Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-1 Chapter 7 Juries: Fact Finders.

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc. 7-1

Chapter 7

Juries: Fact Finders


Learning Objectives

• Describe how jurors are selected

• Distinguish between representativeness and impartiality

• Describe the effects of pretrial publicity and how to deal with it

• Outline the stages to reaching a verdict

• Describe variables examined to predict verdict

7-2


The Right to a Jury Trial

7-3

Type of Offence

Right to Judge Alone

Right to Judge and

Jury

Summary Offences

Yes No

Indictable Offences

Yes Yes


Trial by Jury or Judge-Alone

• In hybrid offences the Crown decides to pursue the case as a summary or indictable offence

7-4


Selecting a Jury

7-5

Selected from list

Part of jury pool

Selected as juror?

Peremptory Challenges


Characteristics of a Jury

• Representativeness: A jury composition that represents the community where the crime occurred

• Impartiality: A characteristic of jurors who are unbiased

7-6


Threats to Impartiality

• Negative pretrial publicity related to an increase number of guilty verdicts (Steblay et al., 1999)

• Emotions that pretrial publicity raises are remembered, while factual information tends to be forgotten

7-7


Increasing Impartiality

• Change of venue: Moving a trial to a community other than the one in which the crime occurred

• Adjournment: Delaying the trial

• Challenge for cause: An option to reject biased jurors

7-8


Change of Venue

• Trial typically stays within the province/territory where crime occurred

• The party requesting the issue must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the community is biased or prejudiced against the defendant

7-9


Adjournment

• Delay allows for bias to dissipate

• Infrequently granted

• Limitations:

– Witnesses’ memory fades

– Witnesses move or die

7-10


Challenge for Cause

• Prospective jurors are questioned prior to being accepted

• Limitations:

– Potential jurors may provide dishonest answers, either intentionally or

unintentionally

7-11


Jury Functions

• Wisdom of 12 (instead of 1)

• Conscience of the community

• Protect against out-of-date laws

• Increase knowledge about justice system

• Apply the law provided by the Judge

7-12


Jury Nullification

• Ignoring the law and using other criteria for verdict

• May occur when laws are out of date

• Nullification instructions may influence jury decision making producing both socially favourably and socially unfavourably verdicts (Meissner, et al., 2003)

7-13


Studying Juror/Jury Behaviour

• Post-trial interviews

• Archives

• Simulation

• Field studies

7-14


Post-Trial Interviews

• Not possible in Canada 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:– Social desirability of responses– Inaccurate recall

7-15


Archival Records

• Use of previously recorded information (e.g., trial transcripts, police interviews, etc.)

• Limitations:– Inability to establish cause and effect– Limited in questions that can be

researched– No control over biases that may have

influenced record

7-16


Simulation

• Mock jurors are presented with fictitious trial transcript to render verdict and make other judgements

• Factors of interest can be manipulated

• Limitations:

– Generalizability to real world is questionable

7-17


Field Studies

• Research conducted within a real trial

• High external validity

• Limitations:

– Permission from the courts may be difficult

– Variables of interest cannot be controlled

7-18


Juror Comprehension Aids

• Note-taking

• Asking questions

7-19


Note-Taking

• Judges may allow jurors to take notes while listening to evidence

• May help jurors by increasing memory and understanding of the evidence, and increasing attention

7-20


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)

7-21


Disregarding Inadmissible Evidence

• During trials, lawyers or witnesses may make inadmissible statements that juries will be instructed to disregard

• Jurors will disregard evidence when they are provided with a logical and legitimate reason for the judge’s decision (Kassin & Sommers, 1997)

7-22


Judge’s Instructions

• Jurors do not remember, understand, or accurately apply judicial instructions (Lieberman & Sales, 1997)

• Reforms for judges’ instructions:

– Rewriting instructions

– Written copy of instructions

– Pre- and post-evidence instructions

– Lawyers clarifying instructions

7-23


Jury Decision-Making Models

• Mathematical models

• Explanation models

7-24


Mathematical Models

• Jury decision making is 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)

7-25


Explanation Models

• Evidence is organized into a coherent whole

• Story model: A story structure is imposed on the evidence

• Research indicates that this is more consistent with how jurors make their decisions (Pennington & Hastie, 1988)

7-26


Predicting Verdicts

• Six types of variables studied in relation to verdict– Demographic– Personality traits– Attitudes– Defendant characteristics– Victim characteristics– Expert testimony

7-27


Demographic Variables

• Variables include; gender, race, socioeconomic status, education of jurors

• A small inconsistent relation exists between juror demographic variables and jury verdicts (Bonazzoli, 1998)

7-28


Personality Traits

• Authoritarianism and dogmatism: Being high on these traits are associated with rigid thinking, and acquiescing to authority

• Moderate, positive relationship between authoritarianism and verdict (Narby et al., 1993)

7-29


Attitudes

• No group of attitudes or values has received sufficient investigation (Devine et al., 2001) exception is capital punishment

• Death-qualified jurors more likely than non-death-qualified jurors to vote for conviction (Ellsworth & Mauro, 1998)

• Case specific attitudes have more predictive power over verdict than general attitudes

7-30


Defendant Characteristics

• Small relationship between attractiveness of the defendant and jury verdict

• Defendant characteristics often are examined in relation to other characteristics such as victim characteristics

7-31


Victim Characteristics

• Particularly relevant in sexual assault cases

• Rape shield provisions; may allow some inquiry into a woman’s sexual history at the judge’s discretion

• Onus is on the defendant to demonstrate that the accuser’s sexual history is relevant before it is allowed (R. v. Darrach, 2002)

7-32


Expert Testimony

• Experts may be called to explain scientific information or information requiring a certain expertise

• A number of factors may interact with expert testimony such as gender of the expert and complexity of the testimony

7-33

Date post:	18-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	russell-flynn
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Canada Inc.7-1 Chapter 7 Juries: Fact Finders.

Documents