Preparing for Trials: Study Notes

Learning Objectives:
  - Compare how judges and juries reach verdicts.
  - Explain why selecting representative juries is difficult.
  - Describe voir dire, challenges for cause, and peremptory challenges.
  - Explain bias in juror selection.
  - Evaluate whether juror demographics, attitudes, and personality predict verdicts.
  - Describe pretrial publicity, midtrial publicity, and remedies for exposure.

Bench Trial: The judge is the sole decision-maker on guilt or innocence.
Jury Trial: The jury is responsible for determining guilt or innocence.
Kalven & Zeisel (1966) Study:
  - Judges reported they agreed with jury decisions in about 75% of criminal trials.
  - Approximately 19.5% of criminal cases had conflicting decisions between judges and juries.
  - When there was disagreement, juries were generally more lenient than judges.
  - High levels of agreement also noted in civil trials.

Judges self-selected which cases to report, leading to potential bias in the findings.
Out of 3,500 judges, only 500 responded to the survey.
Juror demographics have become more diverse over time (e.g., race and gender variations).
Explanations for disagreements came from judges, not jurors, which could limit perspective.

Judges may possess more information about the case (including facts jurors do not hear, like a defendant's prior criminal history).
A skilled lawyer may influence the jury's perception.
Jurors might incorporate their moral beliefs into their decisions (e.g., viewing the offense as trivial or questioning the criminalization of behavior).

Eisenberg et al. (2005) Study: Evaluated 350 civil and criminal trials.
  - Judge-jury agreement was noted in around 70% of cases.
  - In criminal cases:
    - Juries were more likely to acquit defendants.
    - Jurors were influenced by third-party defenses and the absence of a prior criminal history for the defendant.
    - More leniency observed in death penalty convictions.
  - In civil cases, selection effects played a role in differences: stronger cases often settled out of court, leading to convergent punitive damages awards by judges and juries, though jury awards tended to vary more.

Diversity in Juries:
- Diverse juries enhance fact-finding, exhibit fewer biases, and are seen as more legitimate by the public.
Jury Pool Representation:
  - Must reflect community demographics.
  - Problems arise when voter registration lists exclude groups or when certain demographics, such as white men, dominate juror compositions.
  - Many eligible jurors do not respond to summonses.

Definition: The process where judges and attorneys question prospective jurors to identify prejudices.
Judicial Decisions:
- Determining who poses questions, the nature and phrasing of questions, the duration of questioning, and the format of responses (individual vs. group).
Types of Voir Dire:
  - Limited Voir Dire:
    - Quick yes/no questions that often limit insights into beliefs and attitudes.
    - May be socially desirable, reducing honesty, and hinder detection of implicit biases.
  - Extended Voir Dire:
    - Employs open-ended questions and more personal interaction, resulting in better identification of biases and experiences.
    - Takes more time and resources, leading to compromises by courts.

Two Primary Methods for Removing Jurors:
  - Challenge for Cause:
    - Employable when a juror shows signs of bias, unfitness, or inappropriate connections to the case.
    - Examples include relationships with parties involved or prior experiences that would impact fairness.
    - In death penalty cases, strong oppositions to capital punishment can warrant removal for cause.
  - Peremptory Challenge:
    - Allows attorneys to remove jurors without needing to state a reason, but race or gender cannot be the sole basis for dismissal.
    - Both prosecution and defense should theoretically aim to exclude extreme biases to maintain jury impartiality.

Batson v. Kentucky (1986): Prosecutors are prohibited from using peremptory challenges based solely on race.
Powers v. Ohio (1991): Highlights harm from race-based exclusions affecting the excluded jurors.
Georgia v. McCollum (1992): Defense attorneys are subjected to the same rules regarding exclusion.
This principle was later broadened to include exclusions based on gender.
Batson Challenge: Defense objects to the prosecution’s peremptory challenge; the prosecution must then provide a race-neutral justification, with a judge deciding on the validity of the rationale.

Lawyers can construct plausible narratives for questionable practices.
Attorneys may consciously aim to appear unbiased, yet implicit biases can unconsciously influence judgments.
Bias may persist even without explicit admission.

Implicit Personality Theories: Lawyers hold personal beliefs about traits that correlate with demographic features (e.g., race, age, and speech style).
Attempt to predict group dynamics is common, including who may lead deliberations or influence outcomes.
Similarity–Leniency Hypothesis: Jurors might show favoritism towards litigants with whom they feel a shared background or experience.
Black Sheep Effect: Individuals often impose harsher judgments on group members who they feel might tarnish the group’s image.

Demographic Relationships with Verdicts:
- Generally weak correlations observed.
- In specific cases (e.g., sexual assault, domestic violence), female jurors may lean towards conviction more readily.
Attitudes and Personality Influences:
- Authoritarian personality traits are modestly associated with conviction rates in criminal cases.
- Need for Cognition: Influences jurors' scrutiny levels towards evidence; those with lower need may depend more on speaker credentials than testimony quality.

Pretrial Police Tension: There is ongoing conflict between the First Amendment (freedom of speech) and the Sixth Amendment (right to a fair trial).
Remedies for Pretrial and Midtrial Publicity Exposure: Future considerations for addressing potential bias from media coverage during trials.
Research findings on the implications of pretrial and midtrial publicity.