Increasing jurors' participation in trials

A field experiment is reported that examines the advantages and disadvantages of two juror participation procedures: Allowing jurors to take notes during the trial, and allowing jurors to direct questions to witnesses. The presence or absence of both procedures was randomly assigned to 34 civil and 33 criminal trials in Wisconsin circuit courts. Following the trials, questinnaires were administered to judges, lawyers, and jurors. Overall, no evidence is found to support the hypotheses that juror notetaking would serve as a useful memory aid, would assist the jury with recall of the judge's instructions, or would increase the jurors' confidence in their verdict. The hypothesis that juror notetaking would increase juror satisfaction with the trial was supported. None of the findings supported the conclusion that juror notetaking was distracting, that notetakers were overly influential during the deliberations, that the jurors' notes were inaccurate, that the notes favored the plaintiff, or that the notes heightened juror disagreement about the trial evidence. It was hypothesized, but not found, that allowing juror questions of witnesses would uncover important issues in the trial and would increase the jurors' satisfaction with the trial procedure. However, juror questions did serve to alleviate juror doubts about the trial testimony, and provided the lawyers with feedback about the jurors' perception of the trial. No evidence was found to support the expectations that juror questions would slow the trial, would upset the lawyers' strategy, or that the question-asking procedure would be a nuisance to the courtroom staff. Furthermore, the lawyers did not appear overly reluctant to object to inappropriate questions from jurors, and jurors did not report being embarassed or angry when their questions were objected to.Dispute Resolution Research Center, Northwestern University     

Trial complexity

A field experiment is reported that examines the effects of trial complexity and trial procedures on jury performance. Juror question asking and notetaking were randomly assigned to 75 civil and 85 criminal trials. Principal components analyses of judges' responses revealed three components of trial complexity: evidence complexity, legal complexity, and quantity of information. None of these components was significantly related to judge-jury verdict agreement. Each component uniquely affected jurors' assessment of the trial, but none affected theirs or the judges' verdict satisfaction. Interactions reveal that juror questions were most beneficial for assisting the jurors with legal complexity and evidence complexity. Natural variation in judges' commenting on the weight and credibility of witnesses, or summarizing the evidence, use of special verdict forms, pattern instructions, and juror orientation was also measured. Of these, the use of special verdict forms appeared to provide the greatest benefits.     

Effects of Judicial Instructions and Case Characteristics in a Mock Jury Trial of Battered Women Who Kill

This study examined the effects of judicial instructions on the outcome of a mock jury trial that involved a woman who pleaded self-defense after killing her abusive spouse. Jurors were instructed to adopt either an objective or a subjective standard of reasonableness when reaching a verdict. Within objective/subjective instruction conditions, half of the juries viewed a case in which the woman killed her abuser while he was attacking her (confrontational) and the remaining half viewed a case in which she killed him while he was asleep (no confrontation). Juries in the subjective conditions returned significantly more not guilty verdicts than jurors in the objective conditions. At the individual juror level, participants hearing subjective instructions were significantly more likely to rate the defendant as not guilty than jurors given objective instructions when the abuse was nonconfrontational.     

Effects of notetaking on verdicts and evidence processing in a civil trial

Examined the effect of notetaking on juror decision making and cognitive processing of evidence in a complex tort trial. Jury eligible participants either took notes during the trial and had access to those notes during decision making, took notes without access, or did not take notes. Those who took notes during the trial performed more competently than did nonnotetakers. Notetakers made correct distinctions in assigning liability and compensatory awards among four differentially worthy plaintiffs and recalled significantly more probative evidence than nonnotetakers. The almost identical performance of the notes-access group and the notes without access group suggests that notetaking had its impact at the encoding stage rather than at retrieval. We discuss possible motivational differences that may account for the results and constraints on generalizing the findings.This research was supported by National Science Foundation under grant No. SBR 9311922 awarded to Irwin A. Horowitz.     

Effects of pretrial juror bias,strength of evidence and deliberation process on juror decisions: new validity evidence of the Juror Bias Scale scores

This study examines the validity of the Juror Bias Scale scores in relation to the mock juror decisions reached in two real life homicide cases before and after the deliberation process. The judicial cases used varied in terms of the ambiguity of the evidence presented at both trials. The WLS methodology for statistical modelling of categorical data was used to analyse data. The findings indicated that the Juror Bias Scale scores successfully predict the verdicts and other related questions before and after deliberations in the case with ambiguous evidence. Furthermore, deliberations caused a generalisation effect on the pretrial juror bias in such a case, and enhanced the differences between defense-biased and prosecution-biased jurors in the verdicts delivered after deliberations. The implications of these findings are discussed in relation to the use of pretrial juror bias questionnaires in jury selection.     

Instructing jurors

This field experiment examines the advantages and disadvantages of two jury instruction procedures: instructing the jury prior to the evidence portion of the trial and providing the jury with a written copy of the judge's instructions to take with them to their deliberations. The presence or absence of both procedures was randomly assigned to 34 civil and 33 criminal trials in Wisconsin circuit courts. Following the trials, questionnaires were administered to judges, lawyers, and jurors. Overall, the findings do not provide any support for the hypotheses that written instructions would help the jurors to recall the judge's instructions, that they would increase the jurors' satisfaction with the trial, or that they would shorten the trial. The written copy did appear to reduce disputes among jurors about the judge's instructions. No evidence was found to support the notion that written instructions would reduce the amount of time that juries devoted to the evidence, that they would lengthen deliberations, or that they would place excessive demands on the resources of the court. The findings also did not support the hypotheses that preliminary instructions would assist the jurors with recall of the judge's instructions or the evidence, or that they would reduce juror confusion about the trial procedure, but did support the hypotheses that preliminary instructions would assist the jurors with following legal guidelines in their decision making and would increase the jurors' satisfaction with the trial process. No evidence was found to support the hypotheses that preliminary instructions would be an impractical procedure or that they would place excessive demands on the judge.Northwestern University     

Sexual harassment stories: testing a story-mediated model of juror decision-making in civil litigation

The story model of juror decision-making proposes that jurors use personal experience and information presented at trial to create stories that guide their verdicts. This model has received strong empirical support in studies using criminal cases. The research presented here extends the story model to civil litigation and tests a story-mediated model against an unmediated model of jury decision-making. In Phase 1, content analysis of mock juror responses to 4 realistic sexual harassment cases revealed prototypic plaintiff and defense stories. In Phase 2, these prototypic stories were included as mediators in a model predicting verdicts in 4 additional sexual harassment cases. Mock juror attitudes, experiences, and demographics were assessed, then attorneys presented abbreviated versions of 4 actual sexual harassment cases. Path analyses provided support for the story-mediated model, which added significantly to the amount of variance accounted for in the outcome measures of verdict, commitment to verdict, and confidence times verdict. Implications for sexual harassment and other types of civil cases are discussed.     

Fostering Juror Comfort: Effects of an Orientation Videotape

The purpose of the present study is to assess the impact of a juror orientation videotape on juror knowledge of the legal system and comfort levels regarding jury service. Juror knowledge and comfort were measured using the Juror Knowledge and Comfort Scale (JKCS). It was hypothesized that jurors exposed to the orientation videotape would be significantly more knowledgeable about the legal system and significantly more comfortable with their role as jurors. It was further hypothesized that there would be a significant correlation between the knowledge scale and comfort scale of the JKCS. Results indicate that jurors exposed to the orientation videotape scored significantly higher on both the knowledge scale and comfort scale than jurors not exposed to the orientation videotape. There is also a significant correlation between the juror knowledge and comfort components of the JKCS. The implications of the findings and directions for future research are discussed.     

The entrapment defense

Most American jurisdictions follow either asubjective or anobjective approach to the entrapment defense. In order to test some of the differences between the two approaches, student jurors viewed a videotaped cocaine trial and were presented with either subjective test or objective test instructions. The admission of prior conviction evidence was also varied. The jurors deliberated, returned a verdict, and then completed a questionnaire that measured their understanding of the instructions and trial facts. Results show that, first, juror comprehension of the principal features of the objective test is very poor. It is suggested that an effort be made to simplify instructions describing the objective test. Should simplification not improve comprehension, it is argued that the judge, not the jury, should decide the entrapment defense when the objective test is used. Second, admission of a prior conviction has a significant impact on verdicts in the subjective test condition, but not in the objective test condition. This finding suggests that the subjective test instructions are effective in encouraging jurors to use prior convictions as evidence of guilt. The content of the objective test instruction may also account for part of the difference in impact. Jurors in the objective test condition were instructed not to take the defendant's predisposition into account, and a substantial minority of the jurors under-stood this aspect of the instruction.     

Race and the decision making of juries

The relationship between race and jury decision making is a controversial topic that has received increased attention in recent years. While public and media discourse has focused on anecdotal evidence in the form of high‐profile cases, legal researchers have considered a wide range of empirical questions including: To what extent does the race of a defendant affect the verdict tendencies of juries? Is this influence of race comparable for jurors of different races? In what ways does a jury's racial composition affect its verdict and deliberations? The present review examines both experimental and archival investigations of these issues. Though the extant literature is not always consistent and has devoted too little attention to the psychological mechanisms underlying the influence of race, this body of research clearly demonstrates that race has the potential to impact trial outcomes. This is a conclusion with important practical as well as theoretical implications when it comes to ongoing debates regarding jury representativeness, how to optimize jury performance, jury nullification and racial disparities in the administration of capital punishment.     

Juror decision making

Much of the research on juror decision making is concerned with whether jurors are swayed by irrelevant-or extralegal-issues in their judgments of defendants. Such studies examine whether jurors' attitudes and victims' and defendants' characteristics have a measurable impact on these decisions. Yet, in the typical study, evidential issues are either poorly measured or ignored, hence the effects of extralegal issues may be exaggerated. Moreover, jury simulations are often chosen to study these questions despite critics' concerns about the generalizability of the results. The present study uses data gathered from actual jurors to assess whether the emphasis on juror competence is justified. The results indicate that these jurors' decisions are dominated by evidential issues, particularly evidence concerning the use of force and physical evidence. Jurors were considerably less responsive to characteristics of victims and defendants, although some of these factors significantly affected their decisions.The research reported here was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health under grant No. R01 MH29727 and the National Institute of Justice under grant No. 82-IJ-CX-0015. The author would like to thank Douglas Smith, Barbara Reskin, and Lowell Hargens for helpful comments on earlier drafts.     

Identifying and measuring juror pre-trial bias for forensic evidence: development and validation of the Forensic Evidence Evaluation Bias Scale

Abstract

Previous research has provided support for the impact of juror pre-trial bias on judicial decision making, particularly in cases where the evidence presented at trial is of weak or ambiguous probative value. In an effort to identify whether a pre-trial bias for forensic evidence exists, the Forensic Evidence Evaluation Bias Scale (FEEBS) was developed and tested. The results of a principal components analysis suggested that two distinct constructs were being measured, corresponding to a pro-prosecution and pro-defence bias toward forensic evidence. In a second validation study, scores on these two subscales were compared with other existing juror bias measures (Juror Bias Scale and Belief in a Just World) and in a mock juror decision making task only the pro-prosecution subscale of the FEEBS predicted the perceived strength of forensic evidence. A partial mediation model is presented which explains the relationship between this bias and verdict preferences. The implications of this potential juror bias are discussed in the context of real juries, the CSI Effect (which refers to anecdotal claims that jurors are biased by the popularity of fictional representations of forensic science on television) and peremptory challenges, as well as future research directions.     

JUST: a measure of jury system trustworthiness

ABSTRACT

Three studies developed and tested a new measure of the perceived trustworthiness of the jury system, the 23-item Jury System Trustworthiness (JUST) scale, and assessed the scale’s convergent and discriminant validity. Study 1 assessed the scale’s factor structure and relation to other relevant constructs. In Studies 2 and 3, the JUST scale was administered to participants in two separate mock juror studies. The results of all three studies supported the hypothesized factor structure of the measure but showed that a simplified, 7-item measure was also effective. Overall, participants’ perceptions of juries were moderately positive, and the JUST scale was related to attitudes toward the police, authoritarianism, belief in a just world, juror bias, preference for a jury (vs. a bench) trial, and intention to respond to a jury summons. It also explained a unique portion of the variance in jury-specific beliefs and behavioral intentions, such as preference for a jury trial and response to a summons, beyond that accounted for by other legal attitudes. The JUST scale was not related to verdict decisions in either mock trial after controlling for authoritarianism. Several individual differences (e.g. age, race/ethnicity) were also related to attitudes toward the jury system.     

Mock jurors’ perceptions of a child witness: the impact of the presence and/or intervention of a registered intermediary during cross-examination

ABSTRACT

In recent years Registered Intermediaries (RIs) have been involved in facilitating communication in children's investigative interviews and trial proceedings. Their presence and interventions are generally deemed to have a positive impact on child engagement, but their impact on jury appraisal of evidence, during cross-examination is unclear. This study addressed this issue in a more ecologically valid context than that previously used. Adult mock juror participants (N?=?217) watched a video-recording of a mock cross-examination of a child witness in which a RI was present or absent, and in which RI type interventions were either included or omitted. The participants rated the quality of the cross-examination and the child's responses in relation to child credibility, child understanding, legal professional's behaviour, and trial progression. Findings indicated that RI presence or absence, and inclusion or omission of interventions had no effect on mock juror ratings. However, an interaction between these variables demonstrated that mock jurors rated trial progression towards a guilty verdict according to which court professional did, or did, not intervene. The findings also demonstrated that mock jurors based their assessment of trial progression towards a guilty verdict on the evidence presented, and that child understanding per se was irrelevant.     

Battered women who kill

This study assesses acquital rates using mock jurors in cases involving a battered woman charged with killing her husband. The simulated trial format was based on actual courtroom proceedings including witness cross-examination and jury deliberation proceedings. The type of plea entered was varied and reflected either self-defense, automatism, or a hypothetical plea of psychological self-defense. The severity of abuse incurred by the defendant was also varied along with expert testimony. Jurors more frequently found the defendant not guilty when a plea of automatism was entered compared to a plea of self-defense. The frequency of acquittals following a plea of psychological self-defense resulted in more acquittals than the self-defense plea but significantly fewer than the automatism plea. The likelihood of acquittal increased under conditions of severe abuse as opposed to moderate abuse. Expert witness testimony was observed to influence verdicts during juror deliberations.     

Predicting verdicts,adherence to judge's instructions,and assumptions about the disposition of the defendant in a case involving the insanity defense

Abstract

296 college students and jury eligible adults completed attitudinal measures and read a case summary of a murder trial involving the insanity defense. The case summary included opening and closing arguments, testimony from expert witnesses, and judge's instructions. Although broader legal attitudes (the PJAQ) predicted verdicts, the Insanity Defense Attitudes-Revised scale provided incremental predictive validity. Attitudes related to the insanity defense also predicted adherence to judge's instructions, whereas more general legal biases predicted a juror's willingness to change their verdict after being provided with accurate information about the defendant's disposition following the verdict. Importantly, misconceptions concerning the insanity defense impacted verdicts and many jurors made decisions that failed to adhere to the judge's instructions, though the nullification tendency does appear to vary as a function of pretrial juror attitudes. Implications for instructing jurors in insanity defense cases will be discussed.     

The Effect of Jury Deliberations on Jurors' Reasoning Skills

The effect of jury deliberation on jurors' reasoning skill in a murder trial was examined. Specifically, the effect of deliberating on reasoning competence (as defined by Kuhn, Weinstock and Flaton, 1994) was explored. One hundred and four participants viewed a videotaped murder trial and either deliberated in 12-person juries or ruminated on the case individually. Among those assigned to juries, half had their reasoning skill assessed prior to deliberations, while the others were tested after deliberating. Jurors in the individual rumination condition were assessed after they had the opportunity to reflect on the case alone. As hypothesized, post-group-deliberation jurors were more likely to discount both the selected verdict and alternative theories and incorporate judgmental supporting statements than were the other mock jurors. However, the mock jurors did not differ with regard to making statements that supported alternative verdicts or including judgmental statements that discounted their chosen verdict. In terms of Kuhn's reasoning continuum from satisficing (low level) to theory–evidence coordination (high level), there is some evidence that post-group-deliberation jurors may be closer to the high end than predeliberation jurors or post-individual-rumination jurors in some aspects of the task, but not in others.     

Expert evidence and hearsay

In upholding the admission of expert evidence, some courts have held that hearsay information conveyed via an expert may be admitted as long as the jury is instructed to ignore the facts asserted in the hearsay statements and to use the information only for determining the weight to attribute to the expert's opinion. Results of a mock juror simulation indicated that although hearsay elements conveyed via an expert were perceived as less likely compared to a condition in which the information was independently admitted at trial, it was not completely ignored by the jurors. Further, the findings tended to suggest that the impact of the hearsay on verdict decisions operated primarily by influencing evaluations regarding the likelihood of the hearsay events as opposed to judgments regarding the expert testimony.     

An Examination of Jury Verdicts for Evidence of a Similarity-Leniency Effect,an Out-Group Punitiveness Effect or a Black Sheep Effect

Archival data from cases adjudicated by jury in El Paso and Bexar County, Texas, were used to test whether a similarity-leniency effect, an out-group punitiveness effect, or a black sheep effect (BSE; J. M. Marques, V Y. Yzerbyt, & J. P. Leyens, 1988) influenced jury decisions. Defendant ethnicity, jury ethnic composition, and strength of evidence against the defendant were coded for 418 closed noncapital, felony cases to test their impact on trial verdicts and sentence lengths. Results indicated complex relations exist among juror and defendant characteristics and their influence on trial outcomes. No support was found for any of the theoretical models as predictors of jury decision-making. Strength of evidence was the most influential variable for both verdicts and length of sentences. Case strength, defendant ethnicity, and jury composition were related to sentence lengths.