Jury Deliberation Part 2

Jury Deliberation Overview

Three-Step Procedure to Deliberation (Stasser, 1992)

• Orientation:

  • Involves electing a foreperson.

  • Discussion on how deliberation should proceed.

  • Two approaches:

  • Verdict-Driven:

    • May involve an initial vote to gauge sentiment.

    • Evidence is sorted based on its capacity to support or negate conviction.

  • Evidence-Driven:

    • Prioritizes discussion of evidence before making determinations.

• Open Conflict:

  • Main discussion phase which may involve arguments.

  • Goal is to reach a unanimous verdict.

  • Jurors face two types of influences:

  • Informational Influence: Based on facts and juror arguments.

  • Normative Influence: Driven by group pressure.

• Reconciliation:

  • Jurors reach a unanimous conclusion and decide on the verdict (or result in a hung jury).

Role of Jurors in Legal Proceedings

• Jurors serve to render the ultimate verdict in both criminal and civil cases (e.g., guilty/not guilty; liable/not liable).

• Structure of juries and the requirement for unanimous verdicts derive from British legal traditions.

• Exceptions: Certain cases allow for non-unanimous verdicts under specific conditions.

Legal Framework for Jury Verdicts

• Historical Requirements:

  • In the 1700s: Required 12 jurors for a unanimous verdict.

• Key Supreme Court Cases:

  • 1972: Apodaca, Cooper, & Madden v. Oregon; Johnson v. Louisiana

  • Non-unanimous verdicts (up to 9 v. 3) are constitutional.

  • 1979: Burch v. Louisiana

  • 6-person juries must reach unanimous verdicts.

• Current Standards:

  • Unanimous verdicts required for all capital cases.

  • 44 states require unanimity for felony cases; 26 states for misdemeanor cases.

Impact of Deliberation Rules on Jury Process

• Study by Saks and Marti (1997) findings:

  • Unanimous juries generally take longer to deliberate than majority-rule juries.

  • Unanimous juries exhibit a higher likelihood of resulting in a hung jury.

  • Majority-rule juries cease deliberation once the majority is achieved.

  • Majority-rule systems do not empower the minority to change the majority's decision.

Differences between Unanimous and Majority-Rule Juries

• Study by Hastie et al. (1998):

  • 69 mock juries deliberated after viewing a murder trial recording.

  • Types of verdicts required:

  • (a) Unanimous

  • (b) 10 to 2 majority

  • (c) 8 to 4 majority

  • Majority-rule groups completed deliberation more quickly, focusing on voting rather than discussions.

  • Results:

  • Majority-rule juries often faced pressure to modify opinions.

  • Conclusion: Majority-rule juries lacked thoroughness in evaluating evidence compared to unanimous juries.

Hung Juries

• Argument for majority-rule: Reducing hung juries (when jurors cannot agree).

• Findings from Costanzo & Krauss (2021):

  • Unanimous juries are twice as likely to hung compared to majority-rule.

• Kalven & Zeisel (1966) observed rates of hung juries:

  • 5.6% in unanimous juries vs. 3.1% in majority-rule.

  • More common in larger cities; national rate is 6.2% (Hannaford-Agor & Hans, 2003).

• Factors leading to hung juries:

  • Inconclusive evidence, perceptions of complex/unfair laws, reasonable positions for both arguments, and early voting (Mott et al., 2013).

• Debate exists on whether hung juries signify correct jury functioning (Ellsworth & Mauro, 1998).

Dynamite Charges in Jury Deliberations

• Usage of dynamite charges encouraged judges to prompt jurors to reconsider views and arguments (Costanzo & Krauss, 2021).

• Potential downsides: Seen as coercive and can imply that hanging is unacceptable (Kassin et al., 1990; Thimsen et al., 2009).

Jury Nullification

• Juries act as a representation of community conscience, thus possess more power than often acknowledged.

• Jury nullification occurs when juries decide not to follow the law based on moral beliefs (Horowitz, 2008).

• Example:

  • Dr. Jack Kevorkian trial; three juries acquitted on moral grounds, despite the illegality of actions (Costanzo & Krauss, 2021).

• Information deficiency: Jurors typically unaware of nullification rights.

  • Horowitz's (1988) study revealed variations in leniency based on knowledge of nullification.

  • Influence of sympathetic vs. non-sympathetic defendants noted (Horowitz, 1988; Horowitz et al., 2001; Peter-Hagene & Bottoms, 2017).

Criticism of Jury System

• Perceptions of jurors as lazy and ignorant; however, research shows juries can be reliable and fair (Vidmar & Hans, 2007).

• No notable trends favoring one side among civil and criminal juries (Bornstein & Robicheaux, 2008; MacCan, 1993).

• Case of Stella Liebeck: Controversial verdict led to perceptions of juror incompetence.

Proposed Jury Reforms

Improving Existing Systems

• Suggestions include:

  • Allowing jurors to take notes (29% of jurisdictions do not permit).

  • Increasing juror compensation.

  • Reducing idle time during trials.

  • Enabling jurors to submit questions via written notes during trials.

Radical Changes

• Critics advocate for an overhaul of the jury system:

  • Caps on monetary damage awards.

  • Adoption of majority-rule juries.

  • Abolition of juries in complex cases; replacement with judges or panels.

Simplifying Jury Instructions

• Proposal to simplify jury instructions post-trial.

  • Instructions typically cover charges, burden of proof, and legal clarifications.

• Issue: Jury instructions might be too complex for jurors.

  • Pre-instruction can improve comprehension (Costanzo & Krauss, 2021).

Pre-Deliberation Discussions

• Advocated to enhance information processing and understanding of evidence.

• Pros:

  • Better understanding of trial evidence and comprehension improved.

• Cons:

  • Potential to weaken later debates.

  • Risk of premature verdicts.

Arizona Study Findings

• Discussed integration of early discussions in juries:

  • Better recall and understanding; did not bias verdicts.

• Challenges: Jurors tended to violate discussion conditions, leading to premature conclusions.

Judges vs. Juries

• Judges are perceived as more impartial; however, studies indicate both judges and juries are influenced by biases (Costanzo & Krauss, 2021) and are equally likely to be swayed by inadmissible evidence.

• Judges have less oversight than jurors (due to voir dire).

• Research shows similar verdict agreement:

  • Judges and juries agree in 78% of civil and 74% of criminal cases.

  • Juries are more lenient, choosing acquittals in cases judges would convict (Kalven & Zeisel, 1966; Heur & Penrod, 1994).