Final Study Guide Flashcards
Batson v. Kentucky (1986)
NO exclusions based on RACE
cognizable group
J.E.B. v. Alabama (1994)
No exclusions based on GENDER
cognizable group
Harrisburg Seven (1978)
Def. were antiwar activists
->consultant to get sympathetic jury
Based on data: Ideal prosecution juror -rep. businessman -religious (presbyterian, methodist, fund. Christian) -active in local civil org.
Ideal defense juror
- femal
- democrat
- no religious preference
- white-collar to skilled blue-collar
Mistrial, not retried
People v. O.J. Simpson
Both pros. & defense hired consultants
Pros
- about race
- > prosector disagreed, though ideal would be female and black women best
Defense
- about race
- > want as many black (and other minorities) as possible
Jury comp: 1 black male 1 hispanic male 2 white women 8 black women
pros: 10 women
def: 10 minorities
Not guilty
Women on jury didn’t like Pros
Furman v. Georgia (1972)
Imp. death penalty decisions
CA Supreme Court- death penalty cruel and unusual (applied at random)
Gregg v. Georgia (1977)
Imp. death penalty decisions
Leg. re-enacts death penalty
- two-phase (bifurcated) system
1. guilty phase
2. penalty phase (sentencing)
Ford v. Wainworth (1986)
Mentally ill & death penalty
- convicted of murder
- paranoid schizophrenic
- trans. to state mental institution (after receiving death sentence)
Atkins v. Virginia (2002)
Mentally ill & death penalty
US Supreme Court – ban execution of mentally ill CHALLENGED
- cruel & unusual (8th Amend)
- determine? refers to typical IQ test, but up to states to decide how to define mental disabilities
- –> Flynn effect - IQ test scores increase over time gain ~.3 per yr.
Roper v. Simmons (2005)
Juveniles & death penalty
US Supreme Court bans execution of juvi.
- juvi. at time of crime
- since 1973, 22 executed who were minors at the time
- > court cited clear distinction between adolescence & adulthood at 18 yrs (PFC)
Graham v. FL (2010)
Juveniles & death penalty
Punishment of minors:
US Supreme Court – minors cannot be given life w/o parole EXCEPT in case of MURDER
Miller v. Alabama (2012)
Juveniles & death penalty
Punishment of minors:
US Supreme Court – rejects life w/o parole for ALL JUVI
Venire
“Cause to come”
Pool of prospective jurors are drawn from an eligible pop
Drawing jury pool
- voter registration (primary means)
- list of licensed drivers
- state-issued ID cards
- persons receiving public assistance
- unemployment lists
Exclusions and exemptions
- ppl ignore summons (~20%)
- don’t respond to questionnaires
- legal exclusions
- > visual or hearing impaired
- > felons
- > non-english speakers
- > non-citizens
- personal hardships
- > one day or one-trial
Voir Dire
“to speak truth”
Jurors are asked questions and dismissed
6th Amend right to “fair and impartial” jury
- defendant can screen prospective jurors to DETERMINE if they are PREJUDICED
- > lawyers & judges may ask jurors questions in an ATTEMPT TO SCREEN them
Lawyers may use to make a point
- public commitment -> more likely yo actually follow through
- in eye witness case- “ever seen though knew, but was wrong?”
Challenges for cause
- either side (or judge) can CLAIM certain jurors should be EXCUSED FOR CAUSE (e.g., biased)
- in theory, no limit
Peremptory challenges
- each side can EXCLUDE a DESIGNATED # of jurors W/O CAUSE cited
- DEFENSE tends to get MORE in criminal trials
Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968
Pre-1968 juries:
Middle aged, white males
1966- exclude women because they are women
Act: Jury selection -uniform criteria for selection -broad cross-section of community -increase diversity (many benefits) -representativeness (race, gender, age, SES, sexual orientation, religion)
Benefits of diversity jury
- Heterogeneous juries would be better fact finders and problem solvers
- More likely to include minority group members, who might DISCOURAGE majority group PREJUDICE
More diverse juries (Sommers)
- deliberate longer
- more likely to discuss racially charged topics
- discuss more of the evidence presented at trial
- make fewer inaccurate statements about facts of case
Presence of dissimilar others causes jurors to process trial evidence more thoroughly
Representativeness
*Rep. of juries leads to the APPEARANCE of legit
LACK of rep. can lead to rejection of both criminal justice process and its outcomes
EXAMPLE
Rodney King Trial -> L.A. Riots
Jury selections strategies
Predict how a person will lean before trial by
1. Demo. characteristics (may employ stereotypes)
- Individual juror personality (implicit personality test do NOT reliably PREDICT jury verdicts)
- >internal/external locus of control (MORE likely to CONVICT)
- >authoritarianism (punish those who do NOT conform to society; MORE likely to CONVICT; longer sentences, but NOT when def. is authority!)
- >belief in a “just world” (ppl get what they deserve) - Group status (in-group vs. out-group effects)
Similarity-Leniency Hyp.
-WEAK evidence
-jurors who demo. or socially SIMILAR to def. might be more SYMPATHETIC
-if not in in-group; harsher
Black Sheep Effect
- STRONG evidence
- those who SHARE QUALITIES may be SKEPTICAL of def.’s excuses or justifications
- want to DISTANCE SELF
- if in in-group; harsher
Scientific Jury Selection: Trial consulting -expensive (favors rich) -community surveys (rep. of jury pool) ->attitudes, beliefs, personal habits -focus groups -mock trials -voir dire -opening and closing arguments
Factors that can bias jury
Pretrial publicity:
- neg. publicity -> guilty
- > change of venue (more difficult today)
Defendant characteristics:
- how badly def. has already suffered from crime
- > more lenient if badly injured (e.g., victim injured them)
- moral character of def. & vic.
- > more lenient if drug dealer robs another
- > can also be related to ethnicity
Inadmissible evidence:
-jurors consider whether it’s fair to hear evidence
Complex evidence:
-credentials of expert witness become imp. when evidence is complex
Integrating evidence
Mathematically based
- assign each piece of evidence a WEIGHT
- > e.g., DNA strong, so 80%; bad video light, so 5%
- each weight REFLECTS imp., credibility of witness, reliability of evidence, etc.
- guilty verdict if total exceeds standard of proof (e.g., beyond reasonable doubt)
Explanation based
- story model
- > assimilation of evidence into a coherent narrative
- > comprehension of judge’s instructions regarding legal verdict alternatives
Jury size
U.S. Supreme - min. 6 req. to be fair (Williams v. FL; Ballew v. Georgia)
12 better than 6
- deliberate longer
- recall evidence more accurately
- generally more arguments
- more representative
- less likely to lead to conformity pressures
