Juries Flashcards
The right to a fair trial
Enshrined in the Charter Section 7 and 11(d)
The right to a trial by jury
In criminal cases involving indictable offenses - defined by Charter Section 11(f)
-Where the max punishment for the offence is imprisonment for 5 yrs or more severe punishment
Jury Selection: the process
Juror impaneling process in Canada (s.631)
- Each juror’s name and address written on a card.
- Cards given to the Sheriff.
- Sheriff mixes up cards and gives them to the clerk of the court.
- Clerk draws the cards out randomly until a sufficient number have been drawn to provide a full jury after allowing for challenges.
- Each member of the panel is sworn.
Challenge for cause
- (1) A prosecutor or an accused is entitled to any number of challenges on the ground that:
(a) the name of a juror does not appear on the panel…;
(b) a juror is not indifferent between the Queen and the accused;
(c) a juror has been convicted of an offence for which he was sentenced to death or to a term of imprisonment exceeding 12 months;
(d) a juror is an alien;
(e) a juror is physically unable to perform properly the duties of a juror; or
(f) a juror does not speak the official language of Canada that is the language of the accused …
2 types of challenges to reject juror
Challenge for cause:
If concern about biased jury pool
-May be able to ask a few Q’s of potential jurors
Re: opinions and attitudes
Fellow jurors make judgment of partiality
Peremptory challenge:
CCC S. 634
Don’t have to give a reason
Jury functions
Charter is meaningless without
Impartiality: jurors who are unbiased
Representativeness: Jury that is a composition that represents the community where the crime occured
Keeping jurors impartial
Change of venue: move a trial to a community other than the one in which the crime occurred
Adjournment: Delaying the trial
Challenge for cause: reject biased jurors
Others:
Oath, Warnings
Assumptions about Jury Capabilities
Jurors follow judicial instructions
Jurors can suspend judgment
Jurors do not succumb to group pressure
Tabula Rasa
Evidentiary focus
Jury Nullification
Occurs when a jury ignores the law and renders a verdict based on other criteria
Judges instructions: proposed reforms
4 suggested reforms: Rewriting instructions Providing written instructions Pre- and post-evidence instructions Lawyer clarification
Tabula Rasa
Assumption:
Jurors enter trials as a passive “blank slate,” without biases, preconceived notions about the outcome of the trial, etc.
Reality: Every individual is influenced to some extent by his or her attitudes, beliefs, and especially experiences
Evidentiary Focus
Assumption:
Jurors are able to base their decision solely upon the evidence presented during trial
Reality: Pre-trial publicity, extra-legal factors, inadmissible evidence–all can influence decision making
How we Study Jurors/Jury Behaviour
Archival records: External validity is high but difficult to pinpoint cause-and-effect relationships
Simulation techniques: high internal validity and ability to pinpoint cause-and-effect relationships
Field studies: High external validity
Post-trial interviews: high external validity
Rationales for Jury Secrecy:
- Protecting the finality of verdicts
- Protecting freedom of debate in the deliberation room
- Protecting jurors from harassment
- Protection of public confidence in the jury system
deliberation
When jury members discuss the (admissible) evidence to reach a verdict, based on their understanding of the evidence, that is then provided to the court
Inadmissible Evidence
During trials, lawyers or witnesses may make inadmissible statements
Juries instructed to disregard, but…
Unwilling/unable to set aside information that appears relevant regardless of law (Devine et al., 2001)
Instruction actually makes it MORE memorable (Paglia & Schuller, 1998)
-Backfire effect
Decision-Making Models
Explanatory
Mathematical
Mathematical Models
Assumes jurors conduct a set of mental calculations regarding:
- importance of evidence
- strength of the evidence presented (Hastie, 1993)
Verdict = calculation of all relevant evidence
*Research indicates jurors do not put a value to each piece of evidence (Ellsworth & Mauro, 1998)
Therefore, may be inconsistent with how juries actually make decisions
Explanatory Models
Suggests evidence is organized into a coherent whole
E.g., Story Model
Involves imposing a story structure to the evidence
Choose verdict that is most consistent with story they have created
Research indicates this is more consistent with how jurors make their decisions (Pennington & Hastie, 1988)
Decision-making phenomena associated with deliberation:
Polarization:
When individuals tend to become more extreme in their initial position following a group discussion
Leniency Bias:
When jurors move toward greater leniency during deliberations
Predicting Verdicts: variables studied list
Demographic Personality traits Attitudes Defendant characteristics Victim characteristics Expert Testimony
Demographic Variables
Gender, rase, socioeconomic status, and education are examined
Where found, effects are small and/or moderated by other variables
E.g., jury instructions, participant demographics, strength of evidence
Similarity Bias:
More lenient on persons more ‘like’ ourselves
More punitive towards persons less ‘like’ ourselves
Racial Bias & Black sheep effect
Racial Bias:
Disparate treatment of racial out-groups;
Black sheep effect
Strong evidence + similarity = punitiveness
Weak evidence + similarity = leniency
Personality Traits
& THE BIG 5
2 personality commonly studied: (pro prosecution bias)
Authoritarianism
Dogmatism
Big 5: Extroversion -Most persuasive Agreeableness -Conscientiousness -More likely to be persuaded by other jurors Emotional Stability Openness to Experience Least likely to be persuaded
Attitudes and jurors
Variety of general attitudes studied: Rape Drunk driving Child sexual abuse Capital punishment
In general, no group attitudes/values shows clear bias
Defendant Characteristics that influence verdict
Defendant characteristics that influence verdict are:
Criminal history :
-Evidence regarding prior criminal record more likely to convict
Attractiveness of the defendant:
More attractive defendant less likely to convict
May not apply if deliberations present
Socioeconomic Status (SES) -Similarity bias
Victim Characteristics in verdict influence
Similarity Bias
Victim characteristics more relevant in sexual assault cases
-Sexual intercourse in past year, jurors more likely to doubt victim’s credibility and find her blameworthy (Schuller & Hastings, 2002).
rape shield laws
enacted in 1985
Protect victims from being questioned about sexual history
In 1992, laws amended allowing trial judge to decide if sexual history relevant
In 2000, Supreme Court ruled that onus is on defendant to show sexual history relevant (R. v. Darrach, 2000)
Judges vs. Juries
Judge trial may be less formal:
E.g., may not insist on strict adherence to courtroom procedural rules and rules of evidence
Can reasonably expect judge to ignore inflammatory, irrelevant, or other inadmissible evidence
- BUT still subject to same biases
- AND jury may be more sympathetic than a judge
Lawyer folk wisdom to choose:
Jury if a case has emotional appeal
Judge if a case is complex and based on technical legal questions
