Juries Flashcards
torts
civil cases claims of harm
civil vs criminal juries
criminal - 12 ppl
civil - 6-8, unanimous decision not needed
types of offenses in canada
- summary offenses
- >6 months in prison and fine >$2000
- max 18 months
- tried by judge alone - no right to jury - indictable offenses
a. less serious… theft, obtaining $/property under false pretenses, failure to comply with probation order
- Judge
b. highly serious -treason, murder, piracy
- judge and jury unless both attorney general and accused agree can be judge alone
c. arson, sexual assault with a weapon, etc.
- tried by provincial judge without jury and preliminary inquiry
- preliminary inquiry and judge only
- preliminary inquiry and judge and jury - hybrid offenses
- crown choices if summary offense or indictable (max 5 years)
Juries act
Provincial and territorial legislation that outlines the eligibility criteria for jury service and how prospective jurors must be selected
- no criminal record, lawyers/ judges, BC used to be no dentists
Jury summons
court order stating time and location for jury duty
Potential juror challenges
peremptory
- crown or defense 12 each (20 for murder)
- do not need to provide reason for rejection
- now banned in Canada
For Cause
- lawyer must give reason
R v. Sherratt
jury characteristics
- representativeness
- represents community where committed crime
- r v. Nepoose - Impartiality
- unbiased
- ignore non admissible evidence like media etc
- R. v. Guess
R v. Nepoose
defendant was woman and aboriginal and not enough women on jury = representativeness
R v. Guess
one of 12 jurors and defendant started sexual relationship- charged with obstruction of justice = impartiality
Improve impartiality
threats from pre- trial publicity (more negative = more guilty verdicts and vice versa)
- media ban
- change of venue (same province) ex Andrew Berry trial
- adjournment - delay till sometime in future - risks witness memory and jorden legislature - timeline
- challenge for cause
Aboriginal jurors
under represented
if living on reserves not part of municipal assessment lists of potential jurors in Ontario
- increase by using heath record databases, and allowing them to volunteer
R v. Brown
racially biased jury with 2 white defendants raping aboriginal girl
- all white jury = not guilty
R v. Find
judge rejected proposal for challenge for cause
R v. Davey
jury panel released early and both crown and defense asked police officers opinions
- no requirement for info from police to be disclosed
- early jury panel release list had no impact on fairness
- privacy of prospective jurors not breached
- no change in jury had the comments been disclosed
Andrew Berry
change of venue from small town after murdering his children
Kelly Ellard
change of venue from Victoria to Vancouver
R v. McLeod
challenge for cause for trial of 2 black men
challenge for cause issues
- done in open court - hear which answers get into/ out of jury
- not honest if in open court
- must be aware of their biases
Jury Nullification
when jury ignores law and evidence, rendering verdict based on something else
chaos theory
when jurors are guided by their emotions and personal biases rather than the law, chaos in judgement results
Henry Morgentaler
performed illegal abortions jury found not guilty each time jury nullification courts overturned conviction Morgentaler amendment - jury verdict can no longer be overturned by appeal
R v. Latimer
ended daughters life that was in severe pain mental capacity of 4 month old
- 2nd degree murder (10 yr min) but jury recommended one year before parole
overturned
jury nullification
researching juries
post trial interviews (not in Canada)
- high eternal validity, unreliable?
archives
-high external validity, cant establish cause and effect
stimulation / mock jury
- high internal validity, limited external validity
field studies
- high external validity, approval difficult, confounding factors
Deliberation
jury members discuss evidence privately among themselves to reach a verdict that is provided to the court
Note taking
Penrod and Heuer
- memory aid that does not produce distorted view
- can keep up with evidence
- accurate record of trial
R v. Andrade
disadvantages to note taking
- may expert influence on other jurors
- jurors rely on note takers to clarify
disputed by Penrod and Heuer
Inadmissible evidence
kassin and Sommers
- jurors will disregard when provided with logical and legitimate reason for judges decision to disregard
Backfire effect- when judges instruction to disregard evidence makes it more memorable
polarization
individuals become more extreme in initial position following group discussion
leniency bias
jurors move towards greater leniency during deliberations
hung jury
jury cannot reach unanimous verdict
styles for verdicts in juries
verdict driven
- start deliberation by taking initial poll
evidence driven
- discuss evidence first then poll much later
juror demographic variables
gender - sexual assaults’ trials
race - racial bias: disparate treatment of racial out groups
- black sheep effect - when evidence is strong= similarity btw defendant and jury leads to punitiveness, when evidence is weak = more lenient
juror personality traits
dogmatism and authoritarianism prefer conviction
Gunnell and Ceci
- CEST
- R- processers (rational) vs E- processers (emotional)
- E- processers more susceptible to extralegal factors
juror attitudes
rape myths - feminists regardless of gender more likely to convict
capital punishment - beliefs in capital punishment affect decisions to convict
defendant characteristics
criminal history - more convictions = more likely to convict
attractiveness - more lenient if attractive - Jeremy Meeks
gender - male = higher guilt ratings
R v. Darrach
rape shield upheld in court
- on defendant to demonstrate if accuser’s sexual history is relevant to the case before can be allowed
