Lecture 6 Forensic - NOTES PDF

Preview

Summary

NOTES...

Description

A. Describe the main functions and characteristics of juries Jury Function • 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and render a verdict of guilt or innocence Use the wisdom of 12 Act as the community conscience Protect against out-of-date laws • Jury Nullification: Juries may ignore the law and render a verdict based on other criteria • May happen in cases where juries believe the law is unfair 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 • 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. B. Describe the jury selection process Jury Selection • Court uses voter lists, phone directories to find eligible people for juries • People are randomly drawn from list and summoned for duty • Pretrial gathering of potential jurors from which jurors are selected

C. Critically evaluate scientific 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 unfavourable profile, use a peremptory challenge to exclude.

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.

D. Describe and critically evaluate ways to study jury behaviour 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.

E. Describe the stages involved in reaching a jury verdict and discuss psychological research that has informed our understanding of each stage

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 Asking Questions • Jurors cannot always comprehend the meaning of statistical evidence and scientific findings • 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 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 • 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

• 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 F. Describe variables that influence jury 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) • It appears there may be an interaction between the demographics of the jury and demographics of defendant or the nature of the offence Personality • Some personality dimensions have been suggested to predict verdict • E.g., Moderate link between an authoritarian personality and rendering a guilty verdict 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) • Small relationship between attractiveness of the defendant and verdict (Izzett & Leginski, 1974). • 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. PREMPTORY CHALLENGE- REMOVAL OF JURIORS WITHOUT ANY REASON CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE – BOTH PARTIES HAVE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE – FOR A STATED REASON...