Courts IV and Conclusion

Question 1

Pennington and Hasties (1986) story model

Answer 1

• Story construction,
• Verdict representation and
• Story classification.

Question 2

Story construction

Answer 2

• This is where jurors actively make sense of trial information and shape it into a coherent account.
• When several stories are constructed, one is picked as most acceptable based on three principles:
  
  • Coverage- Degree to which a story accounts for trial information.
  • Coherence- Degree to which it is consistent with trial and outside knowledge.
  • Completeness- Degree to which it has all its parts.

Question 3

Story construction three principles

Answer 3

• Coverage- Degree to which a story accounts for trial information.
• Coherence- Degree to which it is consistent with trial and outside knowledge.
  Completeness- Degree to which it has all its parts.

Question 4

Verdict representation

Answer 4

• This stage occurs when jurors are presented with alternative verdict decisions.
• These are derived from judges instructions on law, but can be influenced by prior knowledge.

Question 5

Story classification

Answer 5

• During this stage jurors consider judges procedural instructions (e.g., presumption of innocence, requirement for proof)
• Then they seek the best match between the accepted story and alternative verdict decisions.

Question 6

Pre-decisional distortion (Carlson & Russo, 2001)

Answer 6

• Jurors hold a single dominant story that best accounts for trial information.
• The dominant story leads to biased interpretations and evaluations of new evidence to support the current leading verdict or dominant story.

Question 7

Source monitoring errors (Johnson et al., 1993)

Answer 7

• Source monitoring refers to the decision processes associated with determining the origins of information.
• Source monitoring errors involve the misattribution of certain information to a different source.

Question 8

External source monitoring errors

Answer 8

Errors in the attribution of externally retrieved sources (e.g., attributing a statement made by one person to another).

Question 9

internal source monitoring errors

Answer 9

Errors in the attribution of internally retrieved sources (e.g., attributing what they thought to what was actually said at the time).

Question 10

Internal-external, external-internal.

Answer 10

Errors in the attribution of internal retrieved sources to externally retrieved sources or vice versa
-e.g., Jurors mistakenly identifying information that has not been formally admitted into evidence as being derived from the trial.

Question 11

Three stages of deliberation

Answer 11

1. Orientation.
   
   • Jurors discuss procedures and raise general trial issues
2. Open conflict.
   
   • Jurors attempt to persuade their fellow jurors to reach a verdict
3. Reconciliation.
   
   • Juries attempt to ensure that each juror is satisfied with the verdict

Question 12

Three stages of deliberation - orientation

Answer 12

• Jurors discuss procedures and raise general trial issues

Question 13

Three stages of deliberation - open conflict

Answer 13

• Jurors attempt to persuade their fellow jurors to reach a verdict

Question 14

Three stages of deliberation reconciliation

Answer 14

• Juries attempt to ensure that each juror is satisfied with the verdict

Question 15

Verdict driven.

Answer 15

• Comprise about 30% of juries who take a vote = straw poll.
• Orient deliberation around initial vote, sorting evidence into categories in support of their respective positions.
• Generally advocate one verdict at a time and take frequent votes to monitor opinion.

Question 16

Evidence driven.

Answer 16

• Comprise about 70% of juries.
• Discuss different verdicts until they have thoroughly reviewed the evidence.
• Individual jurors may relate testimony to alternative verdict decisions at one time.
• Take a vote once they have agreed upon the best story accounting for all of the evidence.

Question 17

evidence vs verdict driven

Answer 17

• Evidence driven juries are more vigorous in their examination of the evidence.
• Verdict driven juries reach decisions faster, rate their task as less serious and feel less satisfied with their contribution.