Lecture6 Juries1_student-2 (1).pdf

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 WARNING This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of the University of Sydney pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (the Act)....

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 WARNING This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of the University of Sydney pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (the Act). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Do not remove this notice. The Psychology of Juries Associate Professor Helen Paterson Phone: 9036 9403 Email: [email protected] The Plan… Background Jury selection Studying jury behaviour Stages of reaching a jury verdict Variables that may predict verdicts Arguments for and against juries Learning Outcomes At the end of this lecture you will be able to:  Describe the main functions and characteristics of juries  Describe the jury selection process  Critically evaluate scientific jury selection  Describe and critically evaluate ways to study jury behaviour  Describe the stages involved in reaching a jury verdict and discuss psychological research that has informed our understanding of each stage  Describe variables that influence jury verdict Background: The Origin of Juries Some evidence of jury in Egypt 4000 years ago Idea of right to trial by jury of ordinary citizens was invented in Athens. Jurors selected by lottery. Idea spread across Europe and was introduced into Britain by the Normans Until 1670 juries could be fined or imprisoned if disagreed with judge over verdict Background: Australia Rules vary by state Jurors must have citizenship Be at least 18 years of age No ex-prisoners (within 10 years) Senators, judges, MP, clergy, barristers, solicitors, medical practitioners, members of armed forces and police officers are all exempt. Background: Australia In AU you will only face a jury in Supreme Court or Intermediate court. The bulk of the more minor offences are heard by magistrates sitting without jury. Background: Jury Functions Main function: Apply the law to the evidence and render a verdict of guilt or innocence  Use the wisdom of 12  Act as the community conscience  Protect against out-of-date laws Background: Jury Functions Jury Nullification: Juries may ignore the law and render a verdict based on other criteria May happen in cases where juries believe the law is unfair Background: Characteristics of a Jury Impartiality:  Lack of bias on the part of jurors  Threats to impartiality: – Pre-existing biases, prejudices, or attitudes – Negative pretrial publicity Background: Characteristics of a Jury Representativeness:  Representative of community ensured through random selection from the community  But, representativeness is affected by how the original panel is selected, what percentage of panel turn up to court, who manages to avoid being called, who is disqualified. Jury Selection Court uses voter lists, Selected from list phone directories to find eligible people for juries People are randomly drawn from list and summoned Part of jury pool for duty Pretrial gathering of Challenges potential jurors from which Selected as juror? jurors are selected Jury Selection Peremptory challenges: Removal of a limited number of prospective jurors without specifying reasons. Challenge for cause: Both parties also have an unlimited right to challenge with “cause” – i.e., for a stated reason. Jury Selection Jury Selection: The process of choosing and shaping the jury through the use of peremptory challenge and challenge with cause. In US this is an extensive process and it is common in high profile cases to hire “Trial Consultants” who assist in selecting a jury that will be sympathetic to particular case. In AU the use of trial consultants is almost unheard of due to very limited availability of peremptory challenge. Jury Selection But… demographic variables do not consistently predict juror verdicts (Hastie et al., 1983) Evidence is a substantially more potent determinant of juror’s verdicts than the individual characteristics of jurors. When the evidence is ambiguous, juror’s personalities and general attitudes have an effect Jury Selection Scientific jury selection  Attempts to draw correlations between demographics and trial-relevant attitudes  Consultants conduct a survey in the jury population  If prospective juror fits an unfavorable profile, use a peremptory challenge to exclude Jury Selection Scientific jury selection  Controversial process – Favour: Picking jurors using science is more refined version than intuition. Problem is in the peremptory challenge – Oppose: Problem with representativeness of jury. Tips the scales of justice toward the wealthy. Studying Jury Behaviour 1. Post-trial interviews 2. Archival records 3. Simulation techniques 4. Field studies 1. Post-Trial Interviews Not possible in many countries 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 include:  Social desirability of responses  Inaccurate recall 2. Archival Records Use records of trials (e.g., transcripts, police interviews) Limitations include:  Inability to establish cause and effect  Limited in what questions can be asked by the information available for collection 3. Simulation Techniques Mock jurors are presented with a simulated trial. They are asked to render a verdict or make other judgements Independent variables can be manipulated Limitations include:  Questionable generalisability to real life cases 4. Field Studies Research is conducted within a real trial Enables researchers to observe the process as it is occurring High ecological validity Limitations include:  Obtaining permission from the courts may be difficult  Variables of interest cannot be controlled Studying Jury Behaviour Given these differences we should be wary of body of research evidence based only on one system Most research examines US jury system. Very little consideration of other countries including Australia Reaching a Verdict Stages involved in reaching a jury verdict: 1. Listening to the evidence 2. Disregarding inadmissible evidence 3. Judge's instructions 4. Juror decision-making 5. Deliberations 6. The final verdict 1. Listening to the Evidence Two aids have been proposed for jurors while they listen to the evidence:  Note-taking  Asking questions Note-Taking Some judges may allow jurors to take notes while listening to the evidence  May help jurors by increasing memory and understanding of the evidence, and increasing attention  Research indicates note taking is generally a helpful aid for jurors (Horowitz & ForsterLee, 2001) Asking Questions Jurors cannot always comprehend the meaning of statistical evidence and scientific findings 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) 2. Disregarding Inadmissible Evidence During trials, lawyers or witnesses may make inadmissible statements that juries will be instructed to disregard Jurors may not ignore evidence although they have been instructed to disregard it (Hans & Doob, 1976) In fact, instructions to ignore inadmissible evidence can boomerang– adding to the impact of the testimony Disregarding Inadmissible Evidence  Why is it difficult for jurors to ignore inadmissible evidence? – The instruction draws attention to the controversial evidence – Arouses reactance: The desire to assert one’s sense of freedom – Jurors want to reach the right decision, regardless of legal technicalities 3. Judge’s Instructions Studies suggest that jurors do not remember, understand, or accurately apply judicial instructions (Lieberman & Sales, 1997) Reforms for judges’ instructions have been proposed (e.g., rewriting instructions, providing a written copy to jurors) 4. Juror Decision-Making How do individual jurors make their decisions? Mathematical Models Explanation Models Mathematical Models Views jury decision-making as 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) Explanation Models Suggests evidence is organized into a coherent whole  E.g., Story model: Involves imposing a story structure to the evidence for each verdict option Research indicates this is more consistent with how jurors make their decisions (Pennington & Hastie, 1988) 5. Jury Deliberation Leniency bias  The tendency for jury deliberation to produce a tilt toward acquittal Jury Deliberation Group Polarisation: When individuals tend to become more extreme in their initial position following group discussion  Study: Juries were shown a re-enactment of an actual murder case and then given unlimited time to deliberate the case in a jury room Jury Deliberation Proportion of Jurors Favouring Verdict at 0.6 Start Verdict at End 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 y ed r r r lt te de de id ui h ur ur ec ug G nd M M sla ot N U ee e an re r M eg eg D tD d 1s 2n Group Polarisation Study: Hastie et al., 1983 Jury Deliberation Minority Influence  Is not overly likely in jury situations  A minority that favours acquittal stands a better chance than one that favours conviction 6. The Final Verdict Two-thirds Majority Scheme: The jury verdict is usually the alternative favoured by at least two-thirds of the jurors at the outset As of 2007, majority verdicts (11 to 1) are accepted in NSW after the jury has attempted and failed to reach a unanimous verdict. Hung jury: A jury that cannot reach a verdict Predicting Verdicts Research has been conducted assessing if certain variables can predict verdict Common variables assessed:  Demographic  Personality  Attitudes  Defendant characteristics Demographics The relation between juror demographic characteristics to verdicts is small and inconsistent (Bonazzoli, 1998) There may be an interaction between the demographics of the jury and demographics of defendant or the nature of the offence Participants more likely to render guilty verdicts and longer sentences for “other race” defendants (Mitchell et al, 2005) When defendants’ race is made salient, white juror racial bias toward a black defendant was reduced (Cohn et al., 2009) Personality Some personality dimensions have been suggested to predict verdict E.g., Moderate link between an authoritarian personality and rendering a guilty verdict (Narby et al., 1993) Some jurors are more persuasive than others (e.g., extroverts, male, tall) (Marcus et al., 2000) Attitudes Jurors willing to give the death penalty are more likely to render a guilty verdict than those opposed to the death penalty (Horowitz & Seguin, 1986) Research on other attitudes or values is insufficient to reach definitive conclusions Defendant Characteristics Criminal history has been found to impact verdicts (Hans & Doob, 1976) Less attractive defendants found to be guilty when jurors did not deliberate, however the attractive defendant was more likely to be found guilty when jury allowed to deliberate (Patry, 2008) Defendant Characteristics Similarity-latency hypothesis: Jurors who share characteristics with the defendant will be lenient. However, there is also a Black-sheep effect: Similarity between defendant and mock jurors predicted leniency, except where evidence against defendant was very strong – in which case they became more severe. Arguments Against Juries Being trialed by one’s peers does not guarantee a fair trial Juries are not always representative of community Jury does not give reason for decision Juries can be unpredictable – decisions may not be rational Jury trials often result in mistrials or hung juries Juries are expensive and slow Juries sometimes do not understand or remember evidence Too important a job to be left to amateurs! Arguments For Juries It is an important civic responsibility and jurors feel sense of responsibility Decision of group of peers more acceptable to defendant than decision of one non-representative judge Each jury brings a “fresh eye” Jurors possess “common sense” Juries, unlike judges, can deviate from letter of law if they feel it is appropriate to do so Summary: Judge or Jury Given the problems faced by juries, should judges become the decision makers? Survey of real judges revealed that they would have returned same verdict as jury in 78% of cases (Kalven & Zeisel, 1966) Most legal professionals and experts agree that we should retain juries – however it is clear that there is lots of scope for improving the decision-making ability of juries.