Jury decision making

Question 1

Describe the jury system in England and Wales (6)

Answer 1

Juries comprise 12 people
Juries must try for at least 2 hours to reach a unanimous verdict
After 2 hours a 10-2 majority will be accepted
If a 10-2 majority is not reached it is a hung jury
Trial by jury is used in about 5% of criminal trials
The contempt of court act prohibits anyone from obtaining, disclosing or soliciting any of the particulars of the deliberations in the jury room

Question 2

When are juries used? (1)

Answer 2

Used for cases where the accused pleads not guilty

Question 3

Why can judges/jurors rule expert testimony as inadmissible? (3)

Answer 3

It tells us nothing new
It is based on laboratory studies
The eyewitness account is too compelling

Question 4

What do jurors rely on? (2)

Answer 4

Jurors rely heavily on witnesses’ confidence to infer witness accuracy

Question 5

What is the relationship between confidence and accuracy? (3)

Answer 5

The relationship between confidence and accuracy is complex, with many arguing that confidence is a very poor indicator of the accuracy of a witness’s memory

More recently this view has been challenged, but it requires near perfect conditions in terms of line-up and the measurement of confidence

Question 6

What did Sauer et al. (2019) conclude about confidence and accuracy? (2)

Answer 6

Sauer et al. (2019) conclude that while there is increasing evidence to suggest that the confidence-accuracy relationship has some value, it is hard to use it to assess the validity of an individual identification

Question 7

What did Penrod & Cutler (1995) report about eyewitness testimony and jurors? (5)

Answer 7

Jurors have a tendency to ‘over-believe’ EWT

They are not sensitive to the factors that influence accuracy

They rely heavily on witness confidence assessments

This can be influenced by post-identification information (and may not be an accurate reflection of accuracy)

However, expert testimony can reduce this reliance on confidence

Question 8

What did Wright & Skagerberg, 2007 do? (4)

Answer 8

134 real eyewitnesses attending a UK police identification suite
Rate their confidence
The witness was then told the outcome of their identification decision
The witness again rated their confidence

Question 9

What did Wright & Skagerberg, 2007 find about eyewitness confidence? (2)

Answer 9

Feedback about the identification decision affected witness confidence

Those told they had picked out the suspect became more confident following feedback

Question 10

What did Smalarz & Wells, 2014 report about eyewitness confidence? (2)

Answer 10

Confirming information following a mistaken ID damages later identification of the actual culprit

Multiple forms of feedback following mistaken IDs had a cumulative effect on confidence

Question 11

What factors can influence jury decision making? (1)

Answer 11

Attractiveness

Question 12

How can attractiveness influence jury decision making? (4)

Answer 12

The halo effect (Thorndike, 1920)

Sigall & Ostrove (1975): Physically attractive defendants received lower sentences (mock cases using photographs) unless the crime was related to attractiveness and then there was an increase in punishment

Similar findings reported by Yang et al. (2019): attractive males awarded harsher sentences for a blind-date swindle, but only if they looked ‘untrustworthy’. For a ‘phone-based crime there was no ‘beauty penalty’ and untrustworthiness alone dictated penalties

Question 13

What did Saladin et al. (1988) find about the role of attractiveness in jury decision making? (2)

Answer 13

Using 8 photographs, attractive males were considered less likely to commit a serious crime than unattractive males

Question 14

What did Stewart (1980) find about the role of attractiveness in jury decision making? (2)

Answer 14

Attractive, clean, neat, well-dressed defendants had lower sentences, but no effect on verdict

Question 15

What did Kerr (1978) find about the role of attractiveness in jury decision making? (1)

Answer 15

Attractive victims are more frequently supported by guilty verdicts

Question 16

What did Swami, Arthey & Furnham (2017) find about the role of attractiveness in jury decision making? (2)

Answer 16

Attractive students were punished more severely for more serious offences, but no effect for less serious cases

Question 17

What did Klein & Shtudiner (2020) find about the role of attractiveness in jury decision making? (2)

Answer 17

Klein & Shtudiner (2020): unethical workplace behaviour – ‘plain-looking employees’ judged more severely, but only for females, no attractiveness effect for males

Question 18

How do jurors reach a verdict? (2)

Answer 18

Pennington & Hastie (1986, 1992) The story model

Dual-process theory (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993)

Question 19

What is the story model? (4)

Answer 19

If this is done early in the trial, there will be a bias towards evaluating subsequent evidence in light of the story they have constructed (known as a confirmation bias)

Question 20

What is dual process theory? (4)

Answer 20

Systematic processing:
Slower, more effortful thinking
the juror closely scrutinises and analyses the evidence

Heuristic processing:
Faster, more automatic thinking which involves less detailed scrutiny of the evidence
e.g. “There is no smoke without fire”
e.g. “Experts can be trusted”

Question 21

What did Carlson & Russo (2001) suggest about how jurors reach verdict? (3)

Answer 21

The story model is the best account, but this means that all stories will be different (because of the influence of prior beliefs etc.) and this may impact on the outcomes made by juries

Question 22

Heuristic processing (5)

Answer 22

Favoured when people are tired, pressured for time, the evidence is complex, or they lack knowledge about the topic

People may still rely upon heuristic short-cuts even when making highly consequential judgements

However, there is evidence of systematic processing taking place, with careful consideration of expert testimony as well as detailed deliberation in jury discussions

Question 23

What are the factors of trial complexity? (9)

Answer 23

Evidence complexity
Number of witnesses
Length of trial
Number of charges

Legal complexity

Quantity of information
Number of documents
Number of items in evidence
Number of parties involved (e.g., complainants, accused)

Question 24

What did Heuer and Penrod (1994) suggest about how complexity of trial affects jurors? (2)

Answer 24

The greater the information load, the less jurors felt they understood, and they expressed lower confidence in their verdicts

Question 25

What did Horowitz et al. (2001) suggest about how complexity of trial affects jurors? (1)

Answer 25

Higher load disadvantaged plaintiffs - victims suffer

Question 26

What did Mazzella and Feingold (1994) do? (2)

Answer 26

Meta-analysis Typically, in studies like this participants read a scenario of a criminal case about a black or white defendant

Question 27

What did Mazzella and Feingold (1994) find about stereotypes in trials? (4)

Answer 27

Mazzella & Feingold reported no overall effect of ethnicity on guilt, but that there was a difference in the severity of the punishment deemed appropriate Greater punishment for black than white defendants for negligent homicide Greater punishment for white than black defendants for fraud

Question 28

What did Gordon, Bindrim, McNicholas, and Walden (1988) find about stereotypes in trials? (1)

Answer 28

Defendants are dealt with more harshly when their crime is ‘stereotypical’ of their ethnicity

Question 29

What did Singh & Sprott (2017) find about stereotypes in trials? (1)

Answer 29

Still reporting ethnicity effects on sentencing in mock studies

Question 30

What did Bell et al. (2019) find about stereotypes in trials? (3)

Answer 30

Looked at female offenders in hypothetical cases, reported no effect of attractiveness on selection of the death penalty Death penalty less likely for African American offenders than white offenders Death penalty more likely with African American victims than white victims

Question 31

What did Sorby & Kehn (2020) find out stereotypes in trials? (2)

Answer 31

Reported that tattoos and ‘untrustworthiness’ led to judgements of being ‘more criminal looking’ but this did not translate to verdicts

Question 31

Pre-trial publicity and Juries - Contempt of Court Act (2)

Answer 31

In the UK The Contempt of Court Act 1981 makes it an offence to publish anything which leads to the substantial risk that the criminal justice proceedings will be prejudiced

Question 32

Example of how pre-trial publicity affects decisions (4)

Answer 32

Judge ordered a retrial of two Leeds United players accused of assaulting an Asian student (2001) During the initial trial The Sunday Mirror ran an interview with the victim’s father in which he suggested that the assault on his son was racially motivated. Several jurors admitted having seen the two-page interview The judge said such allegations made in a "mass circulation newspaper published yesterday within three days of the jury's retirement... carries with it a substantial risk of prejudice" and would make any verdict unsafe

Question 33

What did Bornstein et al., (2002) do to investigate pre-trial publicity? (1)

Answer 33

Undergraduate ‘mock’ jurors were presented with a lawsuit against a chemical company for causing cancer

Question 34

What did Bornstein et al., (2002) find about pre-trial publicity? (4)

Answer 34

Participants either received: Factual information (46% found chemical company liable) Negative information about the plaintiff (25% found chemical company liable) Negative information about the defendant - the chemical company (75% found chemical company liable) Participants exposed to negative pre-trial publicity are more likely to judge the defendant guilty than participants exposed to less or no negative pre-trial publicity

Question 35

What did Ruva & LeVasseur (2012) find about pre-trial publicity? (3)

Answer 35

Similar approach – PTP for some jurors and not others, and this impacted the nature of the jury discussions Biases the way they interpret trial information PTP does enter the discussions, even when told it should not

Question 36

What did Duke & Gaither (2017) do to investigate pre-trial publicity and what did they find? (2)

Answer 36

Manipulated the ethnicity of shooters and victims (Black vs White) in altercations, and provided positive counter-stereotype or negative stereotype information about the victim Information released about the victim influenced attitudes towards both the victim and the shooter They discussed their findings in relation to victims of police shootings in the US and how victims are portrayed pre-trial

Question 37

What factors affect group decision making in jury? (4)

Answer 37

Unanimity – discussion puts pressure on deviants to conform Majority wins – discussion confirms the majority position, which becomes the group decision Truth wins – discussion reveals the position that is demonstrably correct Two-thirds majority – discussion establishes a two-thirds majority, which becomes the group decision

Question 38

How do these factors on group decision making influence decision making by jury? (5)

Answer 38

The type of rule that is adopted can affect both the group atmosphere and the decision-making process Unanimity may create a pleasant atmosphere but may make decision making very slow Majority wins may make many group members feel dissatisfied but can speed up decision making. Methodological issues with replicating 'mock' juries: Simulated jurors decisions are not subject to the same consequences as in a real court

Question 39

What did Groupthink (Janis, 1972) suggest about when does jury decision making go wrong? (5)

Answer 39

Where a group adopts a way of thinking in which the desire for consensus overrides all else Individuals are pressured to change their opinion or suppress the voicing of minority opinion to create a consensus It may lead to jurors ignoring evidence which is inconsistent with that consensus It is likely to happen when groups are highly isolated, under stress and when they lack an open-minded leader Groupthink can lead to: ignoring contradictory information, pressure to conform and the use of stereotyping

Question 40

Why may foreman be chosen in juries? (5)

Answer 40

Research (e.g. Devine et al., 2001) has shown that a foreman may be chosen because: They are of a higher economic-status They have prior experience of jury service Or they simply sit in the seat at the head of the table when the jurors first meet The also tend to be male and white

Question 41

When can jury decision making go wrong? (4)

Answer 41

Groupthink - when a group adopts a way of thinking in which a desire for consensus overrides all else Individuals pressured to change their opinions or suppress the voicing of minority opinion to create a consensus Jurors may ignore evidence that is inconsistent with the consensus Likely to happen when groups are isolated, under stress and lack an open-minded leader