1
Q
Batson v. Kentucky (1986)
A
NO exclusions based on RACE
cognizable group
2
Q
J.E.B. v. Alabama (1994)
A
No exclusions based on GENDER
cognizable group
3
Q
Harrisburg Seven (1978)
A
Def. were antiwar activists
->consultant to get sympathetic jury
Based on data: Ideal prosecution juror -rep. businessman -religious (presbyterian, methodist, fund. Christian) -active in local civil org.
Ideal defense juror
- femal
- democrat
- no religious preference
- white-collar to skilled blue-collar
Mistrial, not retried
4
Q
People v. O.J. Simpson
A
Both pros. & defense hired consultants
Pros
- about race
- > prosector disagreed, though ideal would be female and black women best
Defense
- about race
- > want as many black (and other minorities) as possible
Jury comp: 1 black male 1 hispanic male 2 white women 8 black women
pros: 10 women
def: 10 minorities
Not guilty
Women on jury didn’t like Pros
5
Q
Furman v. Georgia (1972)
A
Imp. death penalty decisions
CA Supreme Court- death penalty cruel and unusual (applied at random)
6
Q
Gregg v. Georgia (1977)
A
Imp. death penalty decisions
Leg. re-enacts death penalty
- two-phase (bifurcated) system
1. guilty phase
2. penalty phase (sentencing)
7
Q
Ford v. Wainworth (1986)
A
Mentally ill & death penalty
- convicted of murder
- paranoid schizophrenic
- trans. to state mental institution (after receiving death sentence)
8
Q
Atkins v. Virginia (2002)
A
Mentally ill & death penalty
US Supreme Court – ban execution of mentally ill CHALLENGED
- cruel & unusual (8th Amend)
- determine? refers to typical IQ test, but up to states to decide how to define mental disabilities
- –> Flynn effect - IQ test scores increase over time gain ~.3 per yr.
9
Q
Roper v. Simmons (2005)
A
Juveniles & death penalty
US Supreme Court bans execution of juvi.
- juvi. at time of crime
- since 1973, 22 executed who were minors at the time
- > court cited clear distinction between adolescence & adulthood at 18 yrs (PFC)
10
Q
Graham v. FL (2010)
A
Juveniles & death penalty
Punishment of minors:
US Supreme Court – minors cannot be given life w/o parole EXCEPT in case of MURDER
11
Q
Miller v. Alabama (2012)
A
Juveniles & death penalty
Punishment of minors:
US Supreme Court – rejects life w/o parole for ALL JUVI
12
Q
Venire
A
“Cause to come”
Pool of prospective jurors are drawn from an eligible pop
Drawing jury pool
- voter registration (primary means)
- list of licensed drivers
- state-issued ID cards
- persons receiving public assistance
- unemployment lists
Exclusions and exemptions
- ppl ignore summons (~20%)
- don’t respond to questionnaires
- legal exclusions
- > visual or hearing impaired
- > felons
- > non-english speakers
- > non-citizens
- personal hardships
- > one day or one-trial
13
Q
Voir Dire
A
“to speak truth”
Jurors are asked questions and dismissed
6th Amend right to “fair and impartial” jury
- defendant can screen prospective jurors to DETERMINE if they are PREJUDICED
- > lawyers & judges may ask jurors questions in an ATTEMPT TO SCREEN them
Lawyers may use to make a point
- public commitment -> more likely yo actually follow through
- in eye witness case- “ever seen though knew, but was wrong?”
Challenges for cause
- either side (or judge) can CLAIM certain jurors should be EXCUSED FOR CAUSE (e.g., biased)
- in theory, no limit
Peremptory challenges
- each side can EXCLUDE a DESIGNATED # of jurors W/O CAUSE cited
- DEFENSE tends to get MORE in criminal trials
14
Q
Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968
A
Pre-1968 juries:
Middle aged, white males
1966- exclude women because they are women
Act: Jury selection -uniform criteria for selection -broad cross-section of community -increase diversity (many benefits) -representativeness (race, gender, age, SES, sexual orientation, religion)
15
Q
Benefits of diversity jury
A
- Heterogeneous juries would be better fact finders and problem solvers
- More likely to include minority group members, who might DISCOURAGE majority group PREJUDICE
More diverse juries (Sommers)
- deliberate longer
- more likely to discuss racially charged topics
- discuss more of the evidence presented at trial
- make fewer inaccurate statements about facts of case
Presence of dissimilar others causes jurors to process trial evidence more thoroughly
16
Q
Representativeness
A
*Rep. of juries leads to the APPEARANCE of legit
LACK of rep. can lead to rejection of both criminal justice process and its outcomes
EXAMPLE
Rodney King Trial -> L.A. Riots
17
Q
Jury selections strategies
A
Predict how a person will lean before trial by
1. Demo. characteristics (may employ stereotypes)
- Individual juror personality (implicit personality test do NOT reliably PREDICT jury verdicts)
- >internal/external locus of control (MORE likely to CONVICT)
- >authoritarianism (punish those who do NOT conform to society; MORE likely to CONVICT; longer sentences, but NOT when def. is authority!)
- >belief in a “just world” (ppl get what they deserve) - Group status (in-group vs. out-group effects)
Similarity-Leniency Hyp.
-WEAK evidence
-jurors who demo. or socially SIMILAR to def. might be more SYMPATHETIC
-if not in in-group; harsher
Black Sheep Effect
- STRONG evidence
- those who SHARE QUALITIES may be SKEPTICAL of def.’s excuses or justifications
- want to DISTANCE SELF
- if in in-group; harsher
Scientific Jury Selection: Trial consulting -expensive (favors rich) -community surveys (rep. of jury pool) ->attitudes, beliefs, personal habits -focus groups -mock trials -voir dire -opening and closing arguments
18
Q
Factors that can bias jury
A
Pretrial publicity:
- neg. publicity -> guilty
- > change of venue (more difficult today)
Defendant characteristics:
- how badly def. has already suffered from crime
- > more lenient if badly injured (e.g., victim injured them)
- moral character of def. & vic.
- > more lenient if drug dealer robs another
- > can also be related to ethnicity
Inadmissible evidence:
-jurors consider whether it’s fair to hear evidence
Complex evidence:
-credentials of expert witness become imp. when evidence is complex
19
Q
Integrating evidence
A
Mathematically based
- assign each piece of evidence a WEIGHT
- > e.g., DNA strong, so 80%; bad video light, so 5%
- each weight REFLECTS imp., credibility of witness, reliability of evidence, etc.
- guilty verdict if total exceeds standard of proof (e.g., beyond reasonable doubt)
Explanation based
- story model
- > assimilation of evidence into a coherent narrative
- > comprehension of judge’s instructions regarding legal verdict alternatives
20
Q
Jury size
A
U.S. Supreme - min. 6 req. to be fair (Williams v. FL; Ballew v. Georgia)
12 better than 6
- deliberate longer
- recall evidence more accurately
- generally more arguments
- more representative
- less likely to lead to conformity pressures
21
Q
Asch Experiment
A
Visual perception task about conformity
Experimental: 37% conformed
Control: ~99% accurate
Conformity reduced when
-dissenter (conform 1/4 as often)
22
Q
Reasons for conformity
A
Normative influence
- desire for acceptance (want to be liked)
- increase when responding in public
Informational influence
- accept evidence of others (want to be right)
- increase: feel incompetent, difficult task, care about being right
23
Q
Jury conformity
A
Initial (11 G; 1 NG) – Verdict (92% G; 8% hung)
Initial (10 G; 2 NG) – Verdict (64.7% F; 35.3% hung)
24
Q
Are judges more impartial than juries?
A
Judges NO better at ignoring inadmissible evidence
Both groups believe judges would be better
25
Jurors with prior experience
MORE likely to convict
26
Jury-judge agreement
~74% (Heuer & Penrod, 1994)
Differences found in CLOSE cases
Juries more LENIENT
-judges see more criminals -> judge harder
27
Recidivism
Tendency to relapse to prior condition/mode of behavior
-esp. criminal behavior
Wish to DECREASE
-one attempt through punishment
28
Thorndike's "Law of Effect"
Response followed by satisfying -> more likely occur again
Resp. followed by annoying (e.g., punishment) -> less likely
Not very effective, enforcement is the problem
- inconsistent
- long delay behavior -> consequence
- ass. between behavior punishment & punisher
- may produce aggressive behavior
- does NOT specify correct behavior
- punished behavior likely to reappear after consequences withdrawn (Skinner)
29
Denmark research on punishment and recidivism (Brennan & Mednick, 1994)
Results:
Imposing some sanctions REDUCED rates for future # criminal arrests
-type/severity of sanction did NOT matter
Continuous reduced MORE than intermittent sanctions
HIGHER prop. of sanctions received for past arrests, LOWER rates of future arrests
30
Prison
Cost (older, higher cost)
- avg. $24,000/ prisoner per yr
- over 55, avg. $80,000/ prisoner per yr
Most return to society
- 600,000 from federal and state per year
- >rehabilitation prog. may lower cost
31
Effectiveness of prison
Prison -> MORE likely to recidivate
Petersilia, Turner, & Peterson (1986)
- Groups matched (age, crime, prior record)
- one: prison sentence -- other: probation (tracked for 3 yrs)
- time served INCREASED recidivism
Schlager & Robins (2008)
- served entire - MORE likely reconvicted & reincarcerated in contrast to those release early
- > problem: WHY they were released early (e.g., good behavior)
32
Effectiveness of shock incarceration
Backfire
-sign. more likely to become repeat offenders than those put on probation (maybe because leave with negative view of the system)
More effective:
-therapy, education, drug treatment, follow-up supervision
33
Imp. death penalty decisions
Furman v. Georgia (1972)
CA Supreme Court- death penalty cruel and unusual (applied at random)
```
Gregg v. Georgia (1977)
Leg. re-enacts death penalty
-two-phase (bifurcated) system
1. guilty phase
2. penalty phase (sentencing)
```
34
How capital punishment plays into voir dire
If unwilling to sentence to death in any circumstance, then asked to leave.
35
Penalty phase
Juror to consider aggravating & mitigating factors
Aggravating factors
-increase WRONGFULNESS of the action (support death)
Mitigating factors
- reduce BLAMEWORTHINESS (support line imprisonment)
- >less weight
Freq. misunderstood (e.g., believe unless death, parole eligible)
36
Deterrence & death penalty
States w/ death penalty have slightly HIGHER murder rates than w/o
Brutalization effect
- executions stimulate small INCREASE in murders (1 - 4)
- 60 yrs; 70 studies
Recidivism:
Marquart & Sorensen (1989)
death row after sentences dismissed (Furman v. Georgia)
~1% killed again
Problems w/ deterrence theory (Constanzo & Krauss, 2012)
- crimes of PASSION (no weight of costs/benefits)
- believe won't be put to death (~1% are)
- not clear if death more of deterrent than life imprisonment
* Nagin & Pepper (2012)
- evidence is INCONCLUSIVE
37
Costs & death penalty
Lifetime incarceration for one
~$750,000 - 1.1 mill.
Single death-penalty case
Texas: $2.3 mill
FL: $3.2 mill
B/c automatic appeals process
CA $63.3 mill. annually to have death row
-system cost with max. penalty lifetime incarceration $11.5 mill. annually
38
Mistakes & death penalty
1973-1995
68% death sentences reversed b/c serious errors at trial
-incompetent defense (37%)
-faulty or misleading instructions (20%)
-prosecutorial misconduct (19%)
-> suppression of evidence, intimidation of witness
Radelet, Bedau, & Putnam (1992)
Examined death penalty cases back to 1990
-416 cases innocent (BUT ground-truth problem)
-23 of were actually executed
Death penalty info. center (2012)
Since 1977, 140 released from death row b/c of innocence
39
Racial disparities & death penalty
Bowers (1984); Baldus et al. (1998)
1. Following arrest, B def. more likely than W to be:
- charged w/ capital murder
- convicted of capital murder
2. Following conviction, B more likely than W to be:
- sentenced to death (43% of current pop)
- actually executed
Interaction between race of victim and of def. is BEST predictor of death sentence
- B & W equally likely of becoming victims of aggravated murder
- >B convicted of killing W: 22% given sentence (more likely to be executed)
- >W convicted of killing B: 3% given sentence
40
Mentally ill & death penalty
Cruel & unusual to execute mentally ill
Ford v. Wainworth (1986)
- convicted of murder
- paranoid schizophrenic
- trans. to state mental institution (after receiving death sentence)
*Atkins v. Virginia (2002)
US Supreme Court -- ban execution of mentally ill CHALLENGED
-cruel & unusual (8th Amend)
-determine? refers to typical IQ test, but up to states to decide how to define mental disabilities
---> Flynn effect - IQ test scores increase over time gain ~.3 per yr.
41
Juveniles & death penalty
Roper v. Simmons (2005):
US Supreme Court bans execution of juvi.
-juvi. at time of crime
-since 1973, 22 executed who were minors at the time
->court cited clear distinction between adolescence & adulthood at 18 yrs (PFC)
Increasingly, minors are tried as adults
Punishment of minors:
Graham v. FL (2010)
US Supreme Court -- minors cannot be given life w/o parole EXCEPT in case of MURDER
Miller v. Alabama (2012)
US Supreme Court -- rejects life w/o parole for ALL JUVI
42
Flynn effect
IQ test scores increase over time gain ~.3 per yr.
43
Humane measures & death penalty
Lethal injection favored over hanging, firing, gas, electric
Current debates about above
Shortage of lethal injection drugs
- Europe stopped producing (don't do death penalty, don't want to support it)
- >current cocktails are experimental
44
Closure for victims & death penalty
Right to view executions
-most states allow victims or family members to attend (potential for closure)
Really depends on person as to whether truly closure
45
Challenges for cause
- either side (or judge) can CLAIM certain jurors should be EXCUSED FOR CAUSE (e.g., biased)
- in theory, no limit
46
Peremptory challenges
- each side can EXCLUDE a DESIGNATED # of jurors W/O CAUSE cited
- DEFENSE tends to get MORE in criminal trials
47
Rose (1999)
Examined 348 juror prospectes involved in 13 N Carolina felony trials
147 peremptory challengers used
-66% by defense
* Black jurors just as likely to be dismissed as white
- 71% black by PROSECUTION
- 81% white by DEFENSE
48
Cognizable group
Group that has a definite composition
Supreme Court placed some limitations on peremptory challenges
*-cannot exclude ALL members of a COG. GROUP (ethnic groups, religion, gender, etc.)
Batson v. Kentucky (1986)
-NO exclusions based on RACE
J.E.B. v. Alabama (1994)
-No exclusions based on GENDER
49
Jury Instructions
Preliminary Instructions
-BEFORE trial (usually procedural)
Admonitions
-e.g., "disregard that statement"
Substantive law instructions
- info ABOUT the law as applies to case
- typ. not given until AFTER trial
- >report understood better when pre- and post-trial instructions (eval. evidence more thoroughly)
What is "evidence" and what is not
- things one may or may not consider
- legal concepts defined
- beyond reasonable doubt or preponderance of evidence
Instructions
- written by lawyers in order to be legally PRECISE
- judges read verbatim (*13.5% appeals based on instructional error by judge*)
- >*if asked question, judge will repeat instructions again
* Legaleses leads to
- discuss inappropriate topics
- neglect imp. topics
- allow one or two jurors who think understand control process
- Hastie, Schkade & Payne (1989) -- Median 5%; 30% scored 0% in defining terms relevant to case
50
Jury Deliberation
Discuss evidence & judge instructions
- 70-75% time discussing evidence
- 20% discussing law
How they deliberate
- elect foreperson (perceived to have authority: male, older, prof. degree)
- discuss procedures
- raise general trial issues
* Verdict-driven:
- start with poll (guilty or innocent)
- supporting evidence for verdict (*confirmation bias*)
* Evidence-driven:
- start with thorough review of evidence/testimony/etc.
- can relate evidence to both verdicts
- take poll near end of deliberation
- >outcome: more personal satisfaction, take case more seriously, discuss more thoroughly, don't leave out pieces of evidence
Psyc 175- Psyc and Law
flashcards
Decks in class (17)
# Cards
