Graham Davies Legal Psychology Week 7 Juries

Some Facts about English Juries Involved in only around 3% of all criminal cases in England and Wales; 96% heard by magistrates (summary trials) Around since 1220 to decide guilt of the accused Called to court, allocated by lot in groups of 12 Excluded: mentally ill, those with a serious criminal record Now included: doctors, dentists, servicemen, MPs, judges and magistrates Age range 18-70; about 480,000 people a year sit on juries

Continuing controversy over jury effectiveness “Juries are the lamp that shows freedom lives” (Lord Devlin) “It is asking the ignorant to use the incomprehensible to decide the unknowable” (Judge Hillier Zobel after the O.J.Simpson trial in 1992). A unique feature of the adversarial legal system, but currently under attack

Concerns over Juries Representatives of juries and grounds for exemption Conscientiousness of juries (‘The jury from hell’, 1996) Alternatives to juries

Research Methods Research on actual juries and jurors - currently banned in England and Canada, but not in the USA ‘Mock Jury’ studies - problems of realism (Konecni & Ebbesen, 1992) ‘Shadow’ juries (McCabe & Purves, 1974) - but do they think the same way?

Issues around Representativeness Jury size: participation versus spread of opinion (Saks & Marti, 1997) Peremptory challenges (UK) and ‘voir dire’ and jury profiling(USA) Juror attitudes and demographics (Devine et al. 2001) Choice of Foreman (Strodtbeck & Hook, 1961)

Issues Around Conscientiousness Impact of early polling on final decision (McCabe & Purves, 1974) Group polarisation (Myers & Kaplan, 1976) Understanding of legal terms: Only 43% understand the rules (Matthews et al, 2004) Recall of details of evidence (Hastie et al. 1983) Content of deliberations (Clifford & Kapardis, 1978) Pre-trial publicity (Padawar-Singer & Berlin, 1974)

Remedial Measures to Assist Jurors Taking of notes (Horowitz & Bordens, 2002) Jury-friendly presentation of information (20% improvement: APU, 1986) Judge’s directions (Ellwork et al., 1982) Glossary of legal terms (55% improvement in comprehension: APU, 1986)

Outcome Measures Chicago Jury Project (Kalven & Zeisal, 1966) judges rated ‘right’ outcome in 3,576 Trials - Jury and Judge agreed 80% of the time Birmingham Jury Study (Baldwin & McConville, 1979) - 5% judge said innocent; jury said guilty - 20% judge said guilty; jury said innocent

What are the alternatives ? Royal Commission on Criminal Justice (1993); Auld Committee (2001) examined alternatives Judge sitting with lay assessors - recommended by Auld (2001) for complex fraud cases Judge sitting with magistrates - recommended as alternative for ‘either way’ offences (Auld) - Magistrates will now try more severe cases with increased sentencing powers (up to a year’s imprisonment)

Arguments for Change Unrepresentative juries: not the ‘Verdict of your peers’ - Auld on deferred sitting and racial minorities Concerns over the ability of jurors to deal with complex or long-drawn-out cases - Judge only now permitted in trials involving multiple charges ‘Jury nobbling’ –intimidation and fear among jurors Cost of jury trials (£13,500 per trial)-but do honest citizens need to ‘clear their names’?

Arguments Against Change Right of jury to obey a ‘higher law’ and acquit in the interests of ‘natural justice’ - anti-Trident protesters (2001) and genetically modified crops (1999) - right of prosecution to appeal against ‘perverse verdicts’ (Auld) In the absence of proper research, juries will continue to be the ‘black box of the legal system’