LS 272 - Jury Selection

summary offenses

involve a sentence of fewer than six months in prison and a fine of less than $2000 (maximum sentence is 18 months)

indictable offences

• three categories

  • less serious cases are heard by a judge alone

  • serious cases must be tried by a judge and jury (ex. treason, murder, piracy)

  • some cases, the accused can choose whether the trial proceeds by judge & jury or judge alone

hybrid offences

cross between indictable offenses and summary offenses

maximum sentence is 5+ years if they proceed

juries act

legislation that outlines the eligibility criteria for jury service and how prospective jurors must be selected

jury summons

a court order that states a time and place to go for jury duty

does not guarantee that they will be a juror

peremptory challenge

challenge by lawyers to reject a potential juror who they think is unlikely to reach a verdict in their favour

no reasoning needed

challenge for cause

challenge to reject a potential juror

need a reason for rejection

representativeness

a jury composition that represents the community where the crime occured

• achieved through randomness

impartiality

a characteristic of jurors who are unbiased

• set aside pre-existing biases

• ignore any info that is not evidence

• no connection to defendant

threats to impartiality 

• pretrial publicity

• media coverage

  • negative publicity is linked to a guilty verdict

change of venue

moving a trial to a community other than the one in which the crime occurred 

adjournment 

delaying the trial until sometime in the future

jury functions

• use the wisdom of 12 rather than 1

• act as the conscience of the community

• protect against out-of-date laws

• increase knowledge of the justice system

jury nullification

occurs when a jury ignores the law and the evidence, rendering a verdict based on some other criteria

(i.e. unfair, too harsh - typically happens on controversial topics)

chaos theory

when jurors are guided by their emotions and personal biases rather than by the law, chaos in judgments results

post-trial interviews

researchers try to understand why jurors reach a certain verdict by doing a interview

voir dire

preliminary examination of the jurors before they are assigned to the case

deliberation

when jury members discuss the evidence privately among themselves to reach a verdict that is then provided to the court

reaching a verdict: evidence

• note taking (memory aid)

• asking questions (better understanding)

disregarding inadmissible evidence

• for a fair trial

• their ability to disregard it depends on the reason given

  • if it was illegally obtained, more likely to consider it

  • if it was hard to understand, more likely to disregard it

backfire effect

when you tell jurors to disregard evidence, it makes it more memorable not less

harder to ignore

story model

• jurors actively interpret and organize evidence into a coherent story

• verdict that best fits the story is the one chosen

individual differences influence how jurors conduct stories

evaluating stories in story models

• coverage 

• coherence

• uniqueness

jurors cognitive states

• believer (supports prosecution)

• doubter (supports defence)

• muller (undecided between stories

• puzzler (unable to form a story) 

polarization

when individuals tend to become more extreme in their initial position following a group discussion

leniency bias

when jurors move toward greater leniency during deliberations

hung jury

a jury that cannot reach a unanimous verdict

predicting verdicts

six types of variables that have been studied

demographic variables on jurors decisions

ex. gender, race, socioeconomic status, education

may produce different outcomes depending on the nature of the trial

racial bias

the disparate treatment of racial outgroups

black sheep effect

when evidence is strong, race similarity between defendant and jury leads to a more harsh punishment

personality trait variables on juror decisions

commonly connected to jurors are authoritarianism and dogmatism

(conservative, right-winged, close-minded, rigid with the rules)

these types of jurors are more likely to render a guilty verdict

rational processing

occurs through an analysis of fact and logic

experiential processing

occurs through emotions and personal experience

attitude variable on jurors decisions

jurors attitudes towards specific issues can influence verdicts (rape, insanity defence, capital punishment)

ex. feminist attitudes are more likely to believe the victim 

defendant characteristics in jurors decisions

prior criminal record means they are more likely to find defendant guilty

attractiveness impacts outcome (more attractive = lower guilty suspicions)

victim characteristics on jurors decisions

sexual history being presented in abuse/rape cases is more likely to cause a not guilty verdict (more prevalent in women)

religious face coverings are determined a case-by-case basis whether they need to be removed during testimony

expert testimony

credibility depends on the complexity of their testimony

(more complex = more believed by jurors)

jurors tend to believe they are not needed in cases