Jury Decision Making Notes

Group Exercise and Introduction to Jury Psychology

  • Groups of six are required for the session.
  • A real sexual assault case summary is on Canvas.
  • Assign a jury foreman to write the verdict (guilty or not guilty) on a piece of paper.
  • Guilty: convinced beyond reasonable doubt.
  • Not guilty: not convinced.
  • Names on the paper earn extra credit.
  • Reach a group consensus before writing anything down.
  • Most students usually lean towards a guilty verdict.

The Real Case and Judge's Influence

  • The case was part of a research study on factors impacting sexual assault trials.
  • In England, judges summarize the case to the jury, which is unusual compared to the US.
  • The judge's summary in this case:
    • Determine if Jake is guilty of raping Sophie beyond a reasonable doubt.
    • Sophie admits to not remembering everything.
    • She told friends she was interested in Jake and followed him to his bedroom willingly.
    • She stayed and kissed him when he stripped.
    • She only claimed lack of consent the next morning.
  • The judge's summary implies a leaning towards a not guilty verdict.
  • The jury returned a not guilty verdict in under 20 minutes.
  • The judge told the jury they made the right decision and told the defendant, if something seems too good to be true it probably is.

Research Study and Consent

  • The study involved participants from a college in England.
  • Participants read the same case, with half reading the judge's summary.
  • The aim was to see if the judge's summary influenced the verdict.
  • No significant result was found, possibly because most participants voted not guilty.
  • The actual jury consisted of a different demographic: affluent, conservative, middle-aged to elderly, with few young people.
  • Juries should ideally be representative of the community in age, background, and gender.
  • Consent and intoxication are gray areas that cause problems for judges, jurors, and lawyers in rape cases.
  • A 2019 review suggests intoxication can lead to inauthentic but legally valid consent unless the person is almost unconscious.
  • It might be morally wrong to take advantage of a heavily intoxicated person, even if they make decisions they later regret.
  • When a complainant is intoxicated, the prosecution faces the challenge of proving the person was too intoxicated to give consent or didn't give consent at all.
  • In the case, the nurse's inspection (rape kit) confirmed sexual intercourse but couldn't determine if it was rape.
  • The testimony of the victim's friends was very convincing and persuasive.
  • The defendant's account of the events didn't align with the other testimonies.

Additional Information and Course Reminders

  • Optional makeup quiz available on Canvas to replace the lowest quiz score.

Psychology of Jury Decision Making

  • Role of juries.
  • Group processes in social psychology impacting group decision-making.
  • How juries listen to evidence and factors impacting that process.
  • How juries make decisions.
  • Academic psychologists research on what influences verdicts.
  • Studies use mock crimes, mock trial videos, or case transcripts.
  • Participants act as jurors and give verdicts.
  • Manipulating factors reveals influences.
  • Juror behavior: individual decisions without deliberation.
  • Jury behavior: group deliberation to reach a consensus.
  • Some factors impact individual decisions but not group decisions.

Adversarial vs. Inquisitorial Systems

  • Adversarial system: Two sides present alternative explanations, and one convinces the decision-maker.
    • Originated in the UK and spread to Commonwealth countries, including the US.
    • Prosecution vs. defense in criminal cases.
    • Each side tries to create a better story than the other.
    • A judge or jury listens to both sides and comes to a verdict.
    • The judge ensures an even playing field with equal opportunities for both sides.
    • Judges may also make the decision.
    • Only 4% of cases in the US go to a jury.
    • Less than 1% in the UK are decided by juries.
    • More than 10% in Japan are decided by juries.
  • Inquisitorial system: The judge is the fact-finder, and there aren't two opposing sides.
    • The judge investigates the issue to get to the truth.
    • Common in many continental European countries.
    • The judge might be a high-ranking police officer.
    • The judge interviews witnesses and examines evidence.
  • Even in adversarial systems, the judge can take over questioning if needed.
  • Adversarial system premise:
    • A jury of 12 is randomly selected from the voting pool in the local community.
    • They deliberate, scrutinize evidence, and decide on a foreperson.

Jury Foreperson

  • The foreperson facilitates the discussion and reads the verdict.
  • The foreperson is chosen by the jury.
  • Forepersons are often male, middle-class, extroverted, and assertive.
  • They are often the first to talk or sit at the end of the table.
  • The foreperson decides the nature and structure of the deliberation.
  • Jurors can immediately vote or go through evidence before voting.

Jury Deliberation and Verdicts

  • Deliberation is done in secret, and the jury's decision is final.
  • Double jeopardy protects the defendant from further prosecution if the verdict is not guilty.
  • If the verdict is guilty, the judge can set it aside if they disagree with it.
  • A guilty verdict requires being convinced beyond all reasonable doubt.
  • Around 99% sure of guilt and only 1% questioning innocence.
  • In a lawsuit, only 51% convinced is needed.
  • The wisdom of 12 is better than one person's opinion.

Jury Composition and Impartiality

  • Juries should be blank slates, not knowing anything about the case to avoid bias.
  • Juries should be representative of the local community.
    • Random sampling aims for a generalizable sample.
    • Most juries have about six males and six females.
    • There's a good representation of age.
  • Juries should be impartial; they shouldn't have stakes in the game.
  • Impartiality includes:
    • Setting aside pre-existing biases, prejudices, or attitudes.
    • Ignoring inadmissible evidence.
    • Ignoring news reports.
    • Having no connection to the defendant.

Media Influence and Jury Impartiality

  • The media is the biggest threat to impartiality.
  • High-profile cases are widely covered in the news.
  • Jurors may have preexisting views on the case due to media influence.
  • Pretrial publicity is often negative and detrimental to the defendant.
  • Positive pretrial publicity leads to more favorable views of the defendant, whereas negative pretrial publicity leads to less favorable view of the defendant.
  • Effects are larger in cases involving murder, sex abuse, and drugs.
  • The sleeping effect causes pretrial publicity to be more impactful the longer ago it was.
  • The influence depends on the strength of the evidence.
  • Social media, especially local community Facebook groups, can also influence jurors.

Jury Management and Mitigation

  • Judges can sequester the jury, isolating them from the public during the trial.
  • This only protects the jury from news during the trial, not pretrial publicity.

Jury Nullification

  • Jury nullification occurs when the jury knows the person is guilty but brings back a not-guilty verdict.
  • Reasons include believing the person was justified or disagreeing with the law.
  • Examples include cases of assisted suicide, euthanasia, abortion, and protests.
  • The jury is never told that jury nullification is an option.

Group Processes Impacting Juries

  • Group processes impact juries similarly to other groups.
  • Examples include the reinforcement of the majority opinions.
  • Nine times out of ten, the majority opinion will rule.
  • Group polarization: Those with moderate views grow views that are more intense when they are surrounded by people with more extreme views than them.
    • First studied by Myers and Kaplan in the seventies in which there were participants, college students, who completed a questionnaire on their self reported racism.
    • If we took a a student with a moderate view and put them into one of those two groups, their opinions intensified.
  • Conformity: the greater the majority, the greater likelihood that the majority will win out.
  • Social loafing: in a group, individuals feel less responsible so they put in less effort.
  • Groupthink: an isolated group makes faulty decisions because group members are primarily concerned with/for group harmony. According to social psychology, there's five factors that make a group think more likely:
    • The cohesiveness of the group, Insulation of the group, Any lack of traditional impartial leadership, Lack of norms, Homogeneity of members, social backgrounds.