Module 9 - Jury making decisions Flashcards
1
Q
Cases heard
A
- Summary: judge alone, less than 2000$ and 6 months (sometimes 18)
- Indictable: absolute jurisdiction = less serious/judge only (theft, false pretenses, failure to comply with probation order), highly serious/judge-jury (treason, murder, piracy), choice of judge/jury (robbery, arson, SA with weapon) either no jury/no prelim, prelim/judge, or prelim/judge/jury (default)
- Hybrid: 5+ years if indictable or 6 months if summary, Crown dictates if jury/judge (DUI, assault, SA, hit-n-run, forgery, possession substance/weapon/child porn)
2
Q
Bench trials
A
No jury, only judge
3
Q
Jury or judge?
A
- PRO JURIES jury nullification, unanimity needed (1/12 must believe innocence)
- CON JURIES heinous crimes with potential biases, bad publicity
4
Q
Jury Act
A
- Eligibility guidelines in 1972
- Prior only men who owned property
- No if criminal record
5
Q
Jury challenges
A
- Peremptory: no reason needed, unlikely to reach verdict in their favor, abolished by bill C-75, avoid bad jurors with biases (might be discriminatory)
- For cause: must provide reason for rejection (convicted offense for 2+ years in prison, not Canadian citizen, unable to perform duties of juror, official language, biased, religious beliefs, believes unfair law, prior knowledge of case)
6
Q
Representativeness
A
- Achieved through randomness (what about homeless? Indigenous?)
- Important feature but no right to jury of certain composition
7
Q
Indigenous representativeness
A
- Increase period from 5 to 30 days to complete juror questionnaire and removed intimidating language
- New division: Indigenous Justice Division
- Creation of Indigenous Justice Group
- Increase of First Nation liaisons
- Allowed volunteer juror lists
8
Q
Impartiality responsibilities
A
- Set aside biases, prejudices, attitudes
- Ignore information from non-admissible evidence (media reporting)
- No connection to defendant
9
Q
Impartiality: methods to increase it (Bias remedies)
A
- Publication ban: prosecution bias without it, harsher sentencing
- Change of venue (extensive publicity, heinous crime, small community): stay in province, rarely granted
- Adjournment/continuance: memory fading, witnesses move
- Challenge for cause: pre-approved questions (truthfulness based on unflattering questions, open court, awareness of biases), 2 juries from pool become triers and decide eligibility of prospective (abolished by bill C-75)
10
Q
Jury functions
A
- Wisdom of 12 not 1
- Conscience of community
- Protect against out-of-date laws
- Increase knowledge of justice system
11
Q
Jury nullification
A
- Ignoring law to use other criteria
- Chaos theory = decisions guided by emotion and personal biases lead to chaos
- Reasoning: unjust or misapplied law, harsh sentencing, defendant just, no victim = no crime
12
Q
Studying juries: post-trial interviews
A
- Not allowed in Canada
- No deliberations, might change answers to look better to public
- High external validity
- Low reliability (remembering details) and low cause-and-effect
13
Q
Studying juries: archives
A
- High external validity but low cause-effect
- Questions limited by available documents
- Reliability of archives?
14
Q
Studying juries: simulation
A
- High internal validity + cause-effect (manipulation of DV) + large sample
- Limited generalizability so low external validity
15
Q
Studying juries: field studies
A
- Not allowed in Canada since jurors are anonymous
- Cooperation from courts
- Limitations: court approval, small sample, confounding variables (gender)
16
Q
Note-taking
A
- PRO: lengthy process so aids memory recollection, listen more when taking notes
- CONS: exert influence during deliberation, bias to rely on those who took notes
- Judge’s discretion to allow
- Can be trusted, studies debunked cons
17
Q
Asking questions
A
- PROS promote understanding, legally appropriate, if unanswered = no inappropriate inferences, juror doesn’t become advocate
- CONS doesn’t help truth (usually about legal jargon), doesn’t increase trial/verdict satisfaction
- Submit questions to judge who then decides if judge themselves should ask
18
Q
Backfire effect
A
- Judge instructing to disregard evidence makes it that much more memorable
19
Q
Mathematical/Bayesian model
A
- Mental calculation of importance and strength of each piece of evidence
- Set of internal calculations that results in verdict
- Inconsistent model with verdict decisions
- Juror behavior does not conform to probability principles
20
Q
Explanation model (story model)
A
- Causal connections resulting in story structure/coherent whole (allows for causation)
- Advantage to lawyers if evidence presented in chronological order
- Selecting verdict option most consistent with story
- Evaluating stories: coverage (extent of accounting for all evidence), coherence (consistency, completeness, plausibility), uniqueness (confidence level)
21
Q
Devine multi-level approach
A
- Director’s cut model (juror level): forming narrative to end up either believer, doubter, muller, or puzzler
- Story sampling model (jury level): sharing narratives
22
Q
Deliberations
A
- Polarization or leniency bias
23
Q
Juror decision-making
A
- Mistrials from hung juries
- Verdict-driven = start with poll / evidence-driven = start with evidence discussion
24
Q
Racial biases
A
- More guilty verdicts for ‘other race’ defendants
- Racial salience decreased biases
- Black sheep effect: weak evidence = leniency for same race, strong evidence = punitive
25
Q
Personality variables
A
- Authoritarianism: more convictions, acquiesce to authority, right wing conservative
- Dogmatism: rigid, close-minded, no political overtones
26
Q
Bias in verdicts
A
Race, gender, youth
27
Q
Expert testimony
A
- Explicit examples
- Credibility linked with experience
- Admit limitations
- No defensive or argumentative
- Hired gun = take side of hiring attorney
