Lecture 6: Jury Decision-Making

Question 1

adjournment

Answer 1

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”.

Question 2

challenge for cause

Answer 2

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.

Question 3

change of venue

Answer 3

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.

Question 4

generic prejudice

Answer 4

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).

Question 5

impartiality

Answer 5

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.

Question 6

interest prejudice

Answer 6

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).

Question 7

juror comprehension aids

Answer 7

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).

Question 8

jury selection

Answer 8

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.

Question 9

normative prejudice

Answer 9

A form of juror bias that occurs when the juror is influenced by community sentiment (e.g., logging in British Columbia).

Question 10

representativeness

Answer 10

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.

Question 11

specific prejudice

Answer 11

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).

Question 12

summary offence

Answer 12

less serious offences

Question 13

indictable offence

Answer 13

more serious offences

Question 14

hybrid offence

Answer 14

can proceed as a summary or an indictable offence

Question 15

functions of a jury

Answer 15

• Decide facts from trial evidence
• Education for citizens
• Community consciousness
• Not sentencing

Question 16

characteristics of a jury

Answer 16

1. representativeness
2. impartiality

Question 17

sources of juror bias

Answer 17

1. interest prejudice
2. specific prejudice
3. generic prejudice
4. normative prejudcie

Question 18

examples of interest prejudice

Answer 18

a relationship between a juror and the defendant, a financial conflict of interest

Question 19

example of specific prejudice

Answer 19

bias from the media

Question 20

examples of generic prejudice

Answer 20

prejudices against sex offenders and pedophiles

Question 21

example of normative prejudice

Answer 21

negative community sentiment against logging companies in B.C.

Question 22

presumptions of impartiality in Canada

Answer 22

• Limits on pre-trial publicity
• Limits on discussions by jurors
• 12-person juries (cancel out biases)
• Reminders about sworn oaths

Question 23

Kramer et al. (1990) safeguards study

Answer 23

• Receiving biasing information before viewing a trial can increase guilty jury verdicts
• Instructions to ignore pre-trial publicity do not significantly influence jury verdicts

Question 24

three solutions to overcoming partiality

Answer 24

1. adjournment
2. change of venue
3. challenge for cause

Question 25

two approaches to jury selection

Answer 25

1. Broad attitudes and traits
2. A case-specific approach

Question 26

broad attitudes and traits approach to jury seleciton

Answer 26

• Attempts to determine defence or prosecution biases
• Ex. the Juror Bias Scale

Question 27

case-specific approach to jury seleciton

Answer 27

• 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

Question 28

methods for studying jury behaviour

Answer 28

• Interviews with jurors (U.S.)
• Archival records
• Simulation techniques
• Field studies

Question 29

models of jury decision-making

Answer 29

mathematical and explanation-based models

Question 30

efficacy of mathematical models

Answer 30

• Precise and testable
• Not realistic or intuitively appealing

Question 31

efficacy of explanation-based models

Answer 31

• Realistic and intuitively appealing
• Not precise or testable

Question 32

mathematical models

Answer 32

• 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

Question 33

explantion-based models

Answer 33

• 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

Question 34

influences on jury decision-making

Answer 34

• Actual trial evidence
• Way evidence is presented
• Beliefs of jurors
• Attitudes towards crime/criminal
• Presence of expert witnesses
• Comprehension of trial

Question 35

likelihood of commission

Answer 35

the likelihood that a juror believes the defendant committed the crime

Question 36

threshold of reasonable doubt

Answer 36

how certain does one have to be to consider it “beyond a reasonable doubt”?

Question 37

methods of comprehension aids

Answer 37

• Pre-trial instructions to jurors by the judge in simple language
• Juror note-taking as a memory aid
• Juror question-asking to the judge

Question 38

other influential factors in jury decision-making

Answer 38

• Size of the jury
• The decision rule

Question 39

are comprehension aids routinely used in Canada?

Answer 39

All of these aids are at the discretion of the judge

Question 40

juror note-taking controversy

Answer 40

There were concerns that note-taking could unduly influence the verdict, but studies show that this isn’t the case

Question 41

is Canada’s jury system effective?

Answer 41

yes, jurors in 12-person juries who must reach a unanimous verdicts assess evidence more than in smaller, majority-based juries