Introduction to Jury Decision-Making and Selection Processes

Course Overview and Administrative Policies

• Instructor Background and Credentials:

  • Instructor: Dr. Lina Guetto (prefers to be addressed as "Lina"; explicit preference against being addressed as "miss" or "ma'am").
  • Position: First year teaching at Ontario Tech University, having previously taught core psychology courses at York University.
  • Graduate Education: Completed graduate studies at Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU) in political psychology under the supervision of Dr. Becky Chama.
  • Research Focus: Collective action, specifically examining why individuals engage in or encourage illegal and harmful actions to ensure a preferred political leader obtains power.
  • Personal Details: Student pilot (learning to fly), Formula 1 enthusiast (Ferrari fan), owner of a dog named Theo, and daily commuter traveling approximately $2\text{ hours}$ to campus.

• Class Composition and Communication Rules:

  • Enrollment: Small course size with approximately $30$ students enrolled; no Teaching Assistant (TA) is assigned due to low enrollment.
  • Primary Information Source: Canvas serves as the centralized platform for all course materials, schedules, and assignment submissions.
  • Email Protocol: Direct communications must use the .ca institutional email address rather than the .net account. Email responses are strictly limited to weekdays (no responses on weekends or holidays).

• Attendance and Classroom Rules:

  • Attendance Policy: Mandatory for course success due to classroom material supplementing—rather than summarizing—textbook content, though attendance itself is not explicitly graded.
  • Lecture Start Time: Lectures begin at $8:10\text{ AM}$ sharp.
  • Accommodations Policy: Student Accessibility Services (SAS) registration is required for any deadline extensions or test accommodations. Requests must be arranged in advance of published deadlines; retroactive requests are not accepted.

• Course Content Scope:

  • Subject Matter: Analyzes mature themes including incarcerated populations, systemic racism, and capital punishment.

Course Required Materials and Learning Outcomes

• Required Textbook Specifications:

  • Title: Criminal Juries in the Twenty-First Century
  • Authorship: Najewski et al. (published in $2019$).
  • Text Structure: Edited volume comprising chapters written by distinct field experts; characterized by dense, technical academic writing.
  • Perspective: Focused primarily on the American legal system, requiring comparative analysis with Canadian legal frameworks during lectures.
  • Acquisition Pricing: Retail price ranges from approximately $80\text{ dollars}$ to $115\text{ dollars}$ on commercial vendors; recommended purchase via the university bookstore.

• Primary Course Learning Outcomes:

  • Develop fluency in technical legal and psychological vocabulary surrounding jury systems in Canada and the United States.
  • Critically evaluate extralegal influences, cognitive processes, heuristics, and biases affecting jury decision-making.
  • Synthesize psychological research findings through applied mock trial exercises and case verdict evaluations.

Evaluation Framework and Course Schedule

• Grading Breakdown:

  • Weekly Discussion Posts ($10\%$ of final grade):
  • Consists of $10$ online entries worth $1\%$ each.
  • Due every Friday at midnight ($11:59\text{ PM}$) following Thursday morning lectures.
  • Non-cumulative with no opportunities for makeup submissions if missed.
  • Midterm Examination ($30\%$ of final grade):
  • Administered on October $22$ at $9:00\text{ AM}$ in-person.
  • Format: Combination of multiple-choice and short-answer questions.
  • Duration: Approximately $1\text{ to }1.5\text{ hours}$.
  • Scope: Covers all lecture and textbook materials from Week 1 up to Reading Week.
  • Final Applied Paper ($30\%$ of final grade):
  • Due Date: November $18$.
  • Format: $5\text{ to }7\text{ pages}$, double-spaced.
  • Core Task: Simulated juror analysis critiquing trial evidence and applying course concepts.
  • Final Examination ($30\%$ of final grade):
  • Scheduled by the Registrar's Office during the December exam period.
  • Format: Non-cumulative, covering post-midterm materials in multiple-choice and short-answer formats.

• Term Schedule Outline:

  • Week 1: Introduction to Jury Selection and Research Methods.
  • Week 2: Jurors and the Death Penalty; LGBTQ+ Juror Experiences.
  • Week 3: Implicit Bias, Unconscious Decision-Making, Stereotypes, and Mitigation Training.
  • Week 4: Pretrial Media Exposure and High-Profile Case Dynamics (e.g., the Clancy case).
  • Reading Week.
  • October $22$: Midterm Examination.
  • Second Half Topics: Pretrial publicity, high-profile/famous defendants, courtroom technology, AI, video evidence, neuroimaging/neuroscience evidence, DNA evidence, emotional dynamics, and mental health/psychotic episodes in defendants and jurors.
  • Week 12: Asynchronous Instructional Week (Canvas documentary viewing and discussion entry; no in-person lecture).
  • Week 13: Final Review and Exam Preparation.

Methodologies in Jury Decision-Making Research

• Archival Analysis:

  • Method: Systematic review and coding of historical trial transcripts and court records.
  • Variables Analyzed: Racial composition of jury panels, inclusion of neuroimaging evidence, presence of DNA testing, and corresponding verdict outcomes.

• Post-Trial Surveys and Interviews:

  • Method: Direct questionnaires and structured interviews administered to actual jurors following trial completion or formal dismissal.
  • Scope: Gathers qualitative and quantitative data regarding juror perceptions and internal deliberation factors.

• Field Research:

  • Method: Direct observation of active trial proceedings by researchers inside the courtroom.
  • Characteristics: Controversial within psychological research due to limited experimental control; rare instances include court-sanctioned audio/video recordings.

• Controlled Mock Trial Experiments:

  • Method: Recruitment of participants (frequently undergraduate psychology students) exposed to simulated case materials.
  • Key Advantage: High internal validity through strict control of experimental variables.
  • Primary Limitation: Generally tests individual decision-making rather than real-world group deliberation dynamics.

Foundation and Structure of the Jury System

• Historical Origins and Right to Trial:

  • Roots: English common law tradition established in the $13\text{th}$ century.
  • Canadian Constitutional Threshold: Jury trial right guaranteed for offenses carrying a potential prison sentence of $5\text{ years}$ or more.
  • United States Constitutional Threshold: Jury trial right guaranteed for offenses carrying a potential prison sentence of $6\text{ months}$ or more.

• Economic and Systemic Costs:

  • Employer Impact: Employers are legally barred from blocking jury service but are not obligated to maintain employee wages, causing lost workplace productivity.
  • Canadian Juror Financial Compensation Breakdown:
  • Days $1\text{ to }10$: $0\text{ dollars}$ per day.
  • Days $11\text{ to }50$: $40\text{ dollars}$ per day.
  • Days $51$ and beyond: $100\text{ dollars}$ per day.
  • Trial Volume: Approximately $4,000$ jury trials occur annually in Canada, compared to approximately $15,000$ in the United States. Most criminal proceedings resolve prior to trial via plea bargains.

• Core Legal Roles and Assumptions:

  • Jurors: Act as independent fact-finders applying legal criteria to determine guilt without active judicial guidance during deliberation.
  • Judges: Act as legal arbiters ruling on courtroom motions and evidentiary objections.
  • System Assumptions: Assumes jurors possess uncorrupted cognitive capabilities, remain free of systemic bias, and comprehend legal instructions—assumptions consistently challenged by empirical psychological findings.

Jury Selection Process and Legal Challenges

• Canadian Qualification Criteria:

  • Canadian citizenship.
  • Minimum age of $18\text{ years}$.
  • Provincial or territorial residency for a minimum of $1\text{ year}$.
  • Fluency in English or French.
  • Demonstration of mental competence.

• Exempted Categories in Canada:

  • Currently enrolled students.
  • Active or former politicians.
  • Judges, lawyers, and law students.
  • Law enforcement officers (including traffic officers) and their spouses.
  • Citizens who have completed jury service within a designated recent timeframe.
  • Individuals with specific sensory disabilities (e.g., visual impairments preventing assessment of visual evidence).

• Empaneling Process:

  • Definition: Empaneling is the legal term for assembling and selecting a jury panel.
  • Panel Size and Verdict Requirements: Requires $12$ jurors who must reach a unanimous verdict; failure to achieve unanimity results in a mistrial (hung jury).
  • Summons: Geographic sampling (e.g., voter registers, driver records) generates an initial pool of $75\text{ to }100$ citizens summoned to the courthouse.
  • Hardship Review: The judge evaluates individual hardship claims (e.g., single caregiving, extreme financial distress, lack of childcare) to excuse candidates.

• Types of Selection Challenges:

  • Peremptory Challenge:
  • Striking a prospective juror without stating a reason.
  • Formally abolished in Canada in $2019$ to enhance trial fairness and Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI).
  • Retained in most U.S. jurisdictions, subject to constitutional checks such as the Batson challenge (intended to prohibit racial discrimination, though heavily criticized as ineffective).
  • Challenge for Cause:
  • Striking a prospective juror based on demonstrable bias or incapacity (e.g., proven online misogynistic statements in a sexual assault trial).
  • Unlimited in quantity for both Crown and Defense counsel.

• Demographics, Equity, and Miscarriages of Justice:

  • Representation Deficits: Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous populations remain severely underrepresented on jury panels across North America.
  • Case Study (R. v. Stanley, $2018$ / Donald Case Context):
  • Involves a systemic failure where Donald, an injured survivor of a violent assault in which his white friend died, was treated as a primary suspect rather than a victim by responding officers.
  • Tried by an all-white jury, Donald was wrongfully convicted of murder and served $11\text{ years}$ in prison before exoneration.
  • Institutional failures in such cases have driven major legal and statutory reforms across Canada, frequently originating from decisions and errors documented in Nova Scotia jurisprudence.