Lecture 5: Juries

Question 1

What kinds of trials are juries used in?

Answer 1

• In Canada, juries are used in both criminal and civil cases
• civil trial: involves a dispute between private parties (individuals or corporations) and not the state
  
  • The right to jury in civil trials not stated in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and is rarely used now

Question 2

What are the three types of punishable offenses?

Answer 2

Summary offences, indictable offences, and hybrid offences

Question 3

Define summary offences

Answer 3

• summary offences: the least serious offences; tried in a lower court by a judge alone and the accused has no right to a jury trial
• e.g. disturbing the peace, solicitation of prostitution, petty theft, vandalism, minor assault
• Punishable by no more than 6 months in jail, max $5000 fine, or both (in more serious cases)
  
  • Punishment usually based on precedent of type of offence
  • In Canada: also consider person & situation

Question 4

Define indictable offences

Answer 4

• indictable offences: the most serious class of offences; tried in a superior court between a judge and jury
• e.g. minor assault to first degree murder, treason, piracy
• Statute of limitations: no time limit (for Canada), unless it’s for treason (3 years)
• Accused has the right to choose judge alone or judge & jury

Question 5

Define hybrid offences

Answer 5

• hybrid offences: “either way offences”; judge can later choose to proceed as either a summary or indictable offence

Question 6

[T] Is it more common that a case is tried by judge or jury?

Answer 6

• Civil trials mostly go with judge only trials
• In criminal cases that go to court—about 2/3 are resolved without a trial (plea guilty)
  
  • The majority of crimes that go to court are serious crimes
• 1/3 are disposed by trial → 1/2 of those use juries, 1/2 use judge alone
  
  • Usually based on your right to a jury (i.e. if you have the potential to go to jail for 5+ years) & defendant choice

Question 7

What is the role and function of the jury?

Answer 7

• Fact finders: duty to determine the facts from the evidence presented at trial and then apply those facts to the law (as given by the judge) in order to reach a verdict
• Jury only decides guilt/innocence and does not decide punishment
• Except in 2nd degree murder cases—the judge must inform that jury that the perpetrator will be eligible for parole after 10 years in prison & ask if they want to make a recommendation to the prison term (10-25 years)
  
  • Judge isn’t required to listen/uphold this suggestion

Question 8

What are the strengths of using a jury?

Answer 8

• 1) Uses the wisdom and perspectives of 12 ordinary persons selected from the community who must unanimously agree on a verdict
• 2) Verdict rendered by members of the community—their decisions have greater legitimacy and public acceptance than the decisions of a lone judge
• 3) Serves as the conscience because the jury is selected from the community crime happened in
• 4) Can apply their own understanding of justice while not having to justify their decision; jury guards against rigid laws

Question 9

What are the two stages of the jury assemblage process?

Answer 9

The out-of-court process and in-court process

Question 10

What is involved in the out-of-court process for jury selection?

Answer 10

• jury list: compiled by random selection from electoral rolls in the territory, province, or local community
• Jurors can only avoid duty based on statutory or legitimate non-statutory exemptions

Question 11

What are the two statutory exemptions in the jury selection process?

Answer 11

• Statutory exemptions: preliminarily exempted from the selection process
• 1) Lawyers, police, doctors, nurses
• 2) If you have a criminal history
• Jury is supposed to be representative of the community, and lawyers & police know a bit too much about the process
  
  • Doctors & nurses are already seen as serving the public

Question 12

What are the two non-statutory exemptions in the jury selection process?

Answer 12

• 1) Illness
• 2) If you have too much knowledge & your area of expertise is too close to the content of the trial (e.g. you’re a psychologist who works in law)

Question 13

What is involved in the in-court process for jury selection?

Answer 13

• summons: a legal notice to appear in a particular courthouse at an assigned date & time
• jury panel: the group of prospective jurors who show up to a summons
• People who don’t respond to the summons can face a fine, but it’s rarely pursued
• Lawyers in small towns/cases may begin with a 20-30 person jury panel
  
  • In large cases, e.g. Paul Bernardo, the jury panel can be up to 980 people
• On the first day of jury selection, trial judges ask jurors if they have any reasons that may excuse them (hardship/inconvenience)
  
  • From the remaining, jurors are called forward
  • Doesn’t mean they’ll be picked

Question 14

What is the jury set up in Canada?

Answer 14

• Canadian jury system has 12 jurors
  
  • However, can continue with no more than 2 members excused
• Must have a unanimous verdict—judge will send jury back in to deliberate if they can’t come to a consensus → really can’t agree = mistrial
• Must only use facts of the case & laws supplied by the judge, i.e. admissible evidence
  
  • Not supposed to base decisions on information obtained outside the courtroom or inadmissible evidence heard inside the courtroom

Question 15

What are the the differences between large and small juries?

Answer 15

• In contrast to 12 member juries → smaller groups:
• Less likely to facilitate effective group deliberation
• Less likely to obtain accurate results
• Less representative
• Less likely to be ‘hung’

Question 16

What are the two ways lawyers can remove a juror?

Answer 16

• 1) challenge for cause: the lawyer challenges a would-be juror, claiming that it’s unlikely this person would be able to render an impartial verdict
  
  • Can be used an unlimited amount of times but is difficult
  • Lawyer has to convince judge of some widespread bias on the jury panel
  • If challenge for cause is granted → lawyer permitted to question jurors
• 2) peremptory challenge: lawyer can dismiss a juror w/o giving a reason or obtaining approval from the judge
  
  • Most serious offences (e.g. murder, high treason): each side allowed 20
  • Crimes for which the sentence is 5+ years: each side allowed 12

Question 17

What did Penrod (1990) discover about jurors’ existing biases and beliefs being able to predict the outcome of the verdict?

Answer 17

• Penrod (1990): examined 21 juror attitudes & characteristics as predictors in 4 trials (murder, rape, robbery, civil negligence)
  
  • Using multiple regression, he found that the 21 variables accounted for only 5-14% of the variance in verdicts, depending on the type of case

Question 18

What are the three juror biases which are common in sexual harassment cases?

Answer 18

• In sexual harassment cases, there are slight differences in attitudes based on gender, but it’s less gender itself than certain factors such as:
  
  • 1) identification with the victim (women are more likely to identify with the victim than men)
  • 2) rape myth acceptance (men are more accepting of rape myths than women)
  • 3) attributions of victim blame (women are less likely to assign blame and responsibility to the victim than men)

Question 19

Define the similarity-leniency hypothesis

Answer 19

• similarity-leniency hypothesis: jurors who are similar to the defendant will empathize and identify with the defendant → less likely to convict

Question 20

What did Kerr et al. (1995) find in regards to the similarity-leniency hypothesis?

Answer 20

• Varied: 1) racial similarity between defendants (white/black) & participant jurors; 2) strength of evidence against defendants
• Similar-weak: more likely to say not guilty
• Similar-strong → boomerang effect: similar jurors sometimes harsher on defendants when they’re a minority on the jury
• Implication: if jurors are outnumbered by members of another racial group → compelled to treat a racially similar (but probably guilty) defendant more harshly
  
  • By emphasizing their condemnation of the defendant → disassociate and distance themselves from the defendant; able to maintain a favourable view of their own race

Question 21

What did Sommers (2006) find in regards to the similarity-leniency hypothesis?

Answer 21

• Diverse juries (vs. all-white) are less likely to convict a black defendant & take more time during the deliberation process

Question 22

When is the similarity-leniency hypothesis most likely to have an effect on verdicts?

Answer 22

• Effect strength depends on: strength of evidence & how many diverse members are on the jury
  
  • Effects are strongest when there’s weak evidence and a majority of similar jurors
• Probably because jurors similar to the defendant are more likely to accept the defence’s account of events
• Only know possible effects for race & gender, not other characteristics

Question 23

What are the three important characteristics for the jury?

Answer 23

1) representativeness, 2) impartiality, and 3) competence

Question 24

What does representativeness mean for juries?

Answer 24

• What representativeness does not mean:
  
  • 1) obviously any sample of 12 can’t be representative of a whole community
  • 2) no juror is expected to speak for all other similar constituencies
• The best we can hope for is diversity in age, ethnicity, experience, and opinion → reduce the expression of various forms of prejudice (e.g. racism or sexism), promote fuller discussion, and lead to better fact-finding
• The process of trying to obtain a representative jury often introduces a layer of bias; e.g. tends to explore people who are: poor, move frequently, Indigenous
• Prosecution & defence can challenge jury panel on grounds that it was assembled unconstitutionally, but this begs Qs of what that means
  
  • Is a jury panel with too few women or Aboriginal persons likely to result in a less competent or less impartial jury? What number would constitute “too few”?

Question 25

What does impartiality mean for juries?

Answer 25

Impartiality is defined as: jurors who are able to disregard any previously formed opinions and to embark on their duties armed both with an assumption that the accused is innocent until proven otherwise, and a willingness to determine liability [guilt] based solely on the evidence presented at trial

Question 26

What are the two components to impartiality according to R. v. Parks (1993)?

Answer 26

• 1) Attitudinal—Prejudice
• 2) Behavioural—Discrimination
• Have to look at both b/c you might not act on prejudicial behaviours
  
  • Research shows that making prejudiced people’s beliefs salient to them creates a situation in which they’re less likely to act on the bias

Question 27

What is the presumption of impartiality and what is it based on, in Canada?

Answer 27

• Presumption that jurors will follow their oath to listen to the evidence with an open mind and decide the case fairly and impartially
• We have the presumption of innocence in Canada due to bans on pretrial publicity
• Law
  
  • Discussion of deliberation duty is a summary offence
  • We have limits on our constitutional rights (i.e. people can’t just cite the 1st Amendment like they do in the US)
    
    • Publication bans for a certain amount of time
  • The defendant & jury are usually sequestered once deliberation starts
• Instructions
  
  • Judge, who’s an authority figure & very credible, telling you not to
  • An authority who’s credible is very persuasive

Question 28

What are the four different types of prejudice which may influence the partiality of jurors and how might this influence their decisions?

Answer 28

• Interest prejudice, specific prejudice, generic prejudice, and normative prejudice
• Although jurors are legally required to base their decisions only on the evidence presented at trial, they will invariably draw upon their common knowledge of the world, their beliefs, and their attitudes to make sense of the contradictory evidence
• Jurors can be made aware of their biases & actively act against them, but only if they’re even aware of it/it’s a strong bias

Question 29

Define interest prejudice

Answer 29

• interest prejudice: biases that jurors may harbour as a result of their direct interest or stake in the outcome of the case (e.g., relation to the accused or to a witness who might be testifying)

Question 30

Define specific prejudice

Answer 30

• specific prejudice: attitudes or beliefs about the specific case that may interfere with the juror’s ability to decide the case fairly
• The most common example is through pretrial publicity

Question 31

Is pretrial publicity (PTP) allowed in Canada? Why?

Answer 31

• In most cases, jurors aren’t questioned about their potential biases because pretrial publicity is banned
  
  • Done to prevent a potential jury pool from being tainted by an emotional response to the case or hearing inadmissible evidence
• Most media coverage has a pro-prosecution slant & most of this coverage is determined inadmissible in trial
• A meta analysis found that participants exposed to negative pretrial publicity were more likely to judge the accused guilty compared to those exposed to less or no negative PTP

Question 32

What did Wilson & Borenstein (1998) find regarding exposure to pretrial information?

Answer 32

• Pretrial information had a negative effect on post-trial verdicts (i.e., more guilty verdicts), but only for participants who were asked to rate the accused’s guilt immediately after reading the information
• Greater commitment to their decision due to increased attention to the PTP

Question 33

What did Kramer, Kerr, & Carroll (1990) find in regards to emotionally arousing pretrial publicity?

Answer 33

• College students and non-student participants representative of the community watched a videotaped trial of a real armed robbery
• Viewing time: immediately before seeing PTP or 12 days before
• Group 1: factually biasing PTP (poor criminal record, inadmissible evidence)
• Group 2: emotional PTP (suspect’s car matched one who hit a 7 y/o girl, also inadmissible)
• Group 3: control group, PTP that only had facts which would be in the case
• All 3 groups either told not to pay attention to PTP by a judge or didn’t receive instruction
  
  • Factually biasing: negative impact only when viewed immediately before but not 12 days before
  • Emotionally biasing: equal negative impact regardless of when viewed
  • Instructions to not pay attention to PTP had no impact

Question 34

[T] Define inadmissible evidence and explain how it’s dealt with by judges.

Answer 34

• Inadmissible evidence: information that might be prejudicial; can come from witnesses or lawyers
• When one lawyer raises an objection in response to a question or statement made by the opposing lawyer or a witness, the judge must rule it
  
  • Sustained → judge tells jury to disregard the statement
  • Overruled → judge allows evidence to be submitted
• But you can’t just tell jurors to ignore what they’ve heard
• Sometimes, a judge telling jurors to ignore something makes them pay even more attention to it

Question 35

What factors influence disregarding of inadmissible information?

Answer 35

• Strength of the evidence
• Why the evidence was stricken
• Judicial instruction (which actually has no impact)

Question 36

How does strength of evidence impact disregarding?

Answer 36

• More likely to consider the inadmissible evidence b/c you need to fall back on something when you’re unsure
• When strong (i.e. very obvious they did/didn’t do it) → able to disregard
• Inadmissible evidence also seems to have a greater impact when the crime is less serious
  
  • “He won’t go to jail if we find him guilty, so better safe than sorry” vs. “This is a murder trial, this is serious”

Question 37

What did Kassin & Sommers (1997) find in regards to jurors’ ability to disregard inadmissible evidence based on why the evidence was stricken?

Answer 37

• Murder trial with potentially inadmissible evidence
• Control with no confession
• Phone tap with defendant admitting to murder
• Disallowed for one of two reasons (or not given a reason, making 4 conditions + control):
  
  • 1) It was an illegal wiretap (not explained why it being illegal should’ve excluded it)
  • 2) It was difficult to comprehend
• Results:
  
  • If reason was it’s illegal → verdicts were similar to if it was allowed
  • If reason was it was difficult to comprehend (i.e. a logical reason) → verdicts were similar to control where evidence wasn’t admitted to begin with
• If the reason for striking the evidence isn’t compelling enough (juror feels like it should’ve been admissible) → less likely to ignore it

Question 38

What did Hans & Doob (1976) find in regards to jurors’ ability to disregard inadmissible evidence when given instruction not to?

Answer 38

• Ps read a summary of a weak burglary case
• Some participants made aware of defendant’s prior convictions which they were asked to disregard
• Those not given the evidence → 0% guilty rate
• Those told to disregard → 40% guilty rate

Question 39

What is the boomerang (or backfire) effect in regards to inadmissible evidence?

Answer 39

• Boomerang (or backfire) effect: Sometimes just telling the jurors to disregard makes them pay even more attention to it
  
  • Theory of ironic proceses: Cognitive control/regulation is effortful
    
    • When we make an effort not to think about something, it often dominates our thoughts, especially when we are under stress and much of our mental capacity is already in use
• Might also occur due to reactance theory

Question 40

[T] Define reactance theory

Answer 40

• Reactance theory: people are motivated to maintain their freedom
• A judge saying to ignore information threatens this freedom and jurors may react to this threat by giving the evidence greater weight than it would’ve otherwise received

Question 41

Define generic prejudice

Answer 41

• generic prejudice: general attitudes and beliefs about certain groups of people or certain types of crimes that may prevent the juror from deciding a case without bias
• Probably one you’re most familiar with from psychology
  
  • E.g. Racial or ethnic prejudice, sexual orientation prejudice, stereotype endorsement
• Getting rid of this type of evidence might just have to do with making it salient

Question 42

[T] What did Cooper, Bennett, & Sukel (1996) find in regards to complexity of evidence and its impact on juries?

Answer 42

• When an expert testimony was complex (i.e. included lots of technical jargon), it was only compelling if the expert went to a prestigious university, taught at one, and had many publications
• If the testimony was less complex, credentials weren’t important
• Conclusion: if the testimony is too complex, jurors may weigh the expertise rather than the information provided

Question 43

Define normative prejudice

Answer 43

• normative prejudice: biases that occur when there is such strong community interest in a particular trial outcome that a juror feels he/she must reach a verdict consistent with community sentiment rather than with the evidence presented at trial
• E.g. A community hates child rapists (more than other communities) because of a similar case in the pas

Question 44

What are the three different ways that jury bias can be remedied?

Answer 44

• Adjournment, change of venue, and challenge for cause

Question 45

How can adjournment be used to remedy jury bias?

Answer 45

• adjournment: delaying the trial; passage of time should reduce salience & impact of biasing info
• Pros: Time reduces impact of prejudicial information
• Cons: Eyewitness & suspect memory gets less accurate over time (either becoming more/less confident)
  
  • Those involved could start talking to each other
  • Lawyers & police get practice
  • Emotional info tends to be remembered more
• Least commonly used solution

Question 46

How can a change of venue be used to remedy jury bias?

Answer 46

• change of venue: moving the trial to a new location if the community could be biased
  
  • Change venue if “it appears expedient to the ends of justice” b/c there is a “fair and reasonable probability of partiality or prejudice” in the community
• Usually happens b/c of PTP and mass media effects, rumours, and gossip
• Do this b/c if someone is found guilty for reasons other than evidence b/c it would become grounds for appeal
• Studies show a positive correlation between amount of PTP and belief the accused is guilty
• In practice, this happens infrequently, and the burden for moving the trial rests on the party who made the request

Question 47

How can the challenge for cause be used to remedy jury bias?

Answer 47

• Challenge for cause, used to deal w/ specific & generic biases of potential jurors
• Not the norm, and the defence or the Crown must convince the trial judge that it is necessary
• In contrast to the US, it’s jurors themselves who determine whether other potential jurors may be biased
  
  • 2 jurors are selected to be “triers” & listen to other jurors’ answers to questions to determine their ability to be impartial
  • This process repeats until an unbiased juror is found, who becomes Juror 2, then 2 & 3 serve as triers for Juror 4, etc.
• Main flaw of the method is many potential desirability effects coming into play

Question 48

What are the main differences between jury selection in Canada vs. the USA?

Answer 48

Question 49

When is the challenge for cause allowed?

Answer 49

• R. v. Parks (1993): Air of reality
  
  • Ontario Court of Appeals took judicial notice that . . . “there is a realistic possibility that a juror will be influenced in the performance of his or her judicial duty on the basis of racial bias”
• Recall from earlier this lecture: partiality has 2 components:
  
  • 1) Attitudinal—Prejudice
    
    • There’s a difference between recognition & endorsement of stereotypes
    • Simplified: “Hey are you racist?”
  • 2) Behavioural—Discrimination
    
    • Have to look at attitudes & behaviour b/c someone w/ prejudiced thoughts might not necessarily act on them
    • Simplified: “Hey can you not be racist?”

Question 50

How is the challenge for cause implemented in Canada?

Answer 50

• 1) Select first two “triers”
  
  • On the basis of the potential juror’s answer to the challenge for cause question(s), the trier decides whether the potential juror is acceptable or unacceptable to sit on the upcoming trial
  • Legally, having a bias does not necessarily indicate you are partial
• 2) Swearing in the triers: they have sworn to tell the whole truth and do their duty impartially
• 3) Call first potential juror → Challenge the potential juror: swear them in first
  
  • The challenge for cause question (R. v. Parks)
  • “Would your ability to judge the evidence in this case without bias, prejudice, or partiality, be affected in any way by the fact that the accused is [Black]?”
  • Lawyers ask this Q to the potential juror
• 4) Triers deliberate → “Triers, how do you find?”
  
  • If acceptable, trier #1 rejoins jury pool and can be called as a juror still.
  • The challenged juror becomes the next trier
  • Swear in juror #1
  • Swear in triers again
  • Peremptory challenges*
• If triers find juror unacceptable or if either lawyer uses a peremptory challenge, the juror is excused back to the jury office
• This challenged juror is free to be called for another jury pool later on

Question 51

[T] What is the mathematical model of jury decision-making processes?

Answer 51

• Mathematical models: jurors are assumed to use a sort of mental meter that moves toward either a guilty or not guilty verdict based on the weight of the evidence
• Each piece of evidence has a different weight and jurors are constantly updating their judgements with the new information

Question 52

[T] What is the story model of jury decision-making processes?

Answer 52

• Story model: jurors create stories to make sense of evidence presented at trial
• A story is defined as a causal chain of events; i.e. initiating events → psychological responses → goals motivations → actions → consequences
• Jurors construct their stories while hearing the evidence at trial → learn about possible verdicts → select the verdict that best fits with the story they constructed
• Useful in describing jury decision-making processes for trials (e.g. rape, murder) but don’t know how individual stories are reconciled during collaborative deliberation processes

Question 53

[T] What is the liberation hypothesis?

Answer 53

• Liberation hypothesis: in most trials, jury verdicts are determined by the strength of the evidence because evidence for conviction or acquittal is usually compelling
• However, in cases where the evidence is ambiguous or close, jurors will be “liberated” from the constraints of evidence, allowing the influence of non-evidentiary factors to creep into the decision process
• Allows jurors to base decisions on factors like prior beliefs, assumptions, pretrial publicity, or even prejudice

Question 54

[T] How do defendant characteristics influence jury decisions?

Answer 54

• Defendant characteristics don’t have any simple or straightforward effects
• Defendants are judged less harshly if: attractive, female, and of high socioeconomic status; but effects are weak and only present in certain crimes
  
  • e.g. More attractive defendants → less punishment for crimes of robbery and rape
  • E.g. Female defendants → less punishment for theft
  • E.g. female victim → more punishment
• Moral character of victim is higher than defendant → more punishment
• If jurors feel like the defendant’s already suffered quite a bit for their crimes → more lenient
• Corporations are held more responsible than individuals when the punishment is a fine
  
  • Not just because they “have deep pockets” but because they’re held to higher standards of accountability than individuals
  • I.e. one person making a transgression vs. a collective wherein nobody steps in to stop a bed decision

Question 55

[T] What are the three in-court comprehension aids that have been proposed?

Answer 55

Pre-trial instructions, note-taking, and ability to ask witnesses questions

Question 56

[T] How would pre-trial instructions work as an in-court comprehension aid?

Answer 56

• Jurors have great difficulty understanding post-trial instructions; i.e. verdict categories (e.g. manslaughter vs. second-degree murder) and the standard of proof juries should use (e.g. presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt)
  
  • Judges read out written instructions which rarely provide examples or give attempts to clarify instructions due to fear of biasing jurors
  • Attempts to clarify instructions due to fear of biasing jurors
• Pre-instructions: read to jurors before the trial begins; more useful than post-trial instructions because they provide a schema that helps jurors organize the information presented at trial

Question 57

[T] How would note-taking work as an in-court comprehension aid?

Answer 57

• Note-taking, while it would enhance comprehension and memory, also has negative consequences
  
  • E.g. jurors who take notes may exert undue influence from those who haven’t during the deliberation process
    
    • Jurors who took notes may be looked to disproportionately to clarify the situation if a dispute arises over the evidence
  • May also limit their ability to concentrate during the session
• Studies on note-taking for jurors find that most jurors don’t actually even taken notes when given the option, and jurors who had taken notes weren’t more satisfied with the trial process or verdict
  
  • But note-taking doesn’t have all the negative effects it was speculated to

Question 58

[T] How would asking witnesses questions work as an in-court comprehension aid?

Answer 58

• There is a risk of jurors asking inappropriate questions since they’re untrained in the law
  
  • May interpret a silence or objection to their questions as bias
  • Might forget their role as neutral triers of fact and attempt to take on a role as an advocate
• Studies show that jurors who were able to ask questions had increased comprehension of the legal facts and this didn’t interfere with their observation of court proceedings

Question 59

[T] What are strong jurors?

Answer 59

• Strong jurors (or key jurors or jury leaders): jurors who seem likely to have a disproportionate influence on the deliberation process
• Often well-educated, articulate, and have high occupational status relative to other potential jurors
• In reality, these are unlikely to exist and majorities tend to prevail

Question 60

[T] What is the leniency bias?

Answer 60

• Leniency bias: in evenly split or almost evenly split juries, where roughly half the jurors favour guilty on the initial vote and the other half favour not guilty, it is much more likely that the final verdict will be not guilty
• Much easier to find a reasonable doubt than to remove all doubt in a split jury (for a conviction verdict)

Question 61

[T] What are the three stages in the jury deliberation process?

Answer 61

• 1) orientation stage: juries elect a foreperson, discuss procedures, and raise general issues
• 2) open conflict stage: differences in opinion among members of the jury become apparent and coalitions may form between members of the group
• 3) reconciliation stage: after a verdict is submitted, attempts are made to soothe hurt feelings and make everyone satisfied with the verdict
  
  • Hung jury: one that can’t reach a unanimous verdict; never makes it to the reconciliation stage

Question 62

[T] What are the two types of deliberation styles that emerge in the orientation stage?

Answer 62

• Verdict-driven deliberation style: when juries take a vote at the beginning of deliberations and orient their discussions around the verdict options
• Evidence-driven deliberation style: in which the first vote is postponed until after there has been careful, systematic discussion of the evidence
• Postponing a vote until after the evidence is discussed appears to produce richer, more probing discussions
  
  • Once a vote has been taken, there is a tendency for jurors to focus on defending their position

Question 63

[T] What are the two types of influence which may occur at the open conflict stage?

Answer 63

• Informational influence: jurors change their opinions because other jurors make compelling arguments that convince them to alter their vote
• Normative influence: jurors give in to group pressure to conform to the majority opinion, even though their view of the case is different

Question 64

[T] What did Hastie, Penrod, & Pennington (1983) find in regards to majority-rules vs. unanimous juries?

Answer 64

• Majority-rules juries took votes earlier and tended to spend most of their time voting rather than actually discussing evidence
• Because of the vote-oriented, more socially intimidating atmosphere in the non-unanimous juries, verdicts were reached quickly
• While majority-rules juries do save time, they come at the cost of open and honest debate, which is the main purpose of a jury

Question 65

[T] What did Konecni & Ebbesen (1982) find in regards to judges’ ability to judge their impartiality?

Answer 65

• Found that judges, just like lay persons, don’t have much awareness of their own decision-making processes
• Analyzed over 400 case files for sentencing hearings in which the judge received a report from the parole officer beforehand
• In 84% of cases, judges accepted the recommendation of the parole officer
  
  • In remaining cases, they were more lenient 10% of the time and more severe 6% of the time
• However, judges reported taking a wide variety of variables and personal characteristics of the criminal and crime into consideration, i.e. unaware that the parole officer’s report can contribute significant biases

Question 66

[T] Are there any mechanisms in place to reduce bias of judges?

Answer 66

• Although there are safeguards in place to minimize juror bias, few comparable safeguards exist to address the potential bias of judges
• There is no challenge for cause or peremptory challenge for judge selection
• The bias of judges cannot be balanced out with the presence of others who have different biases and engage in debate with them
• Judges aren’t protected from biasing pretrial information like juries are