Juries and their decision making Flashcards
What is a summary offence?
A low level, less serious crime that goes straight to magistrates court. For example, property damage, road traffic offences.
What is an indictable offence?
High level, very serious crime. If the defendant pleads guilty, a judge sentences. If they plead not guilty, a judge and jury will sentence. For example, rape, murder, drug trafficking.
What is an either way offence?
Magistrates decide if the case is suitable to be heard in the magistrates court.
How does the jury system work in England?
12 jurors, unanimous, majority rule must be at least 10 vs. 2.
Opening statements.
Either way crimes.
Guilty and not guilty.
How does the jury system work in Scotland?
15 jurors, 8 vs. 7 majority is required. Detailed indictment, no choice for defendant. 3 verdict options: guilty, not guilty, not proven.
Talk about how jury selection works in the UK.
Anyone: aged 18-69 years. Must understand English. UK resident for at least 5 years. Not mentally disordered or disqualified.
May be ineligible if juror is known to someone involved in the case or unable to understand proceedings.
Random selection and limited screening.
Talk about jury selection in the USA, what is voir dire?
Voir dire is an extra stage in the selection process (only in the US). This allows certain jurors to be challenged or removed.
2 types of challenge:
- challenge for cause. Lawyer claiming juror will be biased or have specialist knowledge.
- peremptory challenge. If challenge for cause if rejected, the lawyer can dismiss the juror. (Limited amount: 3-25)
Purpose of voir dire is to identify which jurors will be most and least favourable to a particular side. Rely on stereotypes and ‘experts’.
Trial manuals contain advice such as: women are splendid jurors for rape cases and baby cases.
But this method has increasingly less influence.
Think OJ trial!!
What are the techniques of scientific jury selection?
Community survey - demographic profiles estimate of percentage likely to be pro and anti.
Information networks - gathering information from people who have personal knowledge of the juror.
Juror ratings - expressed attitudes and behaviour during voir dire systematically analysed.
Small group research - intended to represent a cross-section of the community, so the demographic characteristics in the focus group should be similar to those of the jury.
Shadow juries - second jury used in case of legal issues. Sit on side line and observe.
Who was considered a favourable juror for the defence in the OJ trial? And why?
Black women were the least likely to convict. Black men and women were receptive to the view that there was racist police corruption - planted evidence.
The prosecution also favoured black women because of OJ’s history of domestic violence.
The final jury was 8 black women, 1 black man, 1 latino man and 2 white women.
Only 2 had college evidence which may explain why they ignored the DNA evidence.
5 reported negative police experience.
5 thought that sometimes physical force is justified.
9 thought OJ was unlikely to be guilty because he was a good footballer.
Trial lasted: 8 months
Deliberation lasted: 4 hours
Verdict - Not Guilty
What reasons were suggested for the not guilty verdict in the OJ trial?
The consultant found that black women took a dislike to Marcia Clarke.
Well-educated jurors would have been more likely to trust DNA evidence.
So, scientific method can be flawed in terms of effectiveness. Ethics - the process is deceptive. It makes a spectacle of the trial.
Why is voir dire good for the defendant?
Jurors could be chosen who will be more likely to think the defendant is innocent.
Random selection leaves the defendant open to ignorance, racism and many other biases.
What are some methods of jury research? (Field studies)
ARCHIVAL STUDIES OF JURY CASE OUTCOMES
Strengths - lots of data and it is real.
Weaknesses - no control over variables, causality issues, desirability and confirmation bias.
SHADOW JURIES
Strengths - real world stimulus materials, can observe deliberation.
Weaknesses - small samples, cost and time concerns, causality issues, confounding variables.
JUDGE-JURY AGREEMENT STUDIES
Strengths - realism! Genuine cases.
Weaknesses - do not reflect on individual opinions, judge’s opinion is not necessarily true.
POST TRIAL INTERVIEW WITH JURORS (US ONLY)
Strengths - genuine jurors who have sat through process
Weaknesses - jurors talk about feelings not facts. May not be truthful.
What do lab simulation studies or juries involve?
Jurors as individuals. They do a jury deliberation. Brief written, audio, video scenarios (with manipulations). Juries assess testimonial credibility, defendant culpability and deliberate and deliver verdicts. Good control over variables but difficulties with realism.
Juror motivation is a problem as there is nothing at stake.
What is pre-trial publicity and why is it a problem?
Jurors may be made aware of the case before they’re called to be a juror. Can be influenced by the media coverage. Brewer (2000) found people are more likely to find someone guilty if pre-trial publicity indicates they might be but Fein (1997) found that if p-t publicity mentions race, jurors ignore it as racist.
Legal concerns: e.g. OJ, Ian Huntley, Fred West.
Substantial likelihood of prejudice. Local and national implications.
Psychological concerns: may cause jurors to be prejudiced. Social judgments based on connections, impressions, interpretations and memories.
Jurors actively process the evidence as it emerges in a way that makes sense to them.
Provide some research on pre-trial publicity.
A meta-analysis by Steblay et al. (1999) found most studies support prejudicial effect of negative pre-trial publicity on prosecution verdicts by potential juror samples.
Brewer (2000) found people are more likely to find someone guilty if pre-trial publicity indicates they might be.
Fein (1997) found that if pre-trial publicity mentions race, jurors ignore it as racist.
Give a case study for pre-trial publicity.
Oklahoma Bombing - (Studebaker et al., 2000)
168 dead
600+ injured
939 articles locally
307 pictures
Content analysis = more statements on emotion and community impact
Increased knowledge of bombing = stronger emotional responses, negative impressions of defendant
What are the problems with pre-trial publicity studies?
Usually student participants
Usually small delay between p-t-p and trial
Group deliberations are under represented
P-t-p presented via video media is underrepresented
What happened in the Oscar Pistorious case?
Feb 2013. Reeva Steenkamp shot and killed at home.
Pistorious admitted shooting her but said he thought he was an intruder.
Trial broadcast live.
No jury.
P-T-P exceeded any other previous court case.
Extent of publicity is believed to have massively influenced the case and outcome.
Deemed as one of the most watched, most tweeted and hyped murder trials in history.
Verdict = guilty of manslaughter and firearms charge
Acquitted of 2 murder and 2 firearms charges.
Research has provided cues for some possible characteristics thought to predict verdict, what are these?
Age, education, income do not predict (Hans, 1992). Weak results for gender in sex abuse/harrassment. Men talk more than women during deliberation (Rose et al., 2006).
Weak evidence for locus of control, belief in a just world, authoritarianism.
What is the similarity-leniency hypothesis?
The notion that when jurors are similar to the defendant, they are less likely to convict.
Kerr et al., (1995) varied race of defendant/jurors and strength of evidence. If evidence weak or moderate, racially similar jurors less likely to convict. BUT! Boomerang effect. Similar jurors occasionally harsher (‘black sheep’ effect, threat to positive image). Especially when evidence is strong, especially when in a minority group.
Why? Because they wish to maintain a favourable view of their own group.
What was the effect on the verdict when defendants had previous convictions?
Lloyd-Bostock (1996/2000)
77% of defendants have previous convictions (Zander & Henderson, 1993)
When they had a similar previous conviction, consistently found to increase guilty verdicts.
When they had a dissimilar previous conviction, this can work to produce a favourable effect (Wissler & Saks, 1985)
What is inadmissible evidence?
Evidence presented at trial must be:
- relevant
- have probative value
Jurors often told to ignore inadmissible evidence.
The ‘white bear’ phenomenon? (Wenger, 1994)
Reactance theory (Brehm & Brehm, 1981) predicts that jurors may give the information extra weight than they would have otherwise.
Deliberation can help to reduce the biasing impact of inadmissible evidence.
Discuss some other evidence issues, besides inadmissible evidence.
If content or expert testimony is especially difficult or complex, jurors may rely on peripheral cues.
Alibi evidence plays a role. Culhane and Hosch (2004) demonstrated this. Most guilty verdicts occurred when people had no alibi, pps were not confident.
Least guilty verdicts occurred when there was an alibi from neighbour, most confident.
Alibi from girlfriend - somewhere in the middle.
Strength of evidence matters. Juries can be swayed by a confident witness and consistent evidence. Especially an “expert”.
Why is it difficult to research juries?
Contempt law prohibits access to real groups.
Actual deliberations occur in private.
Limited research on simulated group decisions due to methodological difficulties.
