Psychology 375: Chapter 13 - Jurors and Juries - Fall 2024

Chapter 13 JURORS AND JURIES  Trial by juror is mentioned in both the main body of the Constitution (Article 3) and the Bill of Rights (6th Amendment). Current Each year State of approximately 14.4%...

Chapter 13 JURORS AND JURIES  Trial by juror is mentioned in both the main body of the Constitution (Article 3) and the Bill of Rights (6th Amendment). Current Each year State of approximately 14.4% (37 million) of the US the Jury adult population is called for jury duty (Cosca, 2023) – Only about 29% of those called actually serve on a jury (so about 11 million each year) Psychological Study of Jurors How do jurors reason? Are jurors competent? Are jurors biased? How do juries deliberate? HOW DO JURORS THINK?  Dual-Process Model Cognitive-Experiential Self Theory – Dual Process model of processing information – Cognitive Route Active, deliberate, effortful thinking – Experiential Route Unconscious and effortless Rely on emotions, Reasoning Coherently Coherence-based reasoning – People form coherent representations of evidence to reach a confident verdict. At the beginning of trial, there is incoherence, the juror doesn’t know what is going on. – They may have a general idea of what the verdict “should be” Slowly their verdict inclination becomes more coherent as evidence is added that matches their inclinations – And evidence that doesn’t match is discarded*  The Story Model Story Model (Hastie and Pennington) – Jurors form a narrative in order to fit all of the evidence together. Stories constructed with 3 sources of information – Evidence at trial – Personal experience in similar situations – Broad knowledge of the elements of a story. ARE JURORS COMPETEN T?  Research suggests that evidentiary strength is probably the strongest Jury predictor of verdicts. Competen But… ce Extralegal Information has also been found to be influential in jury verdicts Effects of Expert Testimony Do jurors understand and trust experts? – Jurors actually spend a good deal of time thinking about the content of expert testimony. – Expert testimony does have a small, but reliable impact on jury decisions Jurors cannot differentiate good research from flawed research. Jurors do allow factors of expert sway their analysis of them.  jurors do not comprehend instructions. – Or use them… Some potential reasons – Complex and confusing Do Jurors legal language Consider Proximate Understan Cause Instruction: “a d cause which, in a natural and Instruction continuance s? sequence, produced damage, and without which the damage would not have occurred.” – Presentation of Fixing Instruction Comprehension Psycholinguistics – study of how people understand language Simplified instructions are better comprehended Recency v. Primacy effects Development of schemas – Jurors should be instructed before evidence because it lets them form a mental framework for the rest of the case. Juror Willingness to Use Instructions Jury Nullification – ability to acquit a defendant despite evidence and judicial instructions to the contrary Consider Dr. Jacob Kevorkian. – Assisted at least 130 patients in dying despite it being illegal. – Was tried 5 times in 10 Jurors and Complex Cases Complex cases include such things as: – Liability and damages for multiple plaintiffs (class actions), – Multiple defendants (joinder) – Technical cases (like tax law or patent law) – Criminal cases with forensic evidence. Should Jurors Be Used in Complex Cases? Arguments against using juries 1. Evidence too difficult to understand – Some jurors do just fine with complexity (e.g. High Need for Cognition) – Jurors are confused by multiple claims and multiple parties Should Jurors be Used in Complex Cases? 2. Information load is too cognitively great – Can be mitigated by providing aid to jurors Written summary statements of expert testimony Allow jurors to take notes Provide written jury instructions Should Jurors be Used in Complex Cases 3. Voir dire often excludes the most capable jurors – This is true. EXTRALEG AL FACTORS Extralegal Information Extralegal Information – Information that is legally irrelevant in that it cannot serve as evidence in a legal proceeding – Could be: Irrelevant information about the defendant (e.g. background, appearance, race) Use of inadmissible or irrelevant evidence Juror beliefs or attitudes (e.g. racism) Extralegal Information in Criminal Trials What non-juror extralegal factors might impact criminal trials? – Prior-record evidence – Character evidence – Propensity evidence  Does knowledge of prior criminal record prejudice jurors? – Yes. Prosecution is often Influence not allowed to introduce this of Prior evidence for the Record verdict deliberations. – But they can… sometimes Limiting Instructions if defendant testifies – Rarely effective  Impact of Character Evidence Character Evidence – Testimony or evidence “She’s a fine officer, that describes a person’s extremely peaceful, and personality, behavior or always willing to help reputation out!” Usually cannot be included as evidence towards guilty Does it make a difference? – Limited impact of positive character evidence – Negative character “He’s a Nazi sympathizer and is sexist, racist, anti- evidence increases immigrant, and anti- likelihood of conviction Impact of Propensity Evidence Propensity Evidence – Evidence of other (unrelated) crimes or wrongdoings. – Usually inadmissible because it can be highly prejudicial Except in sex crimes. Introducing propensity evidence can increase internal attributions about the defendant (e.g. Goodman-Delahunty & Martschuk, 2020) Extralegal Information in Civil Trials What non-juror extralegal factors might impact civil trials? – Injury severity – Considerations of assigning damages Extralegal Information and Civil Liability Determining Liability – All about determining responsibility – Outcome Severity This is legally relevant to damages, but not liability. Defensive Attribution – Assigning cause so as to reduce feelings of vulnerability. – Emotion Jurors angered by the case are more likely to find defendant liable  Extralegal Information and Damages Assessing Damages – Considered one of the more subjective and unpredictable aspects of jury decision making – Jurors are given very little guidance. – Often consider attorney fees and whether the loss is covered by insurance These are both Can Jurors Disregard Inadmissible Evidence? Inadmissible Evidence – Evidence presented in court that is unrelated to the substance of the case. Judge instructs jurors to disregard the evidence. Research suggests this instruction is quite ineffective Why Can’t Jurors Disregard the Evidence? Reactance Theory – When jurors feel like their freedom of thought is threatened, they react by considering the information more. Thought Suppression – The harder you try not to think about something, the more ARE JURIES BIASED?  Assumption of a blank slate Juror Bias – Juror’s predisposition to Are interpret and understand Juries information based on past experience. Biased? Juror bias is considered inevitable. – Juror bias is also considered extralegal information Juror Bias and Reasoning Predecisional distortion – When jurors are exposed to a new piece of evidence, they evaluate the evidence in a way that is consistent with their current verdict preferences rather than in an objective fashion. – Example: Prejudicial pretrial publicity Sympathy Hypothesis – Jurors may be more lenient if they feel sympathy for the defendant, or more punitive if they sympathize with the victim. JURY DELIBERATIO N Deliberations and Bias Deliberation sometimes leads to less biased decisions. Strength of evidence is key – Stronger cases, deliberation leads to lessening of bias – More Ambiguous cases, deliberation can actually increase bias. Pretrial publicity or introduction of misinformation at trial can lead to more biased decisions How Do Jurors Deliberate Tends to be three stages – Stage 1: Orientation Discuss general procedures, elect a foreperson, start discussion – Stage 2: Conflict Jurors begin to try to actively persuade each other – Stage 3: Reconciliation/Resolution Jurors make sure the final  Stage 2: Conflict Obviously the most contentious part Informational Social Influence – People are persuaded by the evidence or information provided by others and modify their opinion – Jurors might be truly persuaded by arguments – Careful and deliberative analysis Normative Social Influence – Conforming to other’s expectations, even if you don’t agree, in order to gain acceptance. – Jurors might go along with a verdict to be conciliatory – Subjective or ambiguous Types of Deliberations Verdict-driven Deliberation – Jurors start with a straw poll to reveal the general sentiment/leaning of the group. – Each faction (e.g. guilty v. not guilty) tries to persuade the other – More likely to lead to normative social influence Evidence-driven Deliberation – Jurors do not take an early vote and instead review evidence together until they reach a consensus. –