Chapter 8 Flashcards
Studying Juries
Section 649 of the Criminal Code prohibits jurors from disclosing any of their deliberations under threat of a summary conviction that could result in a max- imum sentence of 6 months imprisonment and a fine of up to $5000 (Criminal Code, 1985, c. C-46, s. 649). Mock jurors (typically undergraduate university students) are presented with a simulated trial in written, audio, or video format. They then answer questions about the case and provide a verdict. Sometimes the mock jurors form a group (jury) and deliberate to reach a verdict together. Researchers sys- tematically change the variable of interest so that different groups are exposed to alternative versions of the same case. This allows researchers to compare individual juror and group-level responses across different conditions to assess the effect of the variable under investigation. Trial information provided in the different conditions is identical; only the variable of interest change able to isolate and directly assess its impact on participants’ decision
The Jury Decision-Making Process
hematical models. In many such models, jurors are assumed to use a sort of mental meter that moves toward either a guilty or not guilty ver- dict based on the weight of the evidence. Pieces of evidence presented at trial are represented as numerical weights that shift the mental meter in one direc- tion or the other. Over the course of the trial, jurors continually update their judgments, although a particular piece of evidence—for example, a persuasive eyewitness—may be so heavily weighted that the meter becomes frozen and further evidence does little to shift a juror’s overall judgment he story model of juror decision making (Pennington & Hastie, 1993). Instead of representing decision making as a mathematical process, the story model proposes that jurors create stories to make sense of evidence presented at trial. A story is defined as a causal chain of events. That is, initiating events cause characters to have psychological responses and form goals that motivate actions, and then these actions lead to consequences.
For example, in a case commonly used in some studies of the story model, a man named Johnson stabs and kills a man named Caldwell and is put on trial for first-degree murder. The undisputed events are that one afternoon the two men had an argument in a bar and Caldwell threatened Johnson with a razor blade. Johnson left the bar but returned late in the evening. He and Caldwell got into a fight outside the bar. Johnson pulled a knife and stabbed Caldwell, who died from his wound. Jurors must decide whether Johnson acted in self-defence or whether it was premeditated murder.
According to the story model, jurors construct their stories while hearing the evidence at trial. Next, they learn about possible verdicts (usually at the end of the trial, when the judge reads the instructions to the jurors). Finally, they select the verdict that best fits with the story they have constructed to make sense of the evidence.
Impact of Evidence
strength of the relevant evidence is the best predictor of a jury’s verdict liberation hypothesis (Kalven & Zeisel, 1966). This hypothesis proposes that, in most trials, jury verdicts are determined by the strength of the evidence because evidence for conviction or acquittal is usually compelling. However, in cases where the evidence is ambiguous or close, jurors will be “liberated” from the constraints of evidence, allowing the influence of non-evidentiary factors to creep into the decision pro- cess. That is, lack of clear evidence favouring the defence or prosecution forces jurors to base their decisions on factors such as prior beliefs, assumptions, pretrial publicity, or even prejudice.
Inadmissible Evidence
Jurors are told to not only ignore pretrial publicity about a crime (as you read in Chapter 7) but to also ignore other types of inadmissible evidence (e.g., infor- mation that might be prejudicial) that they may be exposed to during the trial. Inadmissible information may come from witnesses or lawyers. When one lawyer raises an objection in response to a question or statement made by the opposing lawyer or a witness, the judge must either sustain or overrule the objection. If the objection is sustained, the judge will tell the jury to disregard the inadmissible statement (e.g., that a criminal defendant has a prior criminal record or that a civil defendant has a large insurance policy). In other words, the jurors are supposed to forget they ever heard the statement and not let it influence them. Most lawyers are skeptical about whether jurors can disregard inadmissible statements made during trial.
theory of ironic processes. The theory states that when we make an effort not to think about something, it often dominates our thoughts, especially when we are under stress and much of our mental capacity is already in use (Wegner, 2004). Anyone who has suffered from obsessive thoughts has experienced this effect. Another explanation is suggested by reactance theory. According to this theory, people are motivated to maintain their freedom (Brehm & Brehm, 1981). A judge’s admonition may be perceived as a
Jury deliberations dynamics
During the jury selection process, lawyers will attempt to predict the group dynamics of a jury. Lawyers may perceive some potential jurors as strong jurors or key jurors or jury leaders: jurors who seem likely to have a disproportionate influence on the deliberation process. Potential jurors judged to be strong are often well-educated, articulate, and have high occupational status relative to other potential jurors
. In reality, majorities tend to prevail. If a jury begins deliberations with an 8-to-4 majority, there is a strong probability that th e majority will persuade or pressure members of the minority to change their votes.
foreperson is the leader of the jury. Some research sug- gests the foreperson’s vote is more strongly predictive of outcome than those of other jury members (Devine, Buddenbaum, Houp, Stolle, & Studebaker, 2007). However, the juror selected as foreperson does not necessarily exert dispropor- tionate influence on the verdict decision. In fact, the foreperson sometimes con- tributes less to the discussion of the evidence because he or she is preoccupied with procedural issues such as tabulating votes or making sure that all jurors have an opportunity to express their views. The role may be more of moderator and organizer than leader and controlled special influence the foreperson does possess is likely to stem from the ability to determine the order in which other jurors speak and the amount of time each juror is allowed to talk
007).
Although majorities usually prevail, what has been called the leniency bias is also at work in criminal trials. That is, in evenly split or almost evenly split juries, where roughly half the jurors favour guilty on the initial vote and the other half favour not guilty, it is much more likely that the final verdict will be not guilty (MacCoun & Kerr, 1988). Under such conditions, the process of deliberation and the high standard of reasonable doubt seem to favour acquittal. In the deliberation room, jurors who favour acquittal need only to create reasonable doubt, while jurors who favour conviction must find a way to remove nearly all doubt
During the first phase—the orienta- tion stage—juries elect a foreperson, discuss procedures, and raise general issues. At the outset of deliberation, jurors tend to be confused about how to proceed. Some juries take a vote immediately to get a sense of where people stand. Other juries postpone voting and either begin by discussing the issues to be decided or by discussing each witness who testified at trial
30% of juries take a vote shortly after they begin deliberations and then orient their subsequent discussions around the verdict options. This verdict-driven deliberation style of structuring the process tends to encourage jurors to sort the evidence into two categories: supporting con- viction or supporting acquittal. Other juries adopt an evidence-driven delibera- tion style, in which the first vote is postponed until after there has been careful, systematic discussion of the evidence (Levett, Danielsen, Kovera, & Cutler, 2005).
Postponing a vote until after the evidence is discussed appears to pro- duce richer, more probing discussions.
During the second phase—the open conflict stage—differences in opinion among members of the jury become apparent and coalitions may form between members of the group. Often, the tone of the discussion becomes contentious, with each side challenging how others interpret the evidence. Some jurors may even attack the character or integrity of jurors who disagree with them. The process of reaching a verdict through group deliberation is essentially a process of persuasion. (In Canada, the verdict must be a unanimous decision, unlike in the United States, where a majority decision can occur.)
Sometimes jurors are swayed through a process of informational influence: They change their opinions because other jurors make compelling arguments that convince them to alter their vote. At other times, jurors do not really change their private views but they do change their votes in response to normative influence. That is, they give in to group pressure to conform to the majority opinion, even though their view of the case is different (Mason, Conrey, & Smith, 2007). When a strong majority is trying to persuade one or two holdouts to reach a unanimous verdict
final phase—the reconcili- ation stage. During this final phase, attempts may be made to soothe hurt feelings and make everyone feel satisfied with the verdict. Of course, a hung jury—one that cannot reach a unanimous verdict—never makes it to the reconciliation phase.
