Week 10 - Juror Decision Making Flashcards
Why study juror/jury decision makers?
- finders of fact
- conscience of community
- lay people making important/complex decisions
- controversial decisions
What are a couple of questionable calls with jury decisions?
- Mcdonalds, hot coffee, sue for $2.9 million for spilling on themselves
- man jumping over net, became paralysed, tried to sue for $18 million
- OJ Simpson
What are some challenges we face when trying to establish the ‘goodness’ of jurors?
- establishing ground truth
- when is not ‘not guilty’ the right verdict?
What are one way to see if jurors have reached a good verdict?
What have we found from this?
- compare with judges to see if consistent
- we’ve found that guilty verdicts are fairly consistent. When jurors voted not guilty, often the judge would have voted guilty.
Why would we look at the individual when evaluating jurors?
- isolating basic cognitive processes (avoid interactions between variables and individuals)
- logistic/methodological concerns (time, space, statistical power)
- individual juror verdict best predictor of jury verdict (in about 90% of cases)
What can post event questionnaires tell us about jury’s? (non experimental methodologies)
- influence of deliberation/social variables
- memory/social desirability/self report issues
What is a problem to do with post event questionnaires tell us about jury’s? (non experimental methodologies)
People are usually unaware of what influences their decisions
What is one experimental methodology used to study jurors?
mock-juror simulations
Outline the methods that we may use in mock juror simulations
brief written, audio, video scenarios. Jurors assess testimonial credibility, defendant culpability and deliver verdict. Guilty/not guilty verdict vs. rating scale.
Mock juror simulations have good control, but difficulties with realism. Outline this:
- nature of materials (complexity, instructions)
- juror motivation
- no deliberation
Realism in mock juror stimulations does NOT:
guarantee generality.
Do undergraduate uni students represent the general population well in jury studies?
Yes.
What is the primary basis for juror verdicts?
The strength of evidence.
When it comes to E/W evidence, jurors aren’t really that great at acknowledging:
memorial factors vs. procedural factors
Jurors like witness confidence in E/W, but:
- they don’t realise feedback/social effects
- confidence “epiphanies”
Jurors like consistency of testimony when evaluating evidence, but
not aware of the nature of memory
Jurors like consistency of case/corroboration when evaluating evidence, but
are not aware of co-witness conformity, misinformation etc. Also on independence of evidence.
Jurors like expert testimony when evaluating evidence, but
Are not aware of reliability of source and assessing reliability of source. Or of competing experts, not good at evaluating.
What is found in juror’s evaluations of evidence?
The good?
The bad?
The ugly?
good: high pressure confessions perceived as less voluntary and reliable.
bad: high pressure confession still increases guilty verdicts.
The ugly: even when confession is ruled as inadmissible, even when jurors report it had no impact
What is encouraging when looking at jurors evaluation of evidence?
That juror is relying on strength of evidence for verdict preferences.
What is less encouraging when looking at jurors evaluation of evidence?
Juror assessments of evidence reliability/informational value. Influence of non evidential variables.
What are some examples of general findings when it comes to juror decision making?
attractiveness, SES, gender.
What is the affect of attractiveness in jurys?
If the crime involved using that attractiveness, sentence is longer. If not, decrease sentence.
defendant race interacts with what in jurors:
crime type/stereotype
