Week 9 Flashcards
Venire
“Cause to come”
Pool of prospective jurors are drawn from an eligible pop
Drawing jury pool
- voter registration (primary means)
- list of licensed drivers
- state-issued ID cards
- persons receiving public assistance
- unemployment lists
Exclusions and exemptions
- ppl ignore summons (~20%)
- don’t respond to questionnaires
- legal exclusions
- > visual or hearing impaired
- > felons
- > non-english speakers
- > non-citizens
- personal hardships
- > one day or one-trial
Voir Dire
“to speak truth”
Jurors are asked questions and dismissed
6th Amend right to “fair and impartial” jury
- defendant can screen prospective jurors to DETERMINE if they are PREJUDICED
- > lawyers & judges may ask jurors questions in an ATTEMPT TO SCREEN them
Lawyers may use to make a point
- public commitment -> more likely yo actually follow through
- in eye witness case- “ever seen though knew, but was wrong?”
Challenges for cause
- either side (or judge) can CLAIM certain jurors should be EXCUSED FOR CAUSE (e.g., biased)
- in theory, no limit
Peremptory challenges
- each side can EXCLUDE a DESIGNATED # of jurors W/O CAUSE cited
- DEFENSE tends to get MORE in criminal trials
Pre-1968 juries
Middle aged, white males
1966- exclude women because they are women
Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968
Jury selection
- uniform criteria for selection
- broad cross-section of community
- increase diversity
- representativeness (race, gender, age, SES, sexual orientation, religion)
Benefits of diversity jury
- Heterogeneous juries would be better fact finders and problem solvers
- More likely to include minority group members, who might DISCOURAGE majority group PREJUDICE
More diverse juries (Sommers)
- deliberate longer
- more likely to discuss racially charged topics
- discuss more of the evidence presented at trial
- make fewer inaccurate statements about facts of case
Presence of dissimilar others causes jurors to process trial evidence more thoroughly
Constitutional Rights
6th Amend rights
-right to fair and impartial jury
14th Amend
-right to “equal protection”
Representativeness
Rep. of juries leads to the APPEARANCE of legit
LACK of rep. can lead to rejection of both criminal justice process and its outcomes
EXAMPLE
Rodney King Trial -> L.A. Riots
Ellis & DIamond (2003)
Participants given description of criminal case
- black defendant
- ended in conviction to ended in acquittal
Racial makeup of jury was varied
-all white or mixed-race
How fair was the verdict?
- acquittal = no difference between groups
- CONVICTION = race of jury MATTERS
- > all whites seen as less impartial, more unfair
Composition of jury pool matters
Anwar, Bayer, & Hjalmarsson (2012)
Examined actual trial outcomes involving felony cases in FL
Juries formed from ALL-WHITE jury POOLS
-convicted black defendants 16% MORE often than white defendants
Jury POOL with at least one BLACK member
-NO significant difference in conviction rates for white and black defendants
~40% of jury POOLS examined had NO BLACK MEMBERS and most others had one or two black members
Rose (1999)
Examined 348 juror prospectes involved in 13 N Carolina felony trials
147 peremptory challengers used
-66% by defense
- Black jurors just as likely to be dismissed as white
- 71% black by PROSECUTION
- 81% white by DEFENSE
Cognizable group
Group that has a definite composition
Supreme Court placed some limitations on peremptory challenges
-cannot exclude ALL members of a COG. GROUP (ethnic groups, religion, gender, etc.)
Batson v. Kentucky (1986)
-NO exclusions based on RACE
J.E.B. v. Alabama (1994)
-No exclusions based on GENDER
Batson v. Kentucky (1986)
NO exclusions based on RACE
cognizable group
J.E.B. v. Alabama (1994)
No exclusions based on GENDER
cognizable group
Jury selections strategies
Predict how a person will lean before trial by
1. Demo. characteristics (may employ stereotypes)
- Individual juror personality (implicit personality test do NOT reliably PREDICT jury verdicts)
- >internal/external locus of control (MORE likely to CONVICT)
- >authoritarianism (punish those who do NOT conform to society; MORE likely to CONVICT; longer sentences, but NOT when def. is authority!)
- >belief in a “just world” (ppl get what they deserve) - Group status (in-group vs. out-group effects)
Similarity-Leniency Hyp.
-WEAK evidence
-jurors who demo. or socially SIMILAR to def. might be more SYMPATHETIC
-if not in in-group; harsher
Black Sheep Effect
- STRONG evidence
- those who SHARE QUALITIES may be SKEPTICAL of def.’s excuses or justifications
- want to DISTANCE SELF
- if in in-group; harsher
Scientific Jury Selection
Trial consulting
- expensive (favors rich)
- community surveys (rep. of jury pool)
- > attitudes, beliefs, personal habits
- focus groups
- mock trials
- voir dire
- opening and closing arguments
Harrisburg Seven (1978)
Def. were antiwar activists
->consultant to get sympathetic jury
Based on data: Ideal prosecution juror -rep. businessman -religious (presbyterian, methodist, fund. Christian) -active in local civil org.
Ideal defense juror
- femal
- democrat
- no religious preference
- white-collar to skilled blue-collar
Mistrial, not retried
People v. O.J. Simpson
Both pros. & defense hired consultants
Pros
- about race
- > prosector disagreed, though ideal would be female and black women best
Defense
- about race
- > want as many black (and other minorities) as possible
Jury comp: 1 black male 1 hispanic male 2 white women 8 black women
pros: 10 women
def: 10 minorities
Not guilty
Women on jury didn’t like Pros
How effective are trial consultants at selecting juries?
Depends
- # of peremptory challenges allowed
- whether attorneys act on guidance of consultants
- long and complex trial
Difficult to make conclusion b/c no control
Jury Instructions
Preliminary Instructions
-BEFORE trial (usually procedural)
Admonitions
-e.g., “disregard that statement”
Substantive law instructions
- info ABOUT the law as applies to case
- typ. not given until AFTER trial
- > report understood better when pre- and post-trial instructions (eval. evidence more thoroughly)
What is “evidence” and what is not
- things one may or may not consider
- legal concepts defined
- beyond reasonable doubt or preponderance of evidence
Instructions
- written by lawyers in order to be legally PRECISE
- judges read verbatim (13.5% appeals based on instructional error by judge)
- > if asked question, judge will repeat instructions again
Legaleses leads to
- discuss inappropriate topics
- neglect imp. topics
- allow one or two jurors who think understand control process
- Hastie, Schkade & Payne (1989) – Median 5%; 30% scored 0% in defining terms relevant to case
Jury Deliberation
Discuss evidence & judge instructions
- 70-75% time discussing evidence
- 20% discussing law
How they deliberate
- elect foreperson (perceived to have authority: male, older, prof. degree)
- discuss procedures
- raise general trial issues
Verdict-driven:
- start with poll (guilty or innocent)
- supporting evidence for verdict (confirmation bias)
Evidence-driven:
- start with thorough review of evidence/testimony/etc.
- can relate evidence to both verdicts
- take poll near end of deliberation
- > outcome: more personal satisfaction, take case more seriously, discuss more thoroughly, don’t leave out pieces of evidence
