UNIT #7: Juries: Fact Finders

Question 1

Adjournment

Answer 1

Delaying the trial to sometime in the future

Question 2

Black sheep effect

Answer 2

When evidence is strong, similarity between defendant and Jury leads to punitiveness

Question 3

Challenge for cause

Answer 3

An option to reject biased jours

Question 4

Change of venue

Answer 4

Moving a trial to a community other than the one in which the crime occurred

Question 5

Chaos theory

Answer 5

Theory that when jurors

are guided by their emotions and personal biases rather than by the law, chaos on judgements results

Question 6

Deliberation

Answer 6

When jury members discuss the evidence privately among themselves to reach a verdict that is then provided to the court

Question 7

Hung jury

Answer 7

A jury that cannot reach a unanimous verdict

Question 8

Impartiality

x2

Answer 8

(1) A characteristic of jurors who are unbiassed
(2) Centres on 3 issues:
- 1. Must set aside any Pre-existing biases, Prejudices, or attitudes & Judge the case based
Solely on the admissible Evidence.
2. Must ignore any info That is not part of the
admissible evidence.
3. The juror must have no Connection to the defendant So that the juror does not View the evidence subjectively Or unduly influence other jurors.

Question 9

Juries act

Answer 9

A provincial and territorial legislation that outlines the eligibility criteria for jury service and how prospective jurors must be selected

Question 10

Jury nullification

• theory associated with it

x2

Answer 10

(1) Occurs when a jury ignores the law and the evidence, rendering a verdict based on some other criteria
(2) Chaos Theory: The theory that when
Jurors are guided by Their emotions and personal
Biases rather than by the law, Chaos in judgments results.

Question 11

Jury summons

Answer 11

A court order that states a time and place to go for jury duty

Question 12

Leniency bias

Answer 12

When jurors move toward greater leniency during deliberations

Question 13

Polarization

Answer 13

When individuals tend to become more extreme in their initial position following a group discussion

Question 14

Racial bias

Answer 14

The disparate treatment of racial out-groups

Question 15

Representativeness

x3

Answer 15

(1) A jury composition that represents the community where the crime occurred
(2) Achieved through randomness - E.g. community’s telephone Directory or voter registration.
(3) Must allow any possible Eligible person from the Community the opportunity To be part of the jury.

Question 16

Supreme Court outlined
2 fundamental characteristics
Of juries in Canada

Answer 16

(1) Representativeness

(2) Impartiality

Question 17

Who Can/cannot serve
On a jury?

x5

Answer 17

1. Police officers
2. People with legal training
3. Lawyers
4. Judges
5. Anyone with a connection To the accused

Question 18

What are some threats to Impartiality:
Jurors who Are unbiased?

x4

Answer 18

(1) Media coverage:
- As exposure to negative Pretrial publicity increases, So do the # of guilty verdicts.
- Despite instructions to Ignore pretrial publicity,
jurors discuss the info Anyway
- Whether positive or negative, Influences the verdict, perceptions Of the defendant, and attorneys.

Question 19

What are the three categories of
criminal offences in Canada &
Role jury plays

Answer 19

(1) Summary Offences: Defendant charged Does Not have right To trial by jury.
- Tried by judge alone
(2) Indictable Offences:
- Less serious heard By judge alone
- For some accused can choose:
A) be tried by a provincial Court judge without a
Jury & without a Preliminary inquiry
B) have a prelim inquiry & be tried by judge without Jury.
C) Have a prelim inquiry & Be tried by judge & jury.
(D) Highly serious must Be tried by judge & jury
(Treason, murder, piracy).
E) Exception under S. 473 C.C.: If accused & attourney General agree Trial can proceed without jury & judge Alone tries the case.
(3) hybrid offences:
- Cross between summary & ; Indictable offences
- Crown decides how to proceed
- If proceed summarily, Max penalty is 6 months,
Or 18 months in some cases.
-

Question 20

How juries are typically
Selected in Canada

x3

Answer 20

(1) Juries Act: Provincial & Territorial
Legislation that outlines The eligibility criteria for Jury service & how prospective jurors must be selected
- Legislation varies across Jurisdictions; there are
Commonalities
(2) Jury Summons: A court order that states a
time & place to go for jury Duty
(3) If selected from juror pool, You will be juror unless One of the lawyers presents A challenge

Question 21

If selected from juror pool, You will be juror unless One of the lawyers presents A challenge.

x3

Answer 21

(1) Criminal Trials have 12-person juries
(2) 2 Types of challenges:
- (1) peremptory: Crown or Defence can Use to reject jurors who They believe are unlikely To reach verdict in their
Favour.
- Lawyer does not Have to provide A reason for rejecting Prospective juror.
- Limited #: In murder trials Have 20; most Other trials each Side has 12.
(3) (2) challenge for cause
- Lawyer must give a reason For rejecting

Question 22

Remedies for juries That are not impartial

x3

Answer 22

(1) Change of Venue
(2) Adjournment
(3) Challenge For Cause

Question 23

Remedies for juries That are not impartial

• Change of Venue

x3

Answer 23

(1) Moving the trial to a Community other than The one where the crime
Occurred.
(2) lawyer raising the issue Must demonstrate that
There is a reasonable likelihood The local community is biased Or prejudiced against defendant.
(3) Factors leading To biased jury:
- Extensive pretrial Publicity
- a heinous crime
- Small community in Which many people Know the victim/defendant.

Question 24

Remedies for juries That are not impartial

• Adjournment
• (Disadvantages)

x4

Answer 24

(1) Delaying the trial until Some time in the future.
(2) Allowing sufficient time To Pass so the biasing Effect of any pretrial Info has dissipated by The time the trial takes place.
(3) Witnesses move Or die
(4) Witnesses’ memories Can fade

Question 25

Remedies for juries That are not impartial

• Challenge for cause

x7

Answer 25

(1) An option to reject Biased jurors
(2) Changes how a jury is selected:
(3) Crown or Defence may Argue although prospective Jury pool may be partial, if
Questioned, prospective jurors Could be identified & rejected from Serving on the jury
(4) Side desiring the judge To allow challenge must
Demonstrate there is Reasonable partiality in The community from which The jury pool will be drawn.
(5) If judge grants: Prospective jurors can be
Probed with a set of preDetermined questions approved By the judge.
(6) Only prospective jurors’ State of mind or thinking Can be examined.
(7) Not allowed to ask about Their backgrounds or
Personalities.

Question 26

Explain how Challenge for cause Changes how a jury is selected.

x5

Answer 26

(1) Two persons are selected From the jury pool & sworn To act as triers; a third person Is selected as a prospective Juror.
(2) Lawyers or judge question The prospective juror, while Triers listen to the answers.
(3) Triers discuss as to whether The prospective juror is impartial.
(4) If trier decides prospective Juror is not impartial, they Are dismissed and, another
Person is selected as a prospective Juror; the process begins again.
(5) If triers decide the prospective Juror is impartial, then that person Becomes the first member of the jury And replaces one of the triers.

Question 27

Functions of a jury

x6

Answer 27

(1) To increase knowledge About the
justice system.
(2) To use the wisdom of 12 (Rather than 1) to reach A verdict.
(3) Main legal function is To apply the law, as provided By The judge, to the admissible
Evidence in the case & to render A verdict of guilt or innocence.
(4) To protect against Out-of-date laws
(6) To act as the conscience of the community.

Question 28

Jury Nullification

• Types of cases in which This anomaly might be Applied

x3

Answer 28

(1) When cases Involve controversial
Issues such as Abortion or euthanasia
(2) Jury believes the law Is unfair given the circumstances Of the case
(3) Punishment accompanying A conviction is too harsh For the crime

Question 29

What are the strengths in Post-trial
interviews of jurors?

x3

Answer 29

(1) High external validity
(2) Results come From real cases And the actual jurors Who deliberated
(3) Results more likely To apply to the real world

Question 30

Weaknesses of Post-trial
interviews of jurors

x4

Answer 30

(1) In Canada, jurors not Allowed to discuss what Occurred in deliberations
(2) Researchers turn to U.S. or other countries
That do not have this rule.
(3) Cause-and-effect Relationship cannot
Be established with This type of methodology.
- At best researchers Can talk about variables
That occur together
- Alternative hypotheses Cannot be ruled out
(4) Jurors’ accounts May not be reliable
- Conclusions may Be based on Unreliable data
- Forget critical Aspects of the Deliberation
- Embellish or Downplay elements to present
Themselves more favourably.
- Recall details Inaccurately

Question 31

Common methods of

Studying juror behaviour

Answer 31

(1) Archives
(2) Field Studies
(3) Post-trial interviews
(4) Simulation

Question 32

Common methods of
Studying juror behaviour

• Archives
• Weaknesses & Strengths

x3

Answer 32

(1) Records of trials Reviewed to uncover Relationships among Variables
- Transcripts
- Police interviews Of witnesses
(2) WEAKNESSES: Inability to establish
Cause-and-effect Relationships
- Researcher unaware How info was collected
And reliability of it.
- Researcher restricted To data available - types
Of questions that can be Posed are limited by info
That can be accessed.
- Researcher unable to Go back and collect
More information.
(3) STRENGTH: External Validity
Is high.

Question 33

Common methods of
Studying juror behaviour

Field Studies

• Strengths
• Weaknesses

x3

Answer 33

(1) Using actual jurors While they are serving On jury duty.
- Researchers may be Able to introduce variables They want to examine
- Able to observe Variables of interest As they are occurring.
- Cooperation from the Courts & jurors required
(2) WEAKNESSES:
- Even when approval Granted, it is likely Only small sample of Participants available.
- Appropriate comparison Groups may be difficult
To identify.
- Host of confounding Variables researcher
May not be able to Control (e.g. gender
Of lawyers & witnesses)
- Receiving approval From courts may be
Difficult
(3) STRENGTHS:
- High external Validity

Question 34

Common methods of
Studying juror behaviour

• Simulation

STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES

x3

Answer 34

(1) Simulate a trial Or, aspects of it
By using written, audio, Or video format.
- Participants presented With trial information,
Researcher varies & Manipulated trial info
- Following presentations Of trial, participants asked To respond individually (Juror research) or, in groups (Jury research)
- Asked to render a Verdict or make other Judgments
- Verdict and other Participants’ responses Can be compared to Determine whether the Independent variable(s) Had an effect.
(2) STRENGTHS: High internal Validity
- Researchers can reveal Cause-and-effect relationships because they systematically
Manipulated the independent Variables
(3) WEAKNESSES:
- Participants typically University students Who may not be representative Of real jury pools
- The control the researchers Have over independent variables Limits the external validity
- E.G. cases are not real And no consequences
To the verdicts or decisions

Question 35

Effect of judge instructing
Jury to ignore piece of evidence

x6

Answer 35

(1) unclear how to remove the cognitive influences associated with inadmissible evidence.
(2) assessed jurors’ comprehension of judges’ instructions. These prospective jurors understood less than 50% of the instructions they received.
(3) jurors do not remember, understand, or accurately apply judges’ instructions.
(4) found that if the inadmissible evidence was memorable, it was harder for the jury to ignore.
(5) Backfire Effect: Some researchers have found
that a judge’s instruction to disregard evidence simply makes the evidence more memorable than if no instruction were given.
(6) Whether jurors will follow a judge’s instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence is related to the reason for the instruction rather than to the instruction itself.

Question 36

Reforms proposed because
Jurors have difficulty applying
Judges’ instructions

x4

Answer 36

(1) rewriting instructions.
(2) providing a written copy of the instructions to jurors.
(3) providing jurors with pre-and post-evidence instructions.
(4) having lawyers clarify legal instruction during their presentation to the jury.

Question 37

Innovations proposed To aid jurors

x2

Answer 37

(1) Note-taking

(2) Asking Questions

Question 38

Innovations proposed To aid jurors

• Note-taking
• ADVANTAGES x4 & DISADVANTAGES x2

x3

Answer 38

(1) Trial judge in each case decides whether jurors will be allowed to take notes.
(2) Advantages: Note-takers more attentive
during the trial than those who do not take notes.
- Jurors’ notes are an accurate record of the trial
- Can keep up with the evidence as it is presented
- Juror note-taking does not favour either the
prosecution/crown or the defence
- May facilitate memory and understanding
of the evidence.
(3) DISADVANTAGES: Jurors who take notes
may exert influence while in the deliberation
over those who do not.
- If disagreements occur about the evidence,
jurors will rely on those who took notes to clarify
the issue.

Question 39

How does the size of a jury influence the deliberation process and outcome?

x5

Answer 39

(1) Meta-analysis conducted showed
If 7 or fewer jurors vote Guilty at beginning of Deliberation, jury will Render not-guilty verdict.
(2) If 10 or more jurors initially vote Guilty, final verdict will likely Be guilty.
(3) If 8 or 9 jurors initially vote Guilty, the final verdict Is unpredictable.
(4) When a jury could retire With a majority vote, they Tended to reach a decision Faster and did not fully discuss the evidence & the Law, compared with when Jury was required to reach A unanimous verdict.
(5) Studies have shown 6-person juries less Representative of The community, Remember less of the Evidence, return quicker verdicts More likely to reach unanimous Verdict than 12-person juries.

Question 40

most common theories about how juries make informed decisions

Answer 40

(1) categorized as using either a mathematical or an explanation-based approach.
(2)

Question 41

most common theories about how juries make informed decisions

• MATHEMATICAL MODEL

x3

Answer 41

(1) View jurors as conducting A set of mental calculations Regarding the importance And strength of each piece Of evidence.
(2) Guilty or not guilty Verdict is determined By the outcome of The calculations for All the relevant evidence.
(3) Verdict is a function Of the calculation of
All the relevant evidence.

Question 42

most common theories about how juries make informed decisions

• EXPLANATION MODEL

x6

Answer 42

(1) Suggest evidence is Organized into a coherent Whole
(2) Active at understanding And processing the evidence.
(3) Jurors interpret and elaborate On the evidence and make Casual connections, in doing so, They create a story structure.
(4) These “stories” are compared With each verdict option Presented by the judge.
(5) The verdict option most Consistent with the story is The verdict reached.
(6) Individual differences can Influence the story-construction Process:
- Jurors bring in their Personal beliefs, experiences, Knowledge, attitudes when
Constructing their stories
- Jurors may reach different Decisions after hearing the Same evidence.

Question 43

In predicting verdicts, how is race an influential factor?

x11

Answer 43

(1) Deliberations seemed To mediate any biases That may have existed But only when implicit Stereotypes were not Elicited.
(2) Juror racial bias reduced When defence lawyer “played The race card” (made salient
Statements).
(3) Studies show a small Significant effect of Racial bias on jury decisions.
(4) Participants more likely To render guilty verdicts For “other-race” defendants Than for defendants of their Own race.
(5) Rendered longer sentences For other-race defendants.
(6) Jurors’ prejudicial beliefs Were related to verdict only When defendant’s race was Not made prominent.
(7) Found when a defendant’s Race was made prominent, White juror bias toward a black defendant was reduced.
(8) Strength of evidence May come into play
Along with race.
(9) When evidence was weak (Not clearly favouring one Side), a race similarity Between defendant and jury Led to leniency
(10) When evidence was strong, Race similarity between Jury & defendant led to Punitiveness
(11) Known as the Black sheep effect

Question 44

In jury deliberations, social

influences can occur. What are two of these?

Answer 44

(1) leniency bias

(2) polarization

Question 45

Influence of expert evidence on jurors’ decisions

x11

Answer 45

(1) Sometimes, jurors don’t have the background knowledge to understand certain types of evidence, such as DNA.
(2) Gender of the expert:
- Jurors may be affected By gender differently,
depending on their ability to process expert testimony.
- When expert testimony was less complex, although not significantly so, the jury awarded higher damages when the expert was female, rather than male.
- When expert testimony was more complex, the jury awarded hire damages to the plaintiff when the expert was male, rather than female
(3) Jurors may disregard it completely
(4) Jurors asked about Perceptions and reactions to three types of witnesses: professional expert,
Lay experts, and families or friends of the defendant.
(5) Jurors were most likely to view professional experts negatively, believing they had little credibility and hurt the side they were testifying for.
(6) Overall, jurors may carefully
consider expert testimony.
(7) Two key factors influenced all the dependent measures and interacted: Evidence strength and
coherency of the testimony.
(8) Defendant was rated less guilty and the victim rated as less credible when the strength of the evidence and coherency Were low.
(9) The usefulness of expert testimony can interact with other factors in the case.
(10) Credentials may not be critical to jurors when rendering verdicts.
(11) Experts’ testimony had virtually no impact

Question 46

How are juror attitude relevant to jury verdicts?

x4

Answer 46

(1) Overall, attitudes that are case-specific seem to have more predictive power over verdict than more general
attitudes to do.
(2) It was reported that no group of attitude or values as receipt sufficient investigation to reach a definitive conclusion at this point.
(3) One notable exception is attitudes toward capital punishment.
(4) Jurors who are willing to impose the death sentence had a 19% higher conviction rate than non-death-Qualified jurors.

Question 47

How personality factors of jurors influence prediction of verdicts

x5

Answer 47

(1) Mock jurors who were extroverted and had higher moral reasoning were found to be more persuasive than other mock jours.
(2) Participants who showed a high level of conscientiousness were more likely to report being persuaded by other participants.
(3) Two personality traits that have been commonly measured in connection to jurors:
- Authoritarianism
- dogmatism
(4) authoritarianism:
- Tend to have right-wing political views and are
conservative and rigid thinkers who surrender
to authority.
- Meta-analysis found a moderate positive relationship between authoritarianism & verdict.
- Those that Score high on these traits tend
to be more inclined to render guilty verdicts.
- Have Pro-prosecution bias
(5) dogmatism:
- Tend to be rigid and close-minded but without
the political overtones found with the authoritarianism construct.

Question 48

Relevance of defendant characteristics as they relate to Jury discussions.

x8

Answer 48

(1) Researchers reasoned that jurors may Pay particular attention to the
characteristics of the defendant if the defendant is incongruent with the
offender stereotype.
(2) This was further supported when Mock jurors were found to spend more time looking at the female rather than male defendant.
(3) Mock jurors recalled fewer facts of the case
when the defendant was female rather than male.
(4) If jurors hear about a defendant’s prior criminal record that contains one or more convictions, they are more likely to find a defendant guilty than if
they did not have this knowledge.
(5) Seems to be a small relationship between the attractiveness of the defendant and Jury verdict.
(6) When Mock jurors did deliberate, the attractive defendant would more likely to be found guilty.
(7) “Plain looking” defendants were more often found to be guilty when Mock jurors did not deliberate.
(8) Found verdict preferences to be more lenient for the attractive defendant and more severe for the unattractive defendant.

Question 49

Relevance of victim characteristics as they relate to Jury discussions.

x4

Answer 49

(1) Particularly relevant in cases of sexual assault in which a guilty verdict
may hinge on the testimony of the alleged victim.
(2) If a woman’s sexual history is admitted into evidence, it is used to assess her credibility.
(3) Sexual history: Compared with participants who heard no sexual history information,
those who heard that the victim and defendant had sexual intercourse in the past were less likely to find the alleged victim credible, more likely to find her blameworthy, and more likely to believe
she consented to sexual intercourse.
(4) More likely to find the defendant not guilty.