Forensic Psychology - Lecture 22 PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Forensic Psychology - Lecture 22 PDF

Description

Forensic Psychology – Jury Psychology – Lecture 22 – March 4, 2020 •

Jury consultancy. Individuals or companies whose function is to help individuals in a court case, provide the most appropriate source of information for the jurors and in some cases help select jurors who are most likely to favorable to their client's cause. This was first done in the early 70s in the case of the Harrisburg Seven. Primarily jury consultants are hired for preemptory cause and mostly the defense who hires them.

O.J. Simpson case • •

• •

•

High profile case that also used a jury consultant. Jury consultant worked with defense. Jo-Ellen Demetrius. She surveyed members of the community from L.A. where the jury pool would be selected and what characteristics of jurors were most likely to be favorable for the defense. What she determined was the people who would be most favorable for O.J. Simpson would be black women and they also disliked Marcia Clark which was part of the prosecution team. Best jurors: young, blue-collar, black women, less educated, low SES. They selected the group of jurors who most likely resembled these characteristics. Final jury: 1 black man, 1 Latino man, 2 white men, 8 black women. Where black women were most likely to favor O.J. Simpson.

Jury consultancy can be used in criminal and civil cases and is probably more likely among civil cases. Ex: a big company being sued, etc. Want to choose a jury in favor of their cause but also use jury consultancy firms to help prepare the case itself, how to deliver their case.

Advantages of jury research 1. Show questions jurors want answered. Mock jury approach. Individuals are selected to be “jurors” and very often these mock jurors are undergraduates. They are presented with trial information either written or with a video. Then they’ll be asked to deliberate and come up with a verdict. There are also shadow juries which are very common in civil cases. The researchers select a number of individuals and pay them to sit through the entire trial every single day just as the real jury has to. Then the researchers, working in a jury consultancy firm, will pull questions from this shadow jury. Which witnesses were credible, which questions were answered adequately, etc. The jury consultancy firm then passes this on to whatever side is their client and tell them this is what the jurors were confused about, what they understood, etc. 2. Early identification of problems in case. Ex: the mock jury doesn’t see a key witness as being credible for some reason. How are we going to add additional information to counter act the low level of credibility. What are the problems we see early on in the trial and how can we fix them? 3. Indicates how jurors see the case. True in civil cases, do they see defendant as the big bad nasty company and the plaintiffs as the small individuals, which is not how the company wants to be seen.

4. Prepares the ground for mediation. Trying to settle cases out of court because it costs less money. Can be much cheaper to settle through mediation. One of the functions of jury consultation shows what kind of compensation should be made, typically, by the defendant to settle the case, what would the jury consider to be reasonable. 5. Provides realistic damage assessments. 6. Indicates graphics needed. How aspects of the case are explained to the jurors. There are audiovisual presentations of evidence. Graphs, videos, simulations, etc. One of the functions of consultancy firms is to suggest to their client a visual evidence that would help the jury understand. The presentation can make a difference for the jurors to understand what is going on and being absolutely clueless. Jury consultancy can do some or all of these things simultaneously. Bull • •

Based loosely on the work of Dr. Phil McGraw. Started his law career by starting a very successful jury consultancy firm. BULL stars Michael Weatherly as Dr. Jason Bull in a drama inspired by the early career of Dr. Phil McGraw, the founder of one of the most prolific trial consulting firms of all time [Courtroom Science Inc.]. Brilliant, brash and charming, Dr. Bull is the ultimate puppet master as he combines psychology, human intuition and high-tech data to learn what makes jurors, attorneys, witnesses and the accused tick.

Jury research methods 1. Mock juries. Presented with trial evidence beforehand, verdicts noted. 2. Shadow juries. Sit in court each day, provide feedback to attorneys. 3. Community surveys. Identify undesirable jurors. In both the high-profile cases we talked about before, this was the method that was used. The consultations held a large survey to see what the genral feelings of the case were and to see if there were characteristics in the population that would indicate someone feeling a certain way about the case. Jury characteristics •

Are there characteristics about people/jurors that would make them more likely to favor a direction of a case. Are republicans more likely to favor x, are females more likely to favor x, etc. How do characteristics about jurors that might impact the way in which they judge criminal trials. Does age, education, gender, make a difference? Are there demographic characteristics that are associated with bias in one direction of the trial. We would prefer in our justice system that none of those variables have an impact in their decision. We want judgment of jurors to be based solely on the evidence presented in trial.

Juror demographics & verdicts 1. socioeconomic status (SES). Mixed results – no clear relationship. Answer overall is there's no clear difference. There are some studies that find wealthy jurors are more likely to convict defendants that are poor jurors. Then there are other studies that find the opposite and then there are studies that find no differences. The conclusion is there is no obvious clear difference. We have to kind of modify that general conclusion because maybe it’s the case that decides how

people with different SES status vote differently or the same. Ex: robbery cases they vote the same, murder cases they vote opposite. 2. Education. Mixed results – no clear relationship. Mixed results, no overall difference. Our best estimate right now that there is no effect with different levels of education. 3. Age, gender. Mixed results – no clear relationship. Again, we can't say that the difference wouldn’t appear in a particular kind of case. The point is we don't know if there would be a bias. 4. Race-ethnicity, religion. Mixed results – no clear relationship. Well come back to this because there are instances where we can see this is a problem. Jury personality & verdicts 1. Authoritarianism. Basically, the belief in the necessity of having a strong leader, conservative point of view, obedience, discipline. 1930s-40s – interest arouse because of the Nazi and fascist movements in Europe. Instruments designed to measure the extent in which individuals exhibited these characteristics. • F-scale. Fascist scale. • Right-wing authoritarianism scale (RWA). F-scale • • • • • • • • •

f-scale (6-point scale; strongly agree to strongly disagree). How much do you agree with these statements? “obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn.” “what this country needs most.... is a few courageous, tireless, devoted leaders in whom the people can put their faith.” “most of our social problems would be solved if we could somehow get rid of the immoral, crooked, and feebleminded people.” “people can be divided into two distinct classes: the weak and the stong.” “no weakness or difficulty can hold us back if we have enough will power.” “most people don’t realize how much our lives are controlled by plots.” “human nature being what it is, there will always be war and conflict.” “the wild sex life of the old Greeks and romans was tame compared to some of the goings-on in this country, even in places where people might least expect it.”

RWA scale • • • • •

“our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us.” “the keys to the ‘good life’ are obedience, discipline, and sticking to the straight and narrow.” “some of the worst people in our country are those who do not respect our flag, leaders, and the normal ways things are supposed to be done.” “human nature being what it is, there will always be war and conflict.” “it is important to protect fully the rights of radicals and deviants.”

Authoritarianism & verdicts

•

• • •

•

More ready to convict. authoritarians are very much behind the people in power. Government is usually the prosecution in criminal trials. The crown in Canada. More trust in authority figures, more trust in prosecuting attorney. Tendency to convict. Better recall of prosecution than defense evidence. Recommend longer sentences. More punitive toward low-status defendants. Racialized minorities. Jury composition has been strongly biased in the U.S. against African Americans. Jurys tend to be dominated by white people even in areas that are dominated by African Americans. Low SES. Effect small – larger in real than mock juries. Not a huge effect that individuals in right wing authoritarianism are more likely to convict, still significant but not huge. Study amongst real jurors and mock jurors and the effect is shown to be larger in real juries than mock juries.

Juror bias scale • •

•

Made up of 22 statements- say whether you agree or disagree with the statement, 5-point scale. Two subscales: 1. probability of commission. Jurors belief that the defendant, even before trial, actually did commit the crime. Characteristic we see in right-wing authoritarianism, rule of thumb as the juror bias is that if the government has charged them, they must have done something. “A suspect who runs from the police most probably committed the crime.”, “Generally the police only make an arrest when they are sure about who committed the crime.”. 2. reasonable doubt. The notion of reasonable doubt is important. The standard of proof in most criminal cases is beyond reasonable doubt. Would convict only if there was no reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant. The problem is, is there is no definition of reasonable doubt, it is a decision you have to make for yourself. “If majority of the evidence – but not all of it – suggests the defendant committed the crime, then the jury should vote not guilty.” “Circumstantial evidence is too weak to use in court.”....