280 likes | 286 Vues
CJ202: Problems of the Criminal Judiciary. The Institution of the Jury Valerie P. Hans. Jury Under Attack. Competence criticized Fairness doubted Representativeness questioned. The Question:. Abolish or reform?. What Does Jury Research Say?. Jury is generally competent as a factfinder.
E N D
CJ202: Problems of the Criminal Judiciary The Institution of the Jury Valerie P. Hans
Jury Under Attack • Competence criticized • Fairness doubted • Representativeness questioned
The Question: • Abolish or reform?
What Does Jury Research Say? • Jury is generally competent as a factfinder. • Jury reflects biases of the community. • Jury representativeness and group decision making provide factfinding strength. • Jury has difficulty with certain evidence and legal instructions. • Jury reforms can improve some of the weaknesses of jury decision making.
The Beginning of Scientific Study of the Jury • a 1950s Ford Foundation grant to University of Chicago Law School • Harry Kalven, Jr. and Hans Zeisel, jury research pioneers • combined multiple methods to study the institution of the jury • stimulated experimental and other research on the jury
Methods of Jury Research • archival studies of jury case outcomes • judge-jury agreement studies • post-trial interviews with jurors • field experiments
More Methods of Jury Research • laboratory simulation experiments • taping jury deliberations (actual or simulated) • basic research in psychology and sociology
Traditional “Legal” Model • jurors are passive • jurors are blank slates • jurors wait until the end of the trial to form opinions about the case
Meter Reader Model • jurors assess the weight and value of each piece of evidence • the pieces of evidence are independent • jurors average together the evidence to form a final judgment • somewhat compatible with the legal model
Story Model • jurors actively process information and evidence as they hear it • jurors shape evidence together in the form of a “story” • story influenced by jurors’ preconceptions and world knowledge • gaps and inconsistencies are “filled in” in line with the overall story • incompatible with the legal model
Story Model and the Jury • Jurors are influenced by pretrial attitudes and information. • Jurors are active decision makers. • Jurors do not wait until the end of the trial to form opinions. • Jurors make inferences about missing evidence.
Story Model and Jury Reform: Implications • need assessment of preexisting views • may be difficult to remove the impact of a piece of evidence • trial procedures could recognize or encourage jurors’ active role • may be reasonable to introduce legal instructions earlier • may be reasonable to discuss evidence as trial progresses
Vulnerabilities in Juror and Jury Comprehension • scientific, technical, and statistical evidence • expert evidence • judicial legal instructions
Implications for Jury Reform • general competence is sound, but jurors need help in some areas • encourage active learning approach • allow notetaking, question asking • allow contemporaneous interaction among jurors
Additional Implications for Jury Reform • provide multiple sources of information • written copies of evidence, summaries • oral testimony • taped testimony • jury notebooks with backup material
Judicial Instructions: The Jury’s Achilles Heel? • Legal instructions may be complex and confusing • Legal instructions may ask jurors to disregard common sense! • Written in “legalese” • Presented orally in court
Improving Juror Understanding of Legal Instructions • rewrite according to psycholinguistic principles • consider organization • use short, simple sentences • avoid negatives • use active rather than passive voice • avoid legal jargon and uncommon words
Improving Juror Understanding of Legal Instructions • pre-instruction • give jurors written copies of instructions • Repeat! Repeat! Repeat!
Research on the Role of Juror Attitudes and Prejudice • story model suggests pervasive impact of attitudes • pretrial publicity studies demonstrate that pretrial information can affect jurors’ character judgments, information processing • it’s difficult for jurors to assess whether or not they are influenced by specific factors
Twelve Heads Are Better Than One • group decision making allows pooling of knowledge, memories • Hastie study: 90% of facts recalled by at least one member; 80% of judicial instructions recalled by at least one member • Discussions about complex evidence often led by most able jurors • Diverse jury could reduce expression of prejudice.
Error Correction during Jury Deliberation • Jurors test their construals of evidence against one another’s. • Error correction on facts is common. • Error correction on law is infrequent.
Strength of Deliberation: Implications for Jury Reform • Promote heterogeneity of the jury. • Use larger rather than smaller juries. • Keep the unanimity requirement.
Jury Research Conclusion: Reform don’t Abolish! • The jury is a generally sound decision maker. • Most vulnerabilities could be corrected through targeted reforms. • Test the impact of reforms.