Legal Psych exam 4

Mathematical Model

• In describing jurors’ decision-making processes, models in which pieces of evidence are mathematically weighted to explain how jurors decide between a verdict of guilty or not guilty.

• mental meter moves toward guilty or not guilty verdict based on evidence

• meter can become “frozen” by strong evidence

Story Model

• In describing jurors’ decision-making processes, a model that proposes that jurors create stories to make sense of the evidence presented at trial; a story is defined as a causal chain of events.

• stories constructed to make sense of evidence at trial

• useful in describing decision making in rape, murder, and sexual harassment trails

Liberation Hypothesis

• A hypothesis predicting that in cases where the evidence is ambiguous or less than compelling, jurors will be “liberated” from the constraints of evidence and will base their decisions on factors such as prior beliefs, past experience, or even prejudice.

Judy is a juror in a murder case. As each piece of evidence is presented, she mentally decides if it makes the defendant more or less guilty. What model is she displaying.

Mathematical model

inadmissible evidence

information that might be prejudicial and is therefore not admitted into evidence by the judge in a trial

Sustain the objection

a ruling by a judge that an attorney’s objection to testimony or eividence presented at trial is valid and that the testimony or evidence should be ignored by the jury

Overrule the objection

a ruling by a judge that an attorney’s objection to testimony or evidence presented at trial is not valid

Ironic Processes

Processes in which we make an effort not to think about something, often resulting in that thing’s dominating our thoughts, especially when we are under stress and much of our mental capacity is already in use.

Reactance Theory

The theory that people are motivated to maintain their sense of freedom in the face of threats to that freedom. For example, jurors may perceive a judge’s admonition to ignore inadmissible evidence as a threat to their freedom to make a decision based on all the available evidence. Jurors may react to that threat by giving the inadmissible evidence greater weight than they would have otherwise.

Impeachment Evidence

evidence meant to damage the credibility of a witness’s statements

Expert Witnesses

witnesses that offer testimony based on specialized knowledge, training, or experience

Why do Corporations get fined more than individuals? Explain the deep pockets hypothesis in detail.

Because they make billions of dollars, the jury hammers then with huge payouts to punish them because they can afford it

this is untrue. In reality we hold corporations to a higher standard because as an organization—they should have known better compared to an individual who makes many mistakes

Discuss how jurors decision making is affect by inadmissible evidence

• jurors are supposed to act as if they never heard the inadmissible evidence and not let it influence them. Most attorneys are skeptical about whether jurors can disregard inadmissible statements made during trial

• cant “unring a bell”

• ironic process: we think about something more often when we’re told not to

• reactance theory: people are motivated to maintain their freedom and may see the judge telling them to ignore information as a threat to their freedom and give the inadmissible evidence more weight

Strong Jurors

jurors who seem likely to have a disproportionate influence on the deliberation process

Leniency Bias

In evenly split juries, where roughly half the jurors favor a guilty verdict on the initial vote and the other half favor a not guilty verdict, it is much more likely that the final verdict will be not guilty.

Foreperson

chosen leader who acts as the spokesperson for the jury, guides deliberations, and announces the verdict

Orientation

the first phase of the deliberation processes during which juries elect a foreperson, discuss procedures, and raise general issues

Open Conflict

The second phase of the jury deliberation process, in which differences in opinion among members of the jury become apparent and coalitions may form between members of the group

Reconciliation

The final phase of the jury deliberation process, when jurors reach a common understanding and agreement, or when one faction capitulates. Attempts may be made to soothe hurt feelings and make everyone feel satisfied with the verdict.

Verdict-drive style

A deliberation process in which juries take a vote shortly after they begin deliberations and then orient their subsequent discussions around the verdict options. This style of deliberation tends to encourage jurors to sort the evidence into two categories: supporting conviction or supporting acquittal.

Evidence-driven style

A deliberation process in which juries postpone the first vote until after jurors have had a careful, systematic discussion of the evidence. This style appears to produce richer, more probing discussions than a verdict-driven style.

Informational Influence

a process in which jurors change their opinions because other jurors make compelling arguments

Normative Influence

a process in which jurors change their votes (but not necessarily their private views) in response to group pressure

Hung Juries

juries that cannot reach a unanimous verdict

Dynamite Charge

In an effort to break a deadlock that might result in a hung jury, the judge asks the jury “to reexamine your views and to seriously consider each other’s arguments with a disposition to be convinced.”

Discuss the benefits of adopting an evidence-driven style in contrast to a verdict-driven style

postponing a vote until after the evidence is discussed appears to produce richer, more probing discussions

once a vote is taken, there is a tendency for jurors to focus on defending their position

early voting on verdict appears to produce a deliberation process clearly contrary to the legal ideal of careful, through group analysis of the evidence presented at trial

What are the benefits having a larger jury compared to a smaller jury?

compared to smaller juries, larger juries deliberate longer, recall evidence more accurately, generate more arguments, agree more on their ratings of jury performance, are more representative of the community, and produce more consistent verdicts

Jury Nullification

In a criminal case, a phenomenon whereby the jury may base its verdict on reasoning that ignores, disregards, or goes beyond the law. In part, this result is permitted because juries are expected to represent the moral conscience of the community, which may lead them to a different conclusion than the law prescribes.

How does instruction about jury nullification impact jurors’ decisions?

they may be more lenient toward sympathetic defendants and harsh to more unsympathetic defendants

Pre-instructions

instructions read to the jurors by the judge before a trial begins

Moderate Reforms

make good system better

Radical Reformers

overhaul/abandon system

Discuss possible explanations found for agreement and disagreement rates between judges and jurors

• reasonable differences of opinion in cases where the evidence does not clearly favor one side

• judges may give more wight to legal considering, while juries may focus on broader conceptions of justice

• juries can allow empathy and community standards to dictate their verdicts in ways that judges cannot

Death Penalty

Discuss the issues around politicians who use simplistic polling data as evidence for Americans’ support for the death penalty

Aggravating factors

Circumstances surrounding a crime or characteristics of a criminal that increase the degree of guilt or the severity of the crime; these factors are relevant in criminal sentencing and death penalty decision making.

Mitigating factors

Circumstances surrounding a crime or characteristics of a criminal that lessen the degree of guilt or the severity of the crime; these factors are relevant in criminal sentencing and death penalty decision making.

Guided discretion

the use of special instructions and procedures to control the discretion of jurors in capital murder trials

Penalty Phase

the second phase of a capital murder trial, in which jurors decided whether the defendant should be sentenced to life in prison or death by execution

Define and outline the steps of guided discretion

defendants accused of capital murder are tried by juries in two-phase (bifurcated) proceeding.

• guilt is decided in the first phase. If the defendant is found guilty of capital murder, the sentence (either death by execution or life in prison without the possibility of parole) is decided in the second phase — the penalty phase

Outline the evolution of the death penalty through Supreme Court Decisions

• Furman v. Georgia (1972): United States Supreme Court unconstitutional as then administered

• Gregg v. Georgia (1976): Guided discretion; bifurcated proceeding

• Atkins v. Virginia (2002): Eliminated death sentence for execution of mentally retarded prisoners in a 6-3 vote !!!!

• Ring v. Arizona (2002); only jury can make decisions regarding capital punishment

• Roper v. Simmons (2005): prohibits execution of juveniles

• Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008): Prohibits execution for child rapist, unless child dies

• Baze v. Rees (2008): Lethal injection does not inflect unnecessary or wanton pain

• Hurts v. Florida (2016). Jury only plays adivsary role so unconstitutional

Death Qualification

During voir dire in capital cases, the process during which jurors answer a series of questions about their willingness to vote for a death sentence if the defendant is found guilty.

What impact do death qualified jurors have on decisions making?

death-qualified jurors not only are more likely to vote to convict the defendant but also tend to be more receptive to aggravating factors and less receptive to mitigating factors during the penalty phase

jurors who answer a series of questions about their willingness to vote for a death sentence during voir dire often infer that both defense attorneys and prosecutors anticipate a conviction and a death sentence

How do aggravating factors affect jurors’ evaluation of a case?

if the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors then they will be sentenced to death

“The Black Code”

Coker v. Georgia (1997)

McClesky v. Kemp (1987)

Outline the impact of race in reference to sentencing defendants to death

Deterrence Theory

It posits that potential murderers will be restrained by the knowledge that they might be executed if they act on their desire to kill — that is, their fear of execution will stop them from killing

Brutalization effect

The small increase in the rate of murders in the weeks following an execution, of which the execution itself is believed to be the cause.

Discuss the evidence showing that Deterrence Theory is ineffective, and how does it relate to the brutalization effect?

• there is no evidence that people engage in a rational weighing of costs and benefits before committing a murder. In fact, most murders are crimes of passion — the product of rage, jealousy, hatred, or fear

• murderers are often under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

• Second, most murderers believe that they will not be put to death. And they are right. As noted earlier, the probability that any given murderer will be arrested, convicted, sentenced to death, and then executed is very low.

• Third, it is not clear whether the prospect of being executed elicits more or less fear than the prospect of life in prison without parole. Life in prison without hope of release may be no less frightening than the remote possibility of being executed sometime in the distant future.

Define and outline the errors that lead to wrongful death sentencing

What has proven most effective in exonerating inmates on death row?