ch9: jury selection

plea bargaining

• a defendant agrees to plead guilty to a less serious charge in exchange for a more lenient sentence than might be impose if the case were to go to trial

• the lesser crimson carry shorter prison sentences or might even carry no prison time at all

• Another variant involves a defendant agreeing to

  plead guilty to one of several charges, in exchange for the prosecutor

  dropping the other charges

• forfeit their right to trial, right to confront and cross-examine accusers, and their right to prevent evidence in their defense

how common is plea bargaining

• estimated that more than 90% of felony cases in state and federal courts are disposed through plea bargaining

arraignment

• court proceeding

• during this the judge reads the charges against the defendant and then asks how do you plead

pleas of no contest

• allows the defendant to avoid an explicit admission of guilt while simultaneously waiving the right to a trial and allowing the Court ot move on to sentencing

  • court can reject this

alford plea

• allows the defendant to plead guilty while publicly maintaining innocence

stats on plea

• 23% of felony defendants plead not guilty and proceed to trial

• 59% enter a standard plea of guilty

• 11% plead no contest

• 7% enter an Alford plea

pros for plea bargaining

• time and money

tender of plea form

• written contract signed by the defendant

• 1. defendant enters the plea voluntarily and not under any threat/promise

• 2. defendant ender stand the charges and the plea that the defendant is entering ot those charges

• 3. defendant understands the consequences of the plea being entered

prosecutor abilities

• decides which crime to charge and how many charges to bring against the

  defendant

• sets the terms of the plea bargain, who

  decides whether to negotiate with the defense attorney, and who decides

  whether to dismiss charges.

• they have first access to

  investigative reports, witness interviews, and forensic test reports

• it is not uncommon for prosecutors to withhold exculpatory information from

  defense attorney

• prosecutors are substantially more likely to favor plea bargains than are

  defense attorneys — about 20% more likely,

• One way that prosecutors use their power to

  create incentives for a plea bargain is by overcharging.

difficulties of pleas

• it is difficult to know the actual extent of

  any trial penalty, because if a defendant accepts a plea, no trial is ever held.

• defendants may actually receive shorter sentences on average (or may even

  be acquitted) when they decline a plea bargain and proceed to trial

• defendants who are offered plea bargains are being asked to make an

  enormously consequential decision under conditions of high uncertainty

• Prosecutors often make “limited time offers” (or “exploding offers”) that

  expire at a particular time

juvenile and plea

• juveniles are

  especially prone to making impulsive, short-sighted decisions and that

  juveniles have difficulty regulating their emotions and evaluating complex

  alternatives

• less able to understand the plea-bargaining process, less able to

  take into account the factors relevant to a decision about whether to accept a

  plea bargain, and less able to explain the rationale for their decision to plead

  guilty

• twice as likely as adults to accept a plea bargain when they are innocent of

  the crime

• juveniles may simply

  defer to authority

false plea of guilty

• A study of felony defendants who accepted pleas in New York City

  found that 23% claimed to be completely innocent

• Analyses of wrongful convictions indicate that about 11% involve a false

  plea of guilty

jury selection and service act of 1968

• the U.S. Supreme Court in

  Taylor v. Louisiana (1975), federal and state courts must assemble juries that

  constitute a “fair cross-section of the community.”

jury pool

• there is no such list

• primary source is voter registration list/licensed drivers

• often underrepresented poor people, African Americans, Hispanics, movers, young people

venire

• group of prospective jurors that shows up

• approximately 20% of the people summoned simply fail to show up

• large variation of the size 30-100

• one day or one trial system: potential jurors make themselves available for one day, if they are selected to serve on a jury, they are done when that trail is over

• most only last about a week

voir dire

• during this stage, attorneys and the judge ask potential jurors a series of questions to determine who will serve on the jury

challenge for cause

• lawyer is claiming that because of bias or prejudice it is unlikely that the juror will be able to render an impartial verdict based only on evidence and law

  • there is no limit

peremptory challenge

• an attorney can dismiss a juror without giving a reason and without approval from the judge

• each attorney is allotted a small number of peremptory challenges

  • can be as few as 3 in civil

  • capital murder could be 25

  • federal prosecution gets 6, where defense gets 10

cognizable group

• the law forbids the intentional exclusion of jurors on the basis of race or gender

• black potential jurors were 4.51 times more likely than white potential jurors to be rejected by prosecutors

• white potential jurors 4.21 more likely to be excluded by defense

• lawyers are allowed to strike a potential jurors because of a particular religious based belief

trial consultants

• usually hired by companies that are being sued for large sums of money

• mock jury of 20-50 eligible jurors from the community are asked to Jill our a questionnaire

  • hear of condensed version of the trial and are questioned on reactions

  • one goal is to discover relationships between characteristics and responses

• supplemental juror questionnaires

  • prospective jurors fill out before voir dire

• by asking for reactions get a clear sense of strengths and weaknesses

  • might decide to settle instead of going to trail

  • abandon weak arguments and settle on strong

  • assist in crafting arguments

• shadow jury

  • group of people who are selected to match the demographics of the actual jury

  • hear the same evidence and testimony as actual jurors

  • can be questioned about reactions

are attorneys good at detecting bias?

• prosecutors average score was new zero (0.5)

• defenders 17

• highest was 62

• effective use of peremptory challenges appeared to influence verdicts in 3 of the 12 cases studies

• lawyers were no better than students at judging the personalities of mock jurors or picking favorable jurors

scientific jury selection

• correlations of characteristics and attitudes toward the defendant were used to construct profiles of jurors who were likely to be pro-defense or pro-prosecution

• can’t say for sure if the techniques worked

• in the case of O.J. Simpton was a famous case of jury selection

  • defense team hired a jury consultant where as prosecutors dismissed theirs

general personality tendencies

1. locus of control- how people tend to explain what happens to them

   1. internal- see their outcomes in life as due to their own behavior

   2. external- see their outcomes as due to forces outside themselves, such as luck or other people with more power

2. belief in a just world

   1. bear logical relations to verdicts and sentencing

   2. how strongly they believe that the world is just

   3. “bring it on themselves”

3. authoritarianism

   1. conventional values, beliefs are rigid, intolerant of weakness, identify with and submit to authority figures

   2. suspicious of and punitive towards people who violate established norms and rules

different questionnaires for attitudes about the legal system

1. revised legal attitudes questionnaire

2. juror bias scale- attempt to isolates jurors beliefs

3. pretrial juror attitude questionnaire-

• few have been developed for use in civil trails

• civil trial bias scale- measure attitudes about the appropriate role of government in regulating businesses

similarity-leniency hypothesis

• predicts that jurors who are similar to the defendant will empathize and identify with the defendant

• when evidence is weak- jurors who were similar to defendant were more likely to choose not-guilty

• if the evidence was strong and jurors are outnumbered by members of another racial group- harsher punishments

pretrial publicity

• cases that have captured sig media attention is harder to find jurors who have been exposed to bias media coverage

• people exposed to more news coverage of a crime are sig more likely to presume that he defendant is guilty

• information through pretrial publicity is misremembered by jurors as having been presented at trial

• postponing a trial may be an effective remedy

• most effect is change of venue- moving the trial to a community that has not been exposed to pretrial publicity and its biasing effects

overview of trial procedure

1. opening statements

   1. not considered evidence, meant to highlight the issues at stake and provide jurors with an overview of evidence that will be heard

   2. prosecution and plaintiff goes first

   3. civil cases- burden of proof

   4. criminal- beyond a reasonable doubt

2. witnesses

   1. direct examination- lawyer questions a witness they have called to testify

   2. defense lawyer may then conduct a cross-examination

   3. redirect examination- attorney who called the witness has an opportunity to question the witness again

3. defense presents its case

4. closing argument- after all evidence has been presented, attempts to persuade jurors

   1. prosecution/plaintiff first, then defense, then prosecution/plaintiff can rebuttal