Jury Decisions Flashcards
Jury =…
“tiers of fact”
6th amendment
Public trial by an impartial jury
7th amendment
Civil lawsuits
U.S. = __% of all jury trials in the world
90%
Bench trial do not involve what?
A judge
Criminal involves p__________ and g_____
prosecution and guilt
Civil involved p________ and d______
plaintiff and damages
History: trial by ordeal
how they reacted
Was ‘evidence’ of God’s pleasure or displeasure and that was taken as the verdict
History: trial by combat
declined in popularity because the Church withdrew the priests as referees
Trial by Jury: Origins
Juries were originally self-informing
They were the witnesses and did their own investigation
Only later did juries become an impartial body
Modern Juries - Venire
“to make appear”
Prospective jurors summoned
“Pool” of qualified persons
Who is considered a qualified person for a trial jury
English speaking, 19 ad over, no felonies, resident, etc.
Modern Juries - Voire dire
“speak the truth”
Questioning by lawyers, judge in court
Jury “selection” (actually eliminating jurors)
Voire dire - adversairal
attempt to create favorable bias
What are the types of challenges lawyers can make in Voire dire?
For cause - obvious reason why someone has conflict of interest or bias
Peremptory - “at my will/at my please” –> can challenge someone without needing to explain why
How many peremptory challenges can lawyers make?
Between 3 and 25
More for defense than prosecution
What are limits on challenges in Voire dire?
Can’t intentionally exclude on basis of race, gender, religion, income (cognizable groups)
Don’t want to deem intentionally discriminatory (illegal)
What is scientific jury selection?
Prediction of verdicts, based on:
Attitudes
Personality
Demographics
What are sources of information for scientific jury selection?
o Answers to voir dire questions, jury questionnaires
o Behavior during voir dire (Expressions, gestures)
o Observable traits (gender, age, health, dress, etc.)
o Social media, online data
scientific jury selection - Harrisburg Seven case (1972)
Trial of Vietnam war protesters
Tried in Harrisburg because polls showed 80% rate of conviction
Defense psychologists surveyed 840 residents: correlated demographic with attitudes
Government tried to have trial moved to different location
Outcome: hung jury, no re-trial
Phillip Berrigan
General Attitudes: Juror Bias Scale
What does it measure?
What kind of bias can be evaluated from this?
Measures pre-existing attitudes about:
Probability of commission
Reasonable doubt
Pro-posecution bias OR pro-defense bias (criminal)
Who created the Juror Bias Scale?
Saul Kassin
What are the vote to convict based on JBS scores?
Pro-defense score: __%
Pro-prosecution score:__%
Pro-defense score: 52%
Pro-prosecution score: 81%
What are stealth jurors?
Jurors who may hide biases during voir dire
Alterior motives
What is a major issue with stealth jurors?
“death qualification” –> ask every juror, could you find it in yourselves to vote for the death penalty?
What evidence influences jury?
o Confessions
o Eyewitnesses (confidence, number)
o Expert testimony
o Physical (medical, DNA, ballistics, trace evidence, etc.)
What forms of research is conducted on juries?
Actual trial records
Post-trial interviews
Mock juries
Shadow juries –> specifically constructed to mirror a real-world jury
What is the CSI effect?
jurors expect great forensic evidence in the trial, and if they don’t, they think something is wrong
How is evidence processed? (3)
Story model
Simulation heuristic
Inadmissible evidence
How is evidence processed - simulation heuristic
Jurors more likely to believe argument if the can easily imagine it (mentally simulate events)
Pre-Trial Publicity is often…
based on press releases, information from police, DA
Contains information not admissible in court
What is an issue with pre-trial publicity?
Source monitoring errors - “Sleeper effect”
What is the “sleeper effect”
We don’t remember where we learnt the information from
Exposure can bias jurors towards presumption of _____
guilt
Do we recognize or admit our bias?
No
People who believe there’s “a lot of evidence against” a defendant before trial are more likely claim they can be “impartial” and “fair”
What can be done with issue of pre-trial publicity? (5)
Gag order (participants, media)
Change of venue
Attempt to remove biased jurors in voir dire
Delay of trial –> waiting for hype to calm down
Survey research for attitudes
Defendant behavior
__% of jurors report reacting to defendant’s ________ (facial expressions, body language, eye contact, etc.)
70%
demeanor
What case is are 2 examples of defendant’s behavior
Scott Peterson (2002)
Nikolas Cruz sentencing (no eye contact)
“Extralegal” Evidence
Not supposed to be part of the trial, not something the jury should be paying attention
Appearance
“_________” evidence
USSC: 1st Amendment right to control own appearance, unless…
Ex:
“Character” evidence
USSC: 1st Amendment right to control own appearance, unless goals is to deceive jury
Ex: prison jumpsuit, tattoos, nonprescription eyeglasses
Attractive defendants are less likely to…
be thought guilty, given lower bail or fines shorter sentences
EXCEPT if perceived to be using attractiveness for illegal gain or manipulation
Group conformity
Initial vote: __%
__% of juries begin with big majority eventually end with that verdict
30%
90%
Group conformity - unanimous:
Ex:
1 person can deadlock/hang (6% of trials)
Ex: The “Allen charge” –> charged with murdering 18y/o –> jury couldn’t come up with unanimous verdict after 3 attempts
With a majority, a hung jury is less likely but…
shorter deliberations
Jurors report less satisfaction
Civil cases: torts
Wronged person (plaintiff) sues for damages
Damages in civil cases include:
o Physical harm
o Economic harm
o Mental/emotional harm (“pain & suffering”)
What are the 2 different types of damages in civil cases:
Compensatory damages
Punitive damages
Civil Cases: Torts - Example
OJ Simpson, wrongful death
Civil cases: damages are based on:
Intent
Degree of Responsibility (can be a percentage)
What is assumption of risk?
You take on some of the responsibility because you knew there was a hazard
Tort Reform - “Litigation explosion” case example
Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants (1994)
Award of $2.9 million dollars
