In the US, juries are always allowed to take notes, unlike in some other countries, but they may not always know this right because it's up to the judge to inform them of this possibility.
Taking notes can help jury members stay focused and improve memory, similar to why note-taking is recommended for students.
A concern is that jurors who take notes might have an unfair advantage during deliberations when compared with those who don't.
Research suggests that note-taking improves jury memory and attention without causing unfair advantages.
Asking Questions
Juries can submit questions to the judge, who decides whether to ask the witnesses.
The Yarborough case is a good example: the jury submitted 30 questions about the defendant to the judge, and the judge allowed about 20 of them. Yarborough was found not guilty by a petit jury trial.
Research indicates that juries' questions often relate to understanding their rights and legal terminology rather than the case's facts.
Jury questions do not seem to affect the satisfaction of either side in the case.
The CSI Effect
The CSI effect refers to the influence of television shows on jurors' expectations regarding forensic evidence in criminal trials.
Heinrich originally used this term negatively, citing cases where the lack of forensic evidence led to not-guilty verdicts, and the released defendants then committed more violent crimes.
Reasons for not using forensic tests include cost and time.
Some argue that the CSI effect is not necessarily negative, as it raises the standard of evidence required for conviction.
The CSI effect now extends to shows highlighting issues with eyewitness testimony and false confessions, influencing jurors' perceptions.
Explanation Models
Early research focused on mathematical models, where jurors assign values to evidence and weigh the sums for the prosecution and defense but this resulted in being inaccurate.
In-depth interviews revealed that jurors don't assign values in this way, but rather piece together a story based on the evidence.
The story model is the most insightful model for understanding how juries understand evidence.
Lawyers use this model to present evidence in a way that helps juries construct a coherent story.
Criteria for a good story include:
Coverage: Does the story cover all the evidence presented?
Coherence:
Consistency: Is the motivation consistent throughout the story?
Completeness: Are there any gaps in the story?
Plausibility: Does the story match common sense?
Uniqueness: Is the story the only one that explains the evidence?
The prosecution has the burden of telling a coherent, complete, and unique story.
The defense can either put holes in the prosecution's story or present an alternative story.
Four types of jury members:
Believer: Convinced by the prosecution's story.
Doubter: Doubts the prosecution's story.
Muller: Trying to choose between two or more plausible stories.
Puzzler: Unable to formulate any story.
Jurors' backgrounds and experiences influence their interpretation of evidence.
Anatomy of a Murder is recommended as a good movie illustration of the story model.
Research Approaches
Interviews with jury members:
Ecological validity is high because it involves actual jury members and actual cases.
Limitations include reliance on honest and accurate accounts and retrospective memory.
Archives:
Ecological validity is high because it involves genuine cases.
Limitations include the inability to conclude cause and effect and limited questions.
Simulations:
Allow for demonstrating cause and effect.
Limitations include questionable ecological validity because the simulation is not a genuine case or a genuine jury, as participants know there are no real consequences.
Field studies:
External validity is high.
Cannot demonstrate cause and effect.
Factors Impacting Verdicts
Demographic variables, personality traits, attitudes, and characteristics of the defendant, victim, and witnesses can all impact verdicts.
Women are more likely to render guilty verdicts than men in sexual assault cases and may be due to higher likelihood of being victims or higher in empathy.
Racial bias: Jury members may be more lenient to a defendant of the same race when evidence is weak. Could differ based on crime.
Older jurors typically endorse more rape myths and are less likely to vote guilty in sexual assault cases.
Jury members higher in authoritarianism are more likely to side with the prosecution.
Jury members higher in empathy are more likely to view child witnesses as credible.
Extroverted jury members are more likely to be chosen as foreperson and have more influence. Influence on deliberation can increase deliberation length due to foreperson influence.
Attitudes on rape myths and capital punishment can also influence verdicts.
Male jurors are less likely to convict an attractive female defendant, but this did not survive deliberation.
Male defendants are more likely to be found guilty than women in sexual assault cases.
Juries are more likely to be lenient towards defendants with physical disabilities or who show remorse, giving less prison time.
Older children and adults are regarded as more reliable witnesses than younger children, but there are exceptions in some sexual abuse cases.
Leading questions can make a witness seem less credible.
Multiple signs can be used to gauge how confident a witness is such as eye contact and speaking style and gender of the victim can matter.