elaborate on the evidence and make causal connections, creating a story structure. They then compare their stories with each verdict option presented by the judge and choose the verdict most consistent with the story

99
Q

efficacy of the story model study

A

had participants watch a simulated murder trial and interviewed them to determine how they viewed the evidence. The researchers found that participants put evidence into a story format, and different stories were related to different verdicts

100
Q

Devine’s 3 criteria for evaluating stories

A

coverage, coherence, and uniqueness

101
Q

coverage

A

the extent to which a story can account for all of the evidence

102
Q

coherence

A

the logical resilience of the story, which comprises 3 components: consistency, completeness, and plausibility

103
Q

consistency

A

there is no contradiction within the jurors’ story

104
Q

completeness

A

there are no gaps within the story

105
Q

plausibility

A

the story must match the jurors’ understanding of how the world works

106
Q

uniqueness

A

determines the confidence the juror has in a given story

107
Q

Devine on story structure

A

if only one story structure can account for the evidence, the jurors’ confidence in that story is higher than if there are multiple stories that can account for the evidence

108
Q

Devine’s decision-making model

A

an integrative, multi-level decision-making model that incorporates juror and jury decision-making

109
Q

two components of Devine’s decision-making model

A

Director’s cut model & story sampling model

110
Q

director’s cut model

A

proposes that the jurors use the evidence presented at trial to form a narrative. Jurors then construct their own models of the evidence to test the likelihood of the overall story.

111
Q

story sampling model

A

the larger jury deliberation model, where jurors share their stories of the information with other jurors.

112
Q

Two fundamental premises of the story sampling model

A
  1. Individual differences relevant to the deliberation include who participates and how much each juror says
  2. The structure of spoken juror contributions: when large factions are observed, they usually succeed with a verdict in that direction
113
Q

Devine’s cognitive states

A
  1. Believer: favouring the prosecution
  2. Doubter: favouring the defence
  3. Muller: trying to choose between two or more plausible stories
  4. Puzzler: unable to formulate a story
114
Q

Devine on cognitive states

A

Devine found that at the end of a trial, jurors will be in one of four cognitive states

115
Q

can criminal cases proceed with less than 12 jurors?

A

Cases can continue with fewer than 12 jurors as long as no more than 2 members are excused

116
Q

jury sequestering

A

In Canada, the jury is sequestered until the final verdict is reach

117
Q

jury deliberation

A

During deliberation, the jury reviews the evidence and determines the most consistent match between the verdict options that were provided by the judge and the admissible evidence

118
Q

polarization

A

when individuals tend to become more extreme in their initial position following a group discussion

119
Q

leniency bias

A

when jurors move toward greater leniency during deliberations

120
Q

Miller et al., 2011 leniency effect study

A

regardless of the stereotypicality of the crime, there was a general leniency effect when convicting both Muslim and Christian defendants

121
Q

Adams et al., 2011 deliberation and racial biases study

A

examined racial biases against Middle Easterners with mock jurors before and after deliberation. They found that deliberation seemed to mediate any biases that may have existed, but only when implicit stereotypes were not elicited

122
Q

reaching a verdict in the U.S. vs. Canada

A
  • For criminal cases in Canada, the jury must reach a unanimous verdict
  • The U.S. has permitted majority votes of 11-1, 10-2, and 9-3
123
Q

hung jury

A

a jury that cannot reach a unanimous verdict

124
Q

what happens after a hung jury?

A

the Crown must decide whether it will retry the case

125
Q

6-person juries vs. 12-person juries

A

6-person juries are less representative of the community, remember less of the evidence, return quicker verdicts, and are more likely to reach a unanimous verdict than 12-person juries

126
Q

majority vs. unanimous verdict juries

A

When a jury could retire with a majority vote, they tend to reach a decision faster and not fully discuss the evidence and the law

127
Q

first verdict poll vs. final verdict

A

The first verdict poll tends to be consistent with the final verdict in 90% of cases

128
Q

Two broad styles that juries adopt when reaching a verdict

A

verdict-driven & evidence-driven

129
Q

verdict-driven deliberation

A

start the deliberation process by taking an initial verdict poll

130
Q

evidence-driven deliberation

A

start the deliberation by discussing the evidence and take an initial verdict poll much later

PSYC 2400 (20 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions