Juries and their decision making

Question 1

What is a summary offence?

Answer 1

A low level, less serious crime that goes straight to magistrates court. For example, property damage, road traffic offences.

Question 2

What is an indictable offence?

Answer 2

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.

Question 3

What is an either way offence?

Answer 3

Magistrates decide if the case is suitable to be heard in the magistrates court.

Question 4

How does the jury system work in England?

Answer 4

12 jurors, unanimous, majority rule must be at least 10 vs. 2.
Opening statements.
Either way crimes.
Guilty and not guilty.

Question 5

How does the jury system work in Scotland?

Answer 5

15 jurors, 8 vs. 7 majority is required. Detailed indictment, no choice for defendant. 3 verdict options: guilty, not guilty, not proven.

Question 6

Talk about how jury selection works in the UK.

Answer 6

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.

Question 7

Talk about jury selection in the USA, what is voir dire?

Answer 7

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!!

Question 8

What are the techniques of scientific jury selection?

Answer 8

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.

Question 9

Who was considered a favourable juror for the defence in the OJ trial? And why?

Answer 9

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

Question 10

What reasons were suggested for the not guilty verdict in the OJ trial?

Answer 10

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.

Question 11

Why is voir dire good for the defendant?

Answer 11

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.

Question 12

What are some methods of jury research? (Field studies)

Answer 12

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.

Question 13

What do lab simulation studies or juries involve?

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

What is pre-trial publicity and why is it a problem?

Answer 14

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.

Question 15

Provide some research on pre-trial publicity.

Answer 15

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.

Question 16

Give a case study for pre-trial publicity.

Answer 16

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

Question 17

What are the problems with pre-trial publicity studies?

Answer 17

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

Question 18

What happened in the Oscar Pistorious case?

Answer 18

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.

Question 19

Research has provided cues for some possible characteristics thought to predict verdict, what are these?

Answer 19

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.

Question 20

What is the similarity-leniency hypothesis?

Answer 20

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.

Question 21

What was the effect on the verdict when defendants had previous convictions?

Answer 21

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)

Question 22

What is inadmissible evidence?

Answer 22

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.

Question 23

Discuss some other evidence issues, besides inadmissible evidence.

Answer 23

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”.

Question 24

Why is it difficult to research juries?

Answer 24

Contempt law prohibits access to real groups.

Actual deliberations occur in private.

Limited research on simulated group decisions due to methodological difficulties.

Question 25

Describe the Chicago Jury Project (Kalven & Zeizel, 1966).

Answer 25

It set the agenda for future jury research. Compared verdicts by jurors and judges.

Agreement - 75%
Juries more severe - 2%
Juries more lenient - 17%
Of 1,083 jury acquittals, judges would have convicted 57%.

Taped deliberations led to research ban,

Eisenberg et al. (2005) replicated and found similar results.

Question 26

Why do judges and jurors disagree?

Answer 26

Juries convict with less evidence, they judge the defendant more than the case.

Judges convict with more evidence.

Question 27

What are the types of deliberation?

Answer 27

Verdict-driven deliberation.
The deliberation starts with an initial verdict poll. Dominated by statements of verdict preference. Involves fewer speaking pps.

Evidence-driven deliberation.
Start by discussing evidence. Later do a ballot of verdicts. Emphasises group story constructions. Seeks to produce collective representation.

Question 28

Discuss ‘12 angry men’ and what is has to do with deliberations.

Answer 28

12 ‘good men and true’ convene in a jury room with murder on their minds and a life on their hands as they decide the fate of a young delinquent accused of killing his father. Their prejudices and ideas cause tension amongst the group.

‘Can one lone juror, through logic and perseverance, change the minds of 11 other jurors?’

Question 29

Does jury size matter?

Answer 29

Waller et al. (2011) looked at social/group dynamics.

Mock jury. 120 UG students. 40 minute video.

Small groups (3 x 4) or normal jury seating (12)

In small groups there was more contribution, less inhibition, but equal agreement.

Question 30

Can persuasion go on in the jury room?

Answer 30

Yes. There has been evidence of social and normative influence.

Group thinking occurs.

Conformity. Might is right. Illusion of morality. Close-mindedness.

Group polarisation.

Minority influence (Moscovici, 1969, 1985)

Question 31

What are some of the difficulties juries face that affects their performance?

Answer 31

Difficulty comprehending:

• scientific, technical and statistical evidence (e.g. OJ trial DNA)
• expert evidence
• judicial legal questions
• complex legal instructions

Question 32

How could jury instructions be enhanced?

Answer 32

Legal instructions may be complex and confusing. Legal instructions may ask jurors to disregard common sense. Written in “legalese”. Presented orally.

Recommendations:

GIVE WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS. Research demonstrates improved understanding, assisted recall, jurors more efficient and satisfied, higher quality deliberations, reduced juror passivity.

TIMING OF INSTRUCTIONS. Potential benefits of earlier instructions, improved recall of evidence, reduction of bias and less reliance on stereotypes. Reduced confusion.

Question 33

Is a pre-deliberation discussion appropriate?

Answer 33

Privileged once-off access to taped deliberation of actual civil juries. Videotaped jury interactions in 50 trials.

Helpful to jurors.

No strong evidence of detrimental effects.

Question 34

What does jury research really say?

Answer 34

A jury is generally competent.

Jury reflects biases of the community.

Jury representativeness and group decision-making provide fact finding strength.

HOWEVER!

Jury can have difficulty with certain evidence and legal instructions.

Jury members can be socially influenced by one another.

Question 35

What are the arguments for keeping the jury system?

Answer 35

• randomly selected juries represent the population so the accused is tried by peers
• juries enable the public’s view of the CJS to be reflected
• juries ensure that unpopular or ‘unjust’ law cannot be enforced
• jury members have fresh eyes and are not case hardened
• jury trials are a cornerstone of our criminal trial process
• fact assessment is a common sense matter best left to lay people
• no acceptable alternative

(Davies et al., 2005)

Question 36

What are the arguments against keeping the jury system?

Answer 36

• juries not representative of society as a whole
• not able to handle complex issues
• subject to prejudice and irrationality
• expected to perform an important function in uncomfortable surroundings, without preparation
• prolongs the length and cost of the trial
• can exhibit leniency bias
• can be biased for and against particular witnesses (e.g. police)
• juries naive and unaware of courtroom tactics to manipulate info

Question 37

Why is it difficult to run experiments simulating jury deliberation?

Answer 37

Large numbers of pps needed.

Long experimental sessions.

Difficult to achieve representativeness.

Complex data.

Question 38

What are some reasons for disagreements between judges and jurors?

Answer 38

Different interpretations of reasonable doubt.

Different evaluations of evidence.

Juror sentiments about the defendant.

Juror disagreement with the law.

NOT due to jury misunderstanding evidence!

Question 39

What are some criticisms of mock jury studies?

Answer 39

Undergrads vs community adults
Lab vs courtroom
Written summaries vs listening to actual trial
Hypothetical vs real life
Defendants future at risk / mock study

Question 40

Some final findings…

Answer 40

Kalvin and Zeisel (1966) say evidence influences.

Sealy & Cornish (1973) found women significantly more likely to convict on circumstantial evidence.

Kemmelmeier (2005) said race is a critical factor in white juror’s decision making.

Mills and Bohannon (1980) education leads to higher rates of acquittals by males.

The Impact of CCTV - Chenery et al. (2001) magistrates imposed more severe sentences based on CCTV