Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-1 Chapter 7 Juries: Fact Finders

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-2 Learning Objectives Describe how jurors are selected Distinguish between representativeness and impartiality Describe the effects of pretrial publicity and how to deal with it Outline the stages to reaching a verdict Describe variables examined to predict verdict 7-2

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-3 The Right to a Jury Trial 7-3 Type of Offence Right to Judge Alone Right to Judge and Jury Summary Offences YesNo Indictable Offences Yes

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-4 Trial by Jury or Judge-Alone In hybrid offences the Crown decides to pursue the case as a summary or indictable offence 7-4

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-5 Selecting a Jury 7-5 Selected from list Part of jury pool Selected as juror? Peremptory Challenges

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-6 Characteristics of a Jury Representativeness: A jury composition that represents the community where the crime occurred Impartiality: A characteristic of jurors who are unbiased 7-6

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-7 Threats to Impartiality Negative pretrial publicity related to an increase number of guilty verdicts (Steblay et al., 1999) Emotions that pretrial publicity raises are remembered, while factual information tends to be forgotten 7-7

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-8 Increasing Impartiality Change of venue: Moving a trial to a community other than the one in which the crime occurred Adjournment: Delaying the trial Challenge for cause: An option to reject biased jurors 7-8

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-9 Change of Venue Trial typically stays within the province/territory where crime occurred The party requesting the issue must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the community is biased or prejudiced against the defendant 7-9

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-10 Adjournment Delay allows for bias to dissipate Infrequently granted Limitations: –Witnesses’ memory fades –Witnesses move or die 7-10

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-11 Challenge for Cause Prospective jurors are questioned prior to being accepted Limitations: –Potential jurors may provide dishonest answers, either intentionally or unintentionally 7-11

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-12 Jury Functions Wisdom of 12 (instead of 1) Conscience of the community Protect against out-of-date laws Increase knowledge about justice system Apply the law provided by the Judge 7-12

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-13 Jury Nullification Ignoring the law and using other criteria for verdict May occur when laws are out of date Nullification instructions may influence jury decision making producing both socially favourably and socially unfavourably verdicts (Meissner, et al., 2003) 7-13

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-14 Studying Juror/Jury Behaviour Post-trial interviews Archives Simulation Field studies 7-14

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-15 Post-Trial Interviews Not possible in Canada because jurors are forbidden by law from disclosing content of their deliberations Post-trial interviews with jurors from the U.S. can provide a valuable data source Limitations: – Social desirability of responses – Inaccurate recall 7-15

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-16 Archival Records Use of previously recorded information (e.g., trial transcripts, police interviews, etc.) Limitations: – Inability to establish cause and effect – Limited in questions that can be researched – No control over biases that may have influenced record 7-16

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-17 Simulation Mock jurors are presented with fictitious trial transcript to render verdict and make other judgements Factors of interest can be manipulated Limitations: –Generalizability to real world is questionable 7-17

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-18 Field Studies Research conducted within a real trial High external validity Limitations: –Permission from the courts may be difficult –Variables of interest cannot be controlled 7-18

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-19 Juror Comprehension Aids Note-taking Asking questions 7-19

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-20 Note-Taking Judges may allow jurors to take notes while listening to evidence May help jurors by increasing memory and understanding of the evidence, and increasing attention 7-20

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-21 Asking Questions Jurors may be allowed to ask witnesses questions via the judge Research found that while jurors’ questions are appropriate and promote clearer understanding, they do not help get to the truth (Penrod & Heuer, 1997) 7-21

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-22 Disregarding Inadmissible Evidence During trials, lawyers or witnesses may make inadmissible statements that juries will be instructed to disregard Jurors will disregard evidence when they are provided with a logical and legitimate reason for the judge’s decision (Kassin & Sommers, 1997) 7-22

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-23 Judge’s Instructions Jurors do not remember, understand, or accurately apply judicial instructions (Lieberman & Sales, 1997) Reforms for judges’ instructions: –Rewriting instructions –Written copy of instructions –Pre- and post-evidence instructions –Lawyers clarifying instructions 7-23

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-24 Jury Decision-Making Models Mathematical models Explanation models 7-24

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-25 Mathematical Models Jury decision making is a set of mental calculations A mathematical weight is assigned to each piece of evidence (Hastie, 1993) Research indicates jurors do not put a value to each piece of evidence (Ellsworth & Mauro, 1998) 7-25

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-26 Explanation Models Evidence is organized into a coherent whole Story model: A story structure is imposed on the evidence Research indicates that this is more consistent with how jurors make their decisions (Pennington & Hastie, 1988) 7-26

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-27 Predicting Verdicts Six types of variables studied in relation to verdict –Demographic –Personality traits –Attitudes –Defendant characteristics –Victim characteristics –Expert testimony 7-27

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-28 Demographic Variables Variables include; gender, race, socioeconomic status, education of jurors A small inconsistent relation exists between juror demographic variables and jury verdicts (Bonazzoli, 1998) 7-28

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-29 Personality Traits Authoritarianism and dogmatism: Being high on these traits are associated with rigid thinking, and acquiescing to authority Moderate, positive relationship between authoritarianism and verdict (Narby et al., 1993) 7-29

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-30 Attitudes No group of attitudes or values has received sufficient investigation (Devine et al., 2001) exception is capital punishment Death-qualified jurors more likely than non-death-qualified jurors to vote for conviction (Ellsworth & Mauro, 1998) Case specific attitudes have more predictive power over verdict than general attitudes 7-30

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-31 Defendant Characteristics Small relationship between attractiveness of the defendant and jury verdict Defendant characteristics often are examined in relation to other characteristics such as victim characteristics 7-31

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-32 Victim Characteristics Particularly relevant in sexual assault cases Rape shield provisions; may allow some inquiry into a woman’s sexual history at the judge’s discretion Onus is on the defendant to demonstrate that the accuser’s sexual history is relevant before it is allowed (R. v. Darrach, 2002) 7-32

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-33 Expert Testimony Experts may be called to explain scientific information or information requiring a certain expertise A number of factors may interact with expert testimony such as gender of the expert and complexity of the testimony 7-33