Jury Flashcards
Jury Functions
- To use the wisdom of 12 to reach a verdict
- To act as the conscience of the community
- To protect against out of date laws
- To increase knowledge of the justice system
Why have juries
1- bring 12 witnesses to speak on behalf to address complaint with common law-
2- have decent cross section of these ppl where the crime is committed- ideal
Find guilt or create new laws
Ignited sates- juries cant make up laws
Methods of Study
- Post trial interviews of juries
Not in Canada (s. 649 C.C.C.)
Common in the U.S.
LaFree, Reskin, & Visher (1985)
Problems of retrospective accounts
May not appreciate or recognize factors that contributed to their verdict
In canada – cant interview juries after trial
Or speak to them during trial. Can interview past juror just not abt trial
CCC 649- any citizen who has been juror cat discuss it after
Not true in United States
Problems of corrupt jury- trying o get on jury bc of famous persons- micheal Jackson SA trial
Most trial interview- available in US- after OJ 3 jurors made more making appearances and doing interviews- Boeing a juror shouldn’t be opportunity to make money- deliberately trying to get on jury
Plus- of canada- cant say why they decided guilty or not- could lead to appeal or miscarriage of justice- moral dilemma- want to catch jurors wh did bad things but= money and retrial- waste of time and money
If there was something bd going on- then need to do it
How much are we protecting with this rule/- missing out on info
1985- studiesd jurors on SA- extralegal factors affected verdict- bias, outside info- found conviction was less likely if victim had sex not in marriage- infedillity
Rape protect laws- not good- if defence for SA is- mistaken consent- most common- not easy to prove- have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt- hard to convict
Consuming substances- less likely to be convicted- most times doesn’t change consent- lose credibility
Tasked with judging people- we will- not all will be conscious and relevant
If victim was aqcuitance- less likely to get convicted- aqcuitance rape- most common rape- lowers likelihood of conviction- many jurors are not aware of this – expect it to be only violent
Want them to have knowledge to reduce extralegal factor
Cant do his research in canada
Post trial interview= retrospective have to think back on what motivated behaviour- many don’t know true cause of behaviour- don’t know truly what made them rule that way
Not best accounts- as time increases- don’t have objective evidence
Biggest issue- correlational- cant assume the reason they are less likely to convict is because of substance
Methods of Study
- Archival Analysis
- Archival Analysis
(Avio, 1988)
Useful tool for research
High in external validity
Not in control of data collection (bias)
These are correlational studies and therefore you can’t infer causation.
Using existing compiled data from any group, government, survey, government- will be taken from anywhere as long as credible
In US- compared to avg white defendant avg black defendant mor likely to be charged, convicted and longer sentence when matched for all factors- found the same in canada- thought canada was less prejiduce but it is more subtle
1988- found same results in canada
Ike analysis- ‘
External validity- real people, real cases
Conviction is not certainty- using conviction and guilty or not- faulty data- may not be truth- keep in mind not meaning they did it
Lots of bias in data collection- no matching data- different emphasis on what should bgatjered- police force- varied enforcement- police officers vary in enforcement- marijuana- used to be variAble in who would be convicted for possession- even I same amount
Different behaviour- more rural- small countries- get arrested
Correlation- cant infer causation- differences in enforcement in different crimes, cultural differences
Methods of Study
Jury simulations
- Jury simulations
(Douglas, Lyon, & Ogloff, 1997)
Ensure manipulated variable is responsible for effects
Brief, less complex
Verdicts are hypothetical
Mock jurors
Look for converging evidence.
Not as likely to get off during holidays
70% of studies use jury simulations
Is empirical- helps to make causal conclusions
Random asg
Only 10% of research is actual juries- most is undergraduate students- not representative of real world or average jury
Students- night likely to be called, not like to be on jury
Courts- don’t portray their data- hard to know who is on juries
Jurors never read a trial- not accurate of jury states- don’t care abt if person is convicted or not
Court tv- trial- recorded sometimes condense to an hour- real trial rela ppl- participans more invested and curious
Participants don’t represent jury’s
Avg education and avg levek of prejiducwe
Education of jury- high school
Undergraduate students- more exposed to diversity
Jurors- not exposed to same diversity
By asking parks question- keeping those who are prejiduce-eliminating thos who know abt biases
Look for converging evidence when have juries that responses correlate with others findings
Douglas study- looked at the idea of whether we see different verdicts bc of the autopsy photos- more glory and violent autopsy leads to more convictions- has morphing to do with if that person is guilty or not- makes jurors more likely o convict- weigh evidence and see if probation value outweigh as prejidcuce value
Probation- importance n deciding ruling
Prejiduce- likelihood t increase guilt not based on evidence
Past crimes= make one more likely to commit- already a criminal must hav e done it
Utm- Canadian court would not allow graphic aut
opsy- sometime,es need to show wound patterns- use computer formed wound patterns- erases all prejiudce- conviction rates drop to levels of no picture
Why does it make them more likely to commit- don’t know
Death qualified jurors in us- more likely to convict
Models of Jury Decision Making
Mathematical model (explanation-based)
“mental” calculations are performed by jurors to weigh the strength of each piece of information and compare it to a decisional criteria for guilt.
Speculation- don’t know what jurors are doing
See information and create hierarchy of meaning- how we do in real life- attach meaning to some stimuli and not others- constantly perceiveing the small stimuli coming in-
Lack of empirical evidence
Some may do this- probably not mos people
Example-
Decisional criteria of guilt- for a crime trial= beyond a reasonable doubt= arbitrary term
Civil trial- balance of probabilities= lower standard- more than 50 %- do people think abou it this way
Models of Jury Decision Making
The Story Model
- The Story Model
Pentington & Hastie (1986)
The jurors engage in active comprehensive processes to organize and interpret evidence into a coherent whole or narrative story structure.
Jurors try to find the best fit between the story constructed and the verdict categories provided by the judge.
Jurors engage in narrative election- humans do this
We respond t narratives- it is how human mind has evolved- from spoken language- pass down stories- story tellers= shamans- high status
Every thing based on story- story tellers still seen as high status- actors, directors
Lawyers
Reward story telling- remember better when it a narrative
Story model- competing narratives best wins
1986- ppl are trying to understand evidence- put it into a story- naturally,
Way we process information
Jurors find story of best fit based on evidence nd what heard in trial
OJ Simpson- lots of evidence saying. He did it- not convicted- his lawyers made great narrative- gloves don’t fit
Corupt racist police officers planted evidence on OJ
Hastie- presented
The Story Model
Pentington & Hastie, 1988
Varied how trial evidence was presented, either witness by witness or in chronological, event based order.
The easier it was to construct a story the more likely a verdict consistent with that story would be rendered.
Varied how they presented evidence- chronological= story
When defence used story- majority not guilty
Prosecution se chronological- guilty
How evidence is presented can get convicted or not
Judicial Instructions
Alfini & Sales, 1982- show that it works in US
Were able to improve juror comprehension of judicial instructions by modifying the language (psycholinguistic theory)
There has been an attempt to simplify language used by judges in Canada (no studies)
What judge says to jury to remedy bias
Fiz any problems arise during trial, tell them what’s next
Can happen a any time- judge talking to jury
mAny don’t nderstand what judge is saying
Don’t ask questions back- think of judge as authoritittive figure- don’t say anything- may need reexplination
No standardized structure
Getting rid of uncomprehendable language- make them modern and understandable- we are not doing this in real life
If we change it- may lead to more appeals- don’t research before making change
Note big enough problem- ppl don’t care
Error at law- anything appeal court aggression that judge did that shouldn’t have done
Rape Shield Law
R. v. Seaboyer
Exception to rape shield law
Judicial caution
Can use sexual history to weigh against victim’s credibility
Seaboyer- rape shield laws enacted in 85- protect defendants from having sexual history brought up to discredit character
Could bring it up before only if character at issue- character at issue- not the kind of pron hat would beat dog- can show evidence of past crime in animal abuse
Unless prior sexual activity is relevant to case
1981- seaboyer- said needed too bring it p in aqcuitance rape
Honest mistaken belief-
Cant use the evidence to impeach credibility or question character
Can use it to make it seem more or less likely to consent- how does past sexual history = consent
Doesn’t matter what judge tells jury and how to use the evidence- cant use evidence for only certain contexts
200- Supreme Court case- made defendant decides if evidence is admissible
Hastings-2002- get info about prior sexual consent- don use it to decide consent butt use it to affect credibility- more sex= less credible
Judicial Instructions
“Jurors will disregard the evidence.”
Hastings (1998)
s. 12 Canada Evidence Act – criminal record can be used to assess credibility
(Hans & Doob, 1976) – criminal record has little impact on credibility but does improperly influence perceptions of guilt.
Judicial instructions do little to remedy this.
Cant disregard evidence-
S12- criminal record can be used for credibility- allow it in certain situations- judge decides- only used to gauge credibility- credibility brought into question or judge agrees
Once info is heard- prejiduce is high for this evidence- judge character- he’s a criminal;- doesn mean he’s guilty
1976-
Not used how its meant to- humans cant use info in one way
Tell jurors to disregard, they cant
What can we do to fix this- not much
Order mistrial, or noting
Many judges don’t know this- remind them to not remember it- makes it more important
One group- tria had info about pre conviction- add in past conviction- goes from 0 to 40% likely to commit- make it seem more likely he did it
Judicial instructions
Research consistently shows the ineffectiveness of judicial instructions to disregard evidence later ruled to be inadmissible (Story model)
The “boomerang” effect
Hastings- one info is in story, cant tell story without info- becomes part of your story
Confirmation bias- once hear evidence, all other info is filtered through it and pay more attention to info that confirms it
What narrative Ouse been exposed to- more likely to acceptconfirming evidence
Below concious awarness
Boomerang effect-
Jury deliberations
Sequestering juries
Most final group verdicts reflect the initial verdict opinion majority - “majority rules”
Group Polarization
Leniency Bias
Normative vs. Informational influences
12 member juries
Unanimous decisions
Jury duty fun fats-
Canadaian citizen, 18, can be politician, judge, lawyer, doctor, vet involved in court, disabilities, convicted of offence, travel plans, going to be a hardship, need to speak English, get paid- first 10 days nothing, 10-49- 40$/day, 50 days or more-100/dAy
1- in s- bypass publication ban- sequester jury- OJ Simpson- lived in hotel except for weekends and holidays
Doesn’t prevent them form being exposed to their info
In canada suquester during elibiration- don’t leave until decide
2- majority rules- most common across all groups- elect jury foreman- older white men most likely to be foreman
Minority change opinion to majority
Foreman- not standardized, not unanimous
First thing- most Urey d is vote- depends on how they do it- go around room- peopl change opinions- bias
Best way- write it down anominously- take away bias and pressure- no one telling them how to do it
3- two groups with different beliefs- come together and debate- polarizes both sides- see other side as defensive- make them more extreme on their opinion- when debate- people take more extreme opinions
How we present info- gets rid of polirization- present info in general
4- criminal cases become more lenient as deliberation goes on
Aqcuitance is majority- easier to get people to aqcuit- provide reasonable doubt
Majority proconvicxtion- harder to get them to convict
5- normative- wanting to be accepted, part of group- very strong- want to belong- expectations of unanimity
Informational- based on desire to be right
Getting evidence right, following instructions
Jury’s mostly talk about facts
6- had been attempts to reduce jury –in US- civil case varies for what is accepted
Criminal require unanimous in civil- depending on state and case- doesn’t need to be unanimous
Is possible o have 11 jurors
Civil laws- not standardized
Tried 6 member jury- less often hung jury, group size and conformity- max conformity in 5 ppl
More likely to get one to conver
Spend less time deliberating
Less evidence is recalled
Less representative and more cohesive
7-Can have 10-2 verdict in civil cases
7 or fewer found guilty at first vote ended up being guilty most of the time
5 say not guilty- more likely to not get guilty
Jury Nullification
R. v. Morgentaler
1974 overturned aquittal and sentenced to prison (Quebec court of appeals)
1975 brought the Morgentaler amendment
1983 Morgentaler aquitted again and Ont. Court of appeal reverses the verdict
1988 Supreme court changes the laws
Morgentaler- abortio doctor
Continually see him as not guilty- Supreme Court decides to change law
In us- jurors have right t nullify law
Jury changes the law by giving verdicts
