UNIT #7: Juries: Fact Finders Flashcards

Question

Remedies for juries That are not impartial - Challenge for cause x7

Answer 1

(1) An option to reject Biased jurors (2) Changes how a jury is selected: (3) Crown or Defence may Argue although prospective Jury pool may be partial, if Questioned, prospective jurors Could be identified & rejected from Serving on the jury (4) Side desiring the judge To allow challenge must Demonstrate there is Reasonable partiality in The community from which The jury pool will be drawn. (5) If judge grants: Prospective jurors can be Probed with a set of preDetermined questions approved By the judge. (6) Only prospective jurors’ State of mind or thinking Can be examined. (7) Not allowed to ask about Their backgrounds or Personalities.

Answer 2

(1) Two persons are selected From the jury pool & sworn To act as triers; a third person Is selected as a prospective Juror. (2) Lawyers or judge question The prospective juror, while Triers listen to the answers. (3) Triers discuss as to whether The prospective juror is impartial. (4) If trier decides prospective Juror is not impartial, they Are dismissed and, another Person is selected as a prospective Juror; the process begins again. (5) If triers decide the prospective Juror is impartial, then that person Becomes the first member of the jury And replaces one of the triers.

Answer 3

(1) To increase knowledge About the justice system. (2) To use the wisdom of 12 (Rather than 1) to reach A verdict. (3) Main legal function is To apply the law, as provided By The judge, to the admissible Evidence in the case & to render A verdict of guilt or innocence. (4) To protect against Out-of-date laws (6) To act as the conscience of the community.

Answer 4

(1) When cases Involve controversial Issues such as Abortion or euthanasia (2) Jury believes the law Is unfair given the circumstances Of the case (3) Punishment accompanying A conviction is too harsh For the crime

Answer 5

(1) High external validity (2) Results come From real cases And the actual jurors Who deliberated (3) Results more likely To apply to the real world

Answer 6

(1) In Canada, jurors not Allowed to discuss what Occurred in deliberations (2) Researchers turn to U.S. or other countries That do not have this rule. (3) Cause-and-effect Relationship cannot Be established with This type of methodology. - At best researchers Can talk about variables That occur together - Alternative hypotheses Cannot be ruled out (4) Jurors’ accounts May not be reliable - Conclusions may Be based on Unreliable data - Forget critical Aspects of the Deliberation - Embellish or Downplay elements to present Themselves more favourably. - Recall details Inaccurately

Answer 7

(1) Archives (2) Field Studies (3) Post-trial interviews (4) Simulation

Answer 8

(1) Records of trials Reviewed to uncover Relationships among Variables - Transcripts - Police interviews Of witnesses (2) WEAKNESSES: Inability to establish Cause-and-effect Relationships - Researcher unaware How info was collected And reliability of it. - Researcher restricted To data available - types Of questions that can be Posed are limited by info That can be accessed. - Researcher unable to Go back and collect More information. (3) STRENGTH: External Validity Is high.

Answer 9

(1) Using actual jurors While they are serving On jury duty. - Researchers may be Able to introduce variables They want to examine - Able to observe Variables of interest As they are occurring. - Cooperation from the Courts & jurors required (2) WEAKNESSES: - Even when approval Granted, it is likely Only small sample of Participants available. - Appropriate comparison Groups may be difficult To identify. - Host of confounding Variables researcher May not be able to Control (e.g. gender Of lawyers & witnesses) - Receiving approval From courts may be Difficult (3) STRENGTHS: - High external Validity

Answer 10

(1) Simulate a trial Or, aspects of it By using written, audio, Or video format. - Participants presented With trial information, Researcher varies & Manipulated trial info - Following presentations Of trial, participants asked To respond individually (Juror research) or, in groups (Jury research) - Asked to render a Verdict or make other Judgments - Verdict and other Participants’ responses Can be compared to Determine whether the Independent variable(s) Had an effect. (2) STRENGTHS: High internal Validity - Researchers can reveal Cause-and-effect relationships because they systematically Manipulated the independent Variables (3) WEAKNESSES: - Participants typically University students Who may not be representative Of real jury pools - The control the researchers Have over independent variables Limits the external validity - E.G. cases are not real And no consequences To the verdicts or decisions

Answer 11

(1) unclear how to remove the cognitive influences associated with inadmissible evidence. (2) assessed jurors’ comprehension of judges’ instructions. These prospective jurors understood less than 50% of the instructions they received. (3) jurors do not remember, understand, or accurately apply judges’ instructions. (4) found that if the inadmissible evidence was memorable, it was harder for the jury to ignore. (5) Backfire Effect: Some researchers have found that a judge’s instruction to disregard evidence simply makes the evidence more memorable than if no instruction were given. (6) Whether jurors will follow a judge’s instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence is related to the reason for the instruction rather than to the instruction itself.

Answer 12

(1) rewriting instructions. (2) providing a written copy of the instructions to jurors. (3) providing jurors with pre-and post-evidence instructions. (4) having lawyers clarify legal instruction during their presentation to the jury.

Answer 13

(1) Note-taking | (2) Asking Questions

Answer 14

(1) Trial judge in each case decides whether jurors will be allowed to take notes. (2) Advantages: Note-takers more attentive during the trial than those who do not take notes. - Jurors’ notes are an accurate record of the trial - Can keep up with the evidence as it is presented - Juror note-taking does not favour either the prosecution/crown or the defence - May facilitate memory and understanding of the evidence. (3) DISADVANTAGES: Jurors who take notes may exert influence while in the deliberation over those who do not. - If disagreements occur about the evidence, jurors will rely on those who took notes to clarify the issue.

Answer 15

(1) Meta-analysis conducted showed If 7 or fewer jurors vote Guilty at beginning of Deliberation, jury will Render not-guilty verdict. (2) If 10 or more jurors initially vote Guilty, final verdict will likely Be guilty. (3) If 8 or 9 jurors initially vote Guilty, the final verdict Is unpredictable. (4) When a jury could retire With a majority vote, they Tended to reach a decision Faster and did not fully discuss the evidence & the Law, compared with when Jury was required to reach A unanimous verdict. (5) Studies have shown 6-person juries less Representative of The community, Remember less of the Evidence, return quicker verdicts More likely to reach unanimous Verdict than 12-person juries.

Answer 16

(1) categorized as using either a mathematical or an explanation-based approach. (2)

Answer 17

(1) View jurors as conducting A set of mental calculations Regarding the importance And strength of each piece Of evidence. (2) Guilty or not guilty Verdict is determined By the outcome of The calculations for All the relevant evidence. (3) Verdict is a function Of the calculation of All the relevant evidence.

Answer 18

(1) Suggest evidence is Organized into a coherent Whole (2) Active at understanding And processing the evidence. (3) Jurors interpret and elaborate On the evidence and make Casual connections, in doing so, They create a story structure. (4) These “stories” are compared With each verdict option Presented by the judge. (5) The verdict option most Consistent with the story is The verdict reached. (6) Individual differences can Influence the story-construction Process: - Jurors bring in their Personal beliefs, experiences, Knowledge, attitudes when Constructing their stories - Jurors may reach different Decisions after hearing the Same evidence.

Answer 19

(1) Deliberations seemed To mediate any biases That may have existed But only when implicit Stereotypes were not Elicited. (2) Juror racial bias reduced When defence lawyer “played The race card” (made salient Statements). (3) Studies show a small Significant effect of Racial bias on jury decisions. (4) Participants more likely To render guilty verdicts For “other-race” defendants Than for defendants of their Own race. (5) Rendered longer sentences For other-race defendants. (6) Jurors’ prejudicial beliefs Were related to verdict only When defendant’s race was Not made prominent. (7) Found when a defendant’s Race was made prominent, White juror bias toward a black defendant was reduced. (8) Strength of evidence May come into play Along with race. (9) When evidence was weak (Not clearly favouring one Side), a race similarity Between defendant and jury Led to leniency (10) When evidence was strong, Race similarity between Jury & defendant led to Punitiveness (11) Known as the Black sheep effect

Answer 20

(1) leniency bias | (2) polarization

Answer 21

(1) Sometimes, jurors don’t have the background knowledge to understand certain types of evidence, such as DNA. (2) Gender of the expert: - Jurors may be affected By gender differently, depending on their ability to process expert testimony. - When expert testimony was less complex, although not significantly so, the jury awarded higher damages when the expert was female, rather than male. - When expert testimony was more complex, the jury awarded hire damages to the plaintiff when the expert was male, rather than female (3) Jurors may disregard it completely (4) Jurors asked about Perceptions and reactions to three types of witnesses: professional expert, Lay experts, and families or friends of the defendant. (5) Jurors were most likely to view professional experts negatively, believing they had little credibility and hurt the side they were testifying for. (6) Overall, jurors may carefully consider expert testimony. (7) Two key factors influenced all the dependent measures and interacted: Evidence strength and coherency of the testimony. (8) Defendant was rated less guilty and the victim rated as less credible when the strength of the evidence and coherency Were low. (9) The usefulness of expert testimony can interact with other factors in the case. (10) Credentials may not be critical to jurors when rendering verdicts. (11) Experts’ testimony had virtually no impact

Answer 22

(1) Overall, attitudes that are case-specific seem to have more predictive power over verdict than more general attitudes to do. (2) It was reported that no group of attitude or values as receipt sufficient investigation to reach a definitive conclusion at this point. (3) One notable exception is attitudes toward capital punishment. (4) Jurors who are willing to impose the death sentence had a 19% higher conviction rate than non-death-Qualified jurors.

Answer 23

(1) Mock jurors who were extroverted and had higher moral reasoning were found to be more persuasive than other mock jours. (2) Participants who showed a high level of conscientiousness were more likely to report being persuaded by other participants. (3) Two personality traits that have been commonly measured in connection to jurors: - Authoritarianism - dogmatism (4) authoritarianism: - Tend to have right-wing political views and are conservative and rigid thinkers who surrender to authority. - Meta-analysis found a moderate positive relationship between authoritarianism & verdict. - Those that Score high on these traits tend to be more inclined to render guilty verdicts. - Have Pro-prosecution bias (5) dogmatism: - Tend to be rigid and close-minded but without the political overtones found with the authoritarianism construct.

Answer 24

(1) Researchers reasoned that jurors may Pay particular attention to the characteristics of the defendant if the defendant is incongruent with the offender stereotype. (2) This was further supported when Mock jurors were found to spend more time looking at the female rather than male defendant. (3) Mock jurors recalled fewer facts of the case when the defendant was female rather than male. (4) If jurors hear about a defendant’s prior criminal record that contains one or more convictions, they are more likely to find a defendant guilty than if they did not have this knowledge. (5) Seems to be a small relationship between the attractiveness of the defendant and Jury verdict. (6) When Mock jurors did deliberate, the attractive defendant would more likely to be found guilty. (7) “Plain looking” defendants were more often found to be guilty when Mock jurors did not deliberate. (8) Found verdict preferences to be more lenient for the attractive defendant and more severe for the unattractive defendant.

Answer 25

(1) Particularly relevant in cases of sexual assault in which a guilty verdict may hinge on the testimony of the alleged victim. (2) If a woman’s sexual history is admitted into evidence, it is used to assess her credibility. (3) Sexual history: Compared with participants who heard no sexual history information, those who heard that the victim and defendant had sexual intercourse in the past were less likely to find the alleged victim credible, more likely to find her blameworthy, and more likely to believe she consented to sexual intercourse. (4) More likely to find the defendant not guilty.

UNIT #7: Juries: Fact Finders Flashcards

(49 cards)