Psychology of the Jury Flashcards
The Jury
Definitions
More than an instrument of justice it is the lamp that shows that Freedom lives.
A better instrument could scarcely be imagined for achieving uncertainty, capriciousness, lack of uniformity, disregard of former decisions - utter unpredicatability.
Jury Facts
18-75 years old
Electoral register
Include judiciary members
12 good men & true…
effects for 6-person juries
Input of psych to jury system.
Factors to consider:
social psych
types of case
Studying Jury Processes
Problems: hampered by the law
Kalven & Zeisel (1966)
Different Methods:
1) archival research
2) questionnaire surveys
3) post-trial juror interviews
4) books by ex-jurors
5) mock jury trials
6) shadow jury trials
Questionnaire Surveys
How and Why?
- currently almost impossible in UK but…
- Zander & Henderson (1993)
- Thomas (2007/2010)
Who?
- Kalven & Zeisel 1966
- Asked jurors seemed to have decided on verdict before deliberation
- findings flawed:
- represented only 3% of jury trials
- changed wording of questionnaire halfway through
Questionnaire Surveys
Advantages & Disadvantages
Valuable insights into jury process
Process with questionnaires
British studies e.g.
- McCabe & Purves (1972b)
12.5% of perverse acquittals
Post-Trial Juror Interviews
Where?
USA but generally not UK
Limitations
- social desirability
- memory unreliability
- hindsight bias
Advantages
e.g. Doob (1977) judicial instructions
97% said judicial instructions
25% couldn’t define ‘burden of proof’
Mock Jury Trials
Most common method
Basic methodology
Some methodological issues have been identified:
e.g.
- Bornstein (1999)
Looks at samples of mock jurors & trial medium
- Diamond (1997)
Looks at the extent to which jury simulations actually reflect jury decision-making.
Mock Jury Trials
Issues of Validity
Research Setting Trial Medium Mock Juror Sample Trial Elements Measures Consequences
Mock Jury Trials
Conclusions
More realistic simulations?
- But Diamond (1997) - Stage I vs Stage II testing
More areas need testing?
- Juries as opposed to jurors
Components for inclusion
- Combination of more elemets
Evidence needs to be accepted by courts
Shadow Jury Trials
How?
Parallel juries when court in session
Why?
Subjected same stimulus as real jury.
Closest can get to real jury.
Who?
McCabe & Purves (1974)
60% agree / 20% disagree / 20% hung
Problems?
Lack of consequences
Policy Implications
Do the court accept the findings?
NO e.g. Rehnquist (1986)
- tentative fragmentary evidence
- did not involve actual jurors
- failed to simulate deliberations
YES
- changes in way jury instructions given
- procedural changes re: conduct of trial (e.g. note-taking)
Factors Affecting Jury Decision Making
- evidential factors
- extralegal factors
- categories of research:
jury research
juror research
Juror Research - Physical Attractiveness
Folklore or something more?
Methodology & Results
Efran (1974) - methodology (Vignette - type of case) - Effect for attractiveness: Less certainty of guilt Milder punishment But... finding only for males!
Juror Research - Physical Attractiveness
Studies
Sigall & Ostrove (1975)
- methodology (no measure of perception of guilt: # years imprisonment!)
- type of crime interacts with attractiveness, but generally misreported!
Stewart (1980, 1985)
- courtroom observational studies
- attractiveness correlated significantly and negativelty with severity of punishment
Juror Research - Physical Attractiveness
Meta-analysis 25 studies
Attarctiveness played a part in guilt assignment, but effect size small.
Less punishment for ‘attractives’, but again effect size small.
e. g. robbery, rape but not negligent homicide
- no effect of attractiveness for victim
Juror Research - Ethnicity
Daudistel, Hosch, Holmes & Graves (1999)
- archival analysis (non-capital felony)
- texas juries: decide guilt and sentence
- no link twixt ethnicity & conviction / acquittal
- but anglo-americans received sentences nearly twice as severe as hispanics
Juror Research - Ethnicity
Meta-analysis
Overall, no effect of race on judgements of mock jurors.
An effect for punishment, but moderated by type of crime.
Juror Research - Ethnicity
Sommers (2007)
Research clearly demonstrates that race has the potential to impact trial outcomes.
Thomas 2007 / 2010
Credibility Assessments by Jurors and Judges
Are jurors / judges biased by their initial judgments of defendants / witnesses?
We do need to be wary about our credibility assessments in the courtroom:
- judges hold false stereotypes about deception and are vulnerable to dangerous biases in evaluating witness evidence
Juror Research - Other Factors
Socio-economic status (SES)
- low ses more guilty than high ses
Gender
Overall no effect of judgements of guilt. may depend on crime.
Jury Foreperson
who gets selected?
The Jury Foreperson
- Male
- 40+
- Managerial / professional occupation
- Better educated
- Higher status
- Seated end of table
- Experienced jury service
- First to speak
- Mention need for foreperson
The Jury Foreperson
Influences
- tend to participate more than others
- account for 25-35% of the speaking during the deliberation
- strongly influence speaking time and order
- overall more influential than others
Foley & Pigott 1997 - forepersons are influential but other members of the jury also wield influence
Juror Research - Other Factors
Many other areas e.g.
Jury size Prior service Persuasive jurors Judicial instructions Juror characteristics Pre-trial publicity
Controversies
Death qualified juries
- evidence of an effect for type of juror
Judicial Instructions
- judges instructions can have an effect
The Trial of Suspected Terrorists
- can they get a fair trial?
For and Against the Jury
Nietzel et al (1999)
- realism
- competence
- active
Viable alternatives?
- trial single judge
- inquisitorial vs adversarial system
- jury reform?
