Lecture 6: Jury Decision-Making Flashcards
adjournment
A method for dealing with biased jurors. Adjournments consist of postponing the trial to a later date. The belief is that the delay in time will reduce biases through a process of forgetting (which is assumed to take place over time) and “cooling down”.
challenge for cause
A method for dealing with biased jurors. Challenges for cause consist of questioning jurors directly to determine if they hold any biases. The belief is that it is possible to identify biased jurors and replace them with more unbiased ones.
change of venue
A method for dealing with biased jurors. Changes of venue consist of moving the trial to a new location. The belief is that jurors in the new location will be less biased than those in the original location.
generic prejudice
A form of juror bias that occurs when the juror has attitudes and beliefs about certain groups of people or types of crime (e.g., attitudes towards drug dealers).
impartiality
Ideally, impartiality is of 1 of 2 features that characterize juries in Canada. Partiality is made up of an attitudinal component (i.e., prejudice) and a behavioural component (i.e., discrimination). The courts attempt to decrease the extent to which jurors are partial using a variety of methods including adjournments, changes of venue and challenges for cause.
interest prejudice
A form of juror bias that occurs when the juror has a direct interest in the case (e.g., they are related to the accused).
juror comprehension aids
A set of procedures that are meant to assist the jury in their function. These procedures include pre-trial instructions from the judge to the jurors, note taking by the jurors, and question asking by the jurors (to witnesses).
jury selection
A procedure, used mostly in the United States, to identify “ideal” jurors. There are 2 primary methods that are used. One method examines broad attitudes and traits. The second method examines case-specific attitudes and beliefs. Using both of these methods, the goal is to identify the “ideal” juror, in terms of their demographic features, personality, and attitudes.
normative prejudice
A form of juror bias that occurs when the juror is influenced by community sentiment (e.g., logging in British Columbia).
representativeness
Ideally, representativeness is 1 of 2 features that characterize juries in Canada. Representativeness is obtained by randomly selecting jurors that are representative of the community where the trial is being held.
specific prejudice
A form of juror bias that occurs when the juror has attitudes and beliefs about the specific case (e.g., as a result of being exposed to pre-trial press coverage).
summary offence
less serious offences
indictable offence
more serious offences
hybrid offence
can proceed as a summary or an indictable offence
functions of a jury
- Decide facts from trial evidence
- Education for citizens
- Community consciousness
- Not sentencing
characteristics of a jury
- representativeness
- impartiality
sources of juror bias
- interest prejudice
- specific prejudice
- generic prejudice
- normative prejudcie
examples of interest prejudice
a relationship between a juror and the defendant, a financial conflict of interest
example of specific prejudice
bias from the media
examples of generic prejudice
prejudices against sex offenders and pedophiles
example of normative prejudice
negative community sentiment against logging companies in B.C.
presumptions of impartiality in Canada
- Limits on pre-trial publicity
- Limits on discussions by jurors
- 12-person juries (cancel out biases)
- Reminders about sworn oaths
Kramer et al. (1990) safeguards study
- Receiving biasing information before viewing a trial can increase guilty jury verdicts
- Instructions to ignore pre-trial publicity do not significantly influence jury verdicts
three solutions to overcoming partiality
- adjournment
- change of venue
- challenge for cause
two approaches to jury selection
- Broad attitudes and traits
- A case-specific approach
broad attitudes and traits approach to jury seleciton
- Attempts to determine defence or prosecution biases
- Ex. the Juror Bias Scale
case-specific approach to jury seleciton
- Specific attitudes that potential jurors have about the case that they’re going to sit on
- Ex. The Harrisburg Seven: defence attorneys asked potential jurors about their views on Catholics and the Vietnam War
methods for studying jury behaviour
- Interviews with jurors (U.S.)
- Archival records
- Simulation techniques
- Field studies
models of jury decision-making
mathematical and explanation-based models
efficacy of mathematical models
- Precise and testable
- Not realistic or intuitively appealing
efficacy of explanation-based models
- Realistic and intuitively appealing
- Not precise or testable
mathematical models
- The verdict is the result of 2 judgments: 1) likelihood of commission & 2) threshold of reasonable doubt
- If the likelihood of commission is higher than the threshold of reasonable doubt, one comes back with a guilty verdict
explantion-based models
- Jurors organize the information presented at trial into a story
- The judge provides the jurors with relevant law and verdict options
- Jurors find the best fit between story and verdict options
influences on jury decision-making
- Actual trial evidence
- Way evidence is presented
- Beliefs of jurors
- Attitudes towards crime/criminal
- Presence of expert witnesses
- Comprehension of trial
likelihood of commission
the likelihood that a juror believes the defendant committed the crime
threshold of reasonable doubt
how certain does one have to be to consider it “beyond a reasonable doubt”?
methods of comprehension aids
- Pre-trial instructions to jurors by the judge in simple language
- Juror note-taking as a memory aid
- Juror question-asking to the judge
other influential factors in jury decision-making
- Size of the jury
- The decision rule
are comprehension aids routinely used in Canada?
All of these aids are at the discretion of the judge
juror note-taking controversy
There were concerns that note-taking could unduly influence the verdict, but studies show that this isn’t the case
is Canada’s jury system effective?
yes, jurors in 12-person juries who must reach a unanimous verdicts assess evidence more than in smaller, majority-based juries
