Jurors: Issues and ReformsJuries often increase the legitimacy of legal proceedings, but come with their own set of issuesAre Jurors Competent?Dual process models: a way of information processing that captures the individual juror’s thought processes as they attend to and evaluate evidence presented during a trial2 ways people process info:Cognitive Experimental Self Theory: suggests that when people rely on analysis and logical arguments they are using a rationally based cognitive system that is active, deliberate, and effortfulExperimental Mode: when people rely on emotion, intuition, or stereotypical thinking from past events; this is unconscious and effortlessAccording to Prof. Bruce Spencer: jury verdicts are incorrect in at least 1 out of every 8 cases.To address issues Psychologists have:Questioned jurors after the trialAnalyzed archival records of past verdictsConducted field studiesConducted jury simulation studiesResearcher introduces and experimentally manipulates some piece of info and measures the extent to which the info and actual evidence influences the jurors’ reasoning and verdicts.Evidentiary Strength: probably the most important determinant of a juror’s verdictWhen evidence is contradictory or confusing, jurors may be more likely to rely on an experimentally based systemIn these circumstances, extralegal info can assert its influenceExtralegal InformationIrrelevant info about the defendant’s background or appearance, can come from what juror’s read in the newspaper or from other sourcesIncludes:AppearanceRaceBackgroundPrior recordPersonalityThis information is typically irrelevant and prejudicialFederal Rules of Evidence 403“The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.Ex: Prior Record EvidenceOften inadmissible due to prejudicial impactMay be introduced as evidence of credibility if defendant chooses to testifyNot all extralegal info can be easily withheld form jury membersLiberation Hypothesis: when the evidence in a case clearly favors one side or the other, juries will decide in favor of the side with the stronger evidenceComprehensible/unambiguous: Evidentiary StrengthAmbiguous: Stereotypes, Emotions and BiasesDisregarding Inadmissible EvidenceCan jurors follow a judge’s instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence?Inadmissible Evidence: evidence that is presented in court but is unrelated to the substance of the caseYou can’t un-ring a bellJudge: The jury will kindly disregard the defendant's entire opening statement, with the exception of "Thank you.”Reactance Theory: suggests that instructions to disregard evidence may threaten juror’s freedom to consider all available evidenceThought Suppression: the tendency for jurors to reflect on evidence that they have bee directed to disregardEX: Telling someone not to think of a white bear, might increase the tendency for them to do just thatHow can the damage be mitigated?Reason for InadmissibilityClarifies the scope of current deliberationsExplains how the information could be misleadingJury DeliberationJurors are forced to explain their reasoning based on other factual evidence and are more aware of biasesUnderstanding InstructionsJuries spend 20% or more of deliberation time trying to understand the judge’s instructions“Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt; the law does not require absolute certainty on the part of the jury before it returns a verdict of guilty. The law requires that, after hearing all the evidence, if there is something in the evidence or lack of evidence that leaves in your minds, as reasonable men and women, a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, then the accused must be given the benefit of that doubt and acquitted. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that precludes every reasonable hypothesis except guilt and is inconsistent with any other rational conclusion.”Jurors are rarely able to ask questions for clarityPotential Remedies:Simplify LanguageChange the timing of the instructionsShould the instructions be read before the trial or before deliberations?Primacy Effect: instructions will have their most beneficial effect if they’re presented firstJurors are able to attend to and more appropriately use evidence when provided with the rules and requirements given beforehandJuror BiasA predisposition to interpret and understand information based on personal past experienceEx:Pro-Prosecution: view conflicting evidence in the case through the filter of their past experiences and beliefs, which make them more likely to think the defendant committed the crimePro-Defense: filter the same evidence in light of their past experiences and reactions, which make them more sympathetic to the defensePre-decisional Distortion: jurors will distort their evaluation of the evidence in a direction that supports their verdict choiceEvaluation is consistent with current verdict preferencesConfirmation biasSchema AssimilationHow can the damage be mitigated?Jury DeliberationEvaluate evidence more carefullyCorrect misinterpretationsChallenge the biases and prejudices of othersAs with extralegal evidence, pre-deliberation biasesDecrease with increases in evidentiary strengthIncrease with increases in evidentiary ambiguityThe Story Model (Hastie & Pennington)Jurors construct their own private stories about the evidence so that it makes sense to them, they pay attention to certain pieces of evidence while ignoring othersJurors construct a story of the case from:Evidence presented during the trialPersonal experience in similar situationsBroad knowledge of the elements of a storyMap verdict options onto the storyDetermine which verdict best fitsStory Model ExamplePart of the evidence supporting the hypothesis that O. J. Simpson killed his ex-wife. Solid lines indicate coherence relations.Juror ReformsListing witnesses and summarizing their testimony in long or complex casesGiving pre-instructions or interim instructions during a lengthy trialAllowing jurors to take notesDesignating alternate jurors only after the trial is completedProviding a written copy of instructions to each jurorAllowing jurors to examine demonstrative evidence during their deliberationsAllowing jurors to pose screened questions to
View Full Document