Jury Selection● History of Jury Trials: ○ Early juries = defendant’s neighbors■ Not neutral parties○ 1789: right to impartial juries in criminal and most civil cases as amendments to the Constitution● The Jury “Pool”: ○ Jury Selection and Service Act■ Jurors must be fair cross-section of community○ Potential jurors are selected primarily from voter registration list■ Some states use driver IDs■ Not a lot of poor people sitting on juries● Assembling a Jury (Venire): ○ Random sample of potential jurors in pool summoned to appear○ “One-day or one trial” system widely adopted○ Approximately 20% are no-shows (2nd layer of bias)○ Variety of excuses eliminate some (deselection)■ “Undo hardship and extreme inconvenience”● Voir Dire: ○ To speak the truth○ Attorneys and judge “interview” potential jurors, ask questions○ Lawyers use “challenges” to remove jurors■ Challenges for causes● You’ve done something that is a conflict of interest○ Such as being accused of a similar crime■ Peremptory challenges● You can excuse someone without giving an explanation● Limits on Challenges: ○ Cognizable Groups: ■ Groups that are protected from peremptory challenges● Gender, race, LGBTQ status● Height, size, religious-based beliefs, moral beliefs NOT protected● Foster vs. Chatman (2016): ○ Prosecutors violated constitution by using all challenges to remove black jurors● A Louisiana Study: ○ A study of over 300 criminal jury trials held over 10 years○ In 93% of the trials, the state struck a higher percentage of black jurors than not black jurors■ Significant under-representation of African-American serving on juries■ “Blackstriking”● Representativeness: ○ Bias at every level○ Can any group of 12 jurors (or fewer) be fully representative of a much larger community?○ Can any one person be expected to represent the views of a particular constituency?● Art and Science of Jury Selection: ○ Determining which potential jurors are least likely to support a side of a case■ Physical characteristics and first impressions● Do they seem arrogant? Shy? Religious? Well put together?■ Information from voir dire procedures and written questionnaires● “Would you describe yourself as religious?”● “Have you ever been misdiagnosed by a doctor?”● Social Media and Juror Selection: ○ Lawyers viewing jurors’ online profiles and postings is legal■ Personal internet postings are not private○ American Bar Association social-media guidelines:■ Juror internet presence may be investigated in advance or during trial■ Direct online communication and deceptive information-gathering behavior with jurors is prohibited● Research on Jury Selection: ○ Are lawyers good at helping their case by removing the right jurors?■ A study of 12 criminal trials■ Formed a “shadow jury” with discarded jurors● A shadow jury is 12 other people who resemble the 12 jurors who also observe the trial to see if they reach the same decision■ Almost no differences● Defenders slightly better● Some lawyers better than others● Forensic Psychology Job: ○ Jury Consultants: ■ Data-driven approach, supplemental questionnaires■ Use of mock jurors; shadow jury■ Analyze supplemental juror questionnaires○ They assist in jury selection based on research conducted by social scientists● Research on Trial Consultants: ○ Effectiveness depends on skill level of lawyer they’re assisting■ Contribution may be greater when case is close or lawyer is less skilled● Could tilt the case■ Case-specific attitude measurements can be very effective● Juror Science: Characteristics: ○ Juror characteristics and verdict prediction■ Age, income, education association is not reliably predictive of trial judgment■ Gender, depends on nature of crime● Women are harsher with abusers and molesters● Juror Characteristics and Attitudes: ○ Some personality tendencies are modestly predictive■ Locus of Control: ● Internal locus:○ Do things happen based on our own decisions● External locus:○ Do things happen because the world is out to get you■ Belief in a Just World: ● The world is a just place where people get what they deserve■ Authoritarianism: ● Conventional values, rigid beliefs, identify with authority figures● Similarity-Leniency Hypothesis: ○ Does being more similar to the defendant make jurors more lenient?■ Similarity produces leniency only when evidence is inconclusive and similar jurors outnumber dissimilar jurors■ Risk of boomerang effect● If the evidence is strong, similarity may cause jurors to be more harsh○ At a certain point, it reflects poorly on you■ Investigations have only addressed race and gender
View Full Document
Unlocking...