Courts and Psychology Flashcards
Juries in Victoria
Juries in Victoria are based on the Juries Act 2000 which attempts to ensure that the system of trial by jury:
- Equitably spreads the obligation of jury service among the community (making sure no one is overworked). This is done with random processes/sampling
- Ensures juries are representative of the community. No approach to the exclusion of groups.
- Permits the timely adoption of new technologies for the selection of persons for jury service.
Jury Selection: Legal Standard
The selection process revolves around making sure that jurors don’t employ extra-evidential factors in their decisions.
Jury Selection Process
To assemble a representative cross-section of the community and ensure that any pre-existing biases or prejudices do not impact their ability to fairly assess the evidence.
- Identification of Eligible Jurors – taken from a defined source (e.g., medical card, national number, electoral roll)
- Confirmation of Eligibility – completion of an online questionnaire (includes information that may exclude one from service) e.g. are you an Australian citizen?
- Summons - a directive to appear at a specific courthouse on a specific date. Those summoned form the jury pool.
- Selection of the Venire – random selection of a group of individuals who form the group that the jury will be selected from
- Excuses from service- any individuals who believe they are unable to serve due to either undue hardship or potential bias can ask the judge to be excused (serves as the challenge for cause component and is based on self-identification)
- Empanelment and peremptory challenges - the names of remaining people in the venire are called randomly. They walk in front of the accused and toward the jury box. If they do not hear “challenge” or “stand-aside” they are seated if they are challenged, then they leave the courtroom. Basically, they just have to walk towards the jury box and if nothing is said before they sit down then they become jury one. If when they’re walking, and they call challenge or stand aside then you’re done. all jurisdictions are the same steps in the us, canada, Australia but for 6. in the US they let you get a whole lot of info on them where aus they only get they’re name and employment.
- Affirmation – once 12 (or 15) jurors are selected they take an oath to carry out their task faithfully, impartially, and to decide on a verdict according to the evidence
Empanelment and peremptory challenges
the names of remaining people in the venire are called randomly. They walk in front of the accused and toward the jury box. If they do not hear “challenge” or “stand-aside” they are seated if they are challenged, then they leave the courtroom. Basically, they just have to walk towards the jury box and if nothing is said before they sit down then they become jury one. If when they’re walking, and they call challenge or stand aside then you’re done. all jurisdictions are the same steps in the us, canada, Australia but for 6. in the US they let you get a whole lot of info on them where aus they only get they’re name and employment.
US Model
Differences?
Main difference revolves around the assumption in the US that potential jurors cannot or will not identify their biases and that this may result in an inability to impartially assess the evidence.
Challenge for cause
removing a juror based on proof or demonstration of a bias that would limit their ability to be objective
Peremptory challenges
removal juror with no basis for dismissal required (limited number) 3 if one accused, 2 if more than 1
Sources of info on Jurors
Pretrial:
- Pre-trial questionnaire
- Investigative reports
- Public information
- Social Media
Trial:
- Judges questions
- Attorneys questions
- Observation (inside the
courtroom and outside)Head vs. Heart Strategy
Psychology can help us understand how to put evidence together in a way that the jurors react to. This is demonstrated in the the head vs. Heart strategy found in topic 6 - courts and psychology. One of the first decisions attorneys make is whether they will aim evidence at the jurors head (cognitive) or heart (emotional). This is based on 4 variables:
- Trier of fact – this will either be a magistrate or a jury. Cognitive approach is most often selected when the judge is the trier of fact. In cases of a jury, either approach may be effective.
- Level of emotional content in trial – suggested that the higher level of emotional content (e.g. children, vulnerable individuals, vivid impact) the more likely an emotional presentation will be successful
- Jury demographic – suggested that the composition of the jury may dictate the approach (e.g. business professionals, front-line human service providers = cognitive. Social work, teachers = emotional)
- Defendant/victim appeal – suggested that less appealing individuals may indicate that a cognitive approach is better suited. This one is really important.
Trait theory
Revolves around the belief that, like everyone, jurors have certain personality traits and that these traits have a connection to the decisions the jurors might make. Traits include:
- Authoritarianism: defined as one’s level of belief in obedience to authority and is correlated with conservatism. Important with regard to degree to which they will “follow” the instructions of the judge. Generally assessed by the F-scale. Sometimes you want people who will reject and question the experts, but this is not authoritarianism. High authoritarianism will listen to everything the expert witness says.
- Introversion/extroversion: suggested that introverted jurors are more likely to conform with the majority during deliberations and that extroverted jurors are more likely to have an impact on deliberations (including selection of foreperson)
- Need for cognition: suggests that those with a need to analyse information may be better suited to a cognitive trial strategy
- 16 PF (personality factors): suggested that information regarding 16 PF traits may be employed to select jurors.
Attitude components of jurors
- Attitude strength (potency): suggests that the stronger an attitude the more resistant it will be to change. Looking for jurors who have weaker negative attitudes.
- Attitude accessibility- suggests that some attitudes are more easily accessed (and subsequently employed) than other attitudes.
- Attitude relevance- suggest that an attitude is only “triggered” if it is perceived as relevant to the current situation.
Preference is to select jurors with existing attitudes that are in line with the proposed narrative rather than to try and change attitudes of jurors.
Attributions of causality
- Attribution- the process of assigning cause to out own behaviour (as well as related cognitions, feelings, etc.) and that of others (e.g. actor/observer bias)
- Based on:
o The tendency to be naïve psychologists (i.e. the need to know why)
o A psychological need for organisation and meaning (e.g. grouping principles – perception)
o An understanding of attribution biases - Primary attribution (heider): when deciding om the cause for the behaviour of others who we do not know very well, we have a tendency to make an immediate dispositional (is it me) or situational (is it you) judgement.
- Fundamental attribution error: when deciding on the cause for the negative behaviour of others (especially those who we do not know well), we have a tendency to over-emphasize dispositional factors and under-emphasise situational factors.
- Actor/observer bias – when deciding on the cause for the behaviour of ourselves and others, we have the tendency to view our negative behaviour as situational and out positive behaviours as dispositional while we reverse it for other people.
Attorney Tactics
- Vivid language: the inclusion of vivid language is based on the input bias from the social cognition model and suggests that jurors will give more cognitive weight to vivid information (e.g. he LUNGED at me vs. he came toward me)
- Repetition: based on cognitive and social psychology principles. The things you want the jury to know you say over and over, and they stuff you don’t want them to say, you say it once in the middle of the trial.
- Loaded questions: based on cognitive psychology principles and suggests that one may be able to subtly “implant” a particular concept in a person through the phrasing of a question (e.g. “did you see the broken window when you walked in the store – indicates that the window was broken).
- Subtle shifts in wording: based on cognitive social psychology principles and employed to subtly impact the meaning for a sequence of events
- Definitional tactics: words and/or images employed by attorneys to “assist” jurors with how to define ambiguous concepts (e.g. not guilty question, beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Establishing or disrupting the connections or the story being told: employed to assist jurors to see a smooth narrative in a witness’s story or across the evidence OR to disrupt the smoothness of the story.
