Jury Selection and Analysis

Jury Size and Selection

• Historically, juries composed of 12 individuals, but research indicates 6-member juries can provide unbiased decisions
• US courts allow 6-member juries for civil cases and all criminal trials except capital trials
• Challenges in jury selection include ensuring a representative cross-section of the community and identifying potential biases

Psychological Aspects of Jury Decision Making

• Research on jury size (6 vs 12) indicates 12-member juries are less likely to provide biased decisions
• Consensus bias and social pressure can influence jury decisions
• Psychological factors influencing jury decisions include race, culture, gender, socioeconomic status, political beliefs, social media, attitudes, and cognitive factors

Jury Selection Process

• Venire process involves identifying potential jurors, notification, and creation of a jury pool
• Challenges for cause and peremptory challenges are used to remove biased jurors
• The Victorian model assumes potential jurors can identify their biases, while the US model assumes they cannot

Legal Process and Jury Decision Making

• The legal process involves witnesses, testimony, exhibits, opening/closing statements, and judicial instructions
• Social cognition models apply to jury decision making, including input biases, processing biases, and output biases
• Jury decision making areas include attributions of causality, actor/observer bias, and the fundamental attribution error

Attorney Tactics and Expert Evidence

• Attorneys use tactics like vivid language, repetition, loaded questions, and definitional tactics to influence jurors
• Expert evidence involves qualification of witnesses, admissibility of evidence, and scientific acceptance of information presented
• Legal standards for expert evidence include the three-part test: subject matter, witness qualification, and scientific acceptance

Insanity and Sentencing

• Legal standard for insanity involves a defect of reason from a disease of the mind, lack of knowledge of the nature and quality of the act, and an inquiry to determine whether the defendant knew what they were doing was wrong
• Modern legal versions of insanity include the defendant lacking substantial capacity to know what they are doing is wrong
• Focal concern theory of sentencing involves considering defendant culpability, protection of the community, and practical constraints and consequences of the sentence