The representative jury requirement: Jury representativeness and cross sectional participation from the beginning to the end of the jury selection process

The paper specifically addresses the many ways in which the facially neutral procedures actually fail to secure representative jury pools. Although the Sixth Amendment's fair cross‐section requirement forbids systematic discrimination in the creation of the jury venire and panel, it does not guarantee that the criminal jury will in fact reflect an accurate cross‐section of the community. As a result, not only does the Court fail to focus on nonlegally recognized screening mechanisms and factors such as exemptions, excuses, failure to followup jurors, etc., may affect jury representativeness, but also the Court never examined cross‐sectional representation at the entirety of the jury selection processes, except jury panels and final juries.

The first section of this paper presents a brief overview of the constitutional law impacting impartial juries, especially addressing the fair cross‐section doctrine that is the focus of contemporary jury selection procedures. In providing empirical and systematic comparisons of jury participation at each of the distinct jury selection stages encompassing a general population, jury wheels, jury qualified pools, jury eligibles, jury panels, and actual trial jurors, the second section of this paper makes critical analyses of the cumulative effects of screening mechanisms in jury selection. The paper assesses jury compositions by looking at demographic, socio‐economic, and ideological profiles of prospective jurors, illustrating that those jury profiles do not necessarily reflect cross‐sectional representation of the community population at comprehensive stages of the jury selection process. The analytical findings show that unless some deep seated reforms are made to eliminate cumulative effects of selection biases and correct representative imbalances of jury wheels, qualified pools, jury panels, and trial juries, historically underrepresented groups such as racial minorities, the poor, and part‐time employees will continue to be underrepresented on juries, negating the public's shared responsibility for the administration of justice in one of America's most heralded democratic institutions.     

An alternative method of capital jury selection

The purpose of this research was to develop and evaluate an alternative method of capital jury selection. Subjects who were classified as excludable and nonexcludable from capital jury service were exposed to a crime questionnaire which contained 16 brutal crimes. Sixty-five percent of the excludables indicated that they would consider imposing the death penalty in one or more scenarios, with 76% maintaining the new position 48 hours later. Furthermore, the rehabilitated excludables were significantly more tolerant of ambiguity and more due process oriented than the nonexcludables. A second study showed that the crime questionnaire did produce a small amount of bias against the defendants in terms of conviction rates and penalties. The advantages of the alternative system for providing a more objective, standardized questioning procedure and a more representative, less attitudinally biased jury are discussed.     

The CSI Effect and the impact of DNA evidence on mock jurors and jury deliberations

ABSTRACT

The present research examined the CSI Effect and the impact of DNA evidence on mock jurors and jury deliberations using a 3 (Crime Drama Viewing: low, moderate, high)?×?3 (Evidence: DNA innocent, DNA guilty, no DNA control) design. A sample of 178 jury-eligible college students read a case of breaking and entering. Pre-deliberation, some support for a CSI Effect was found with high viewers’ extent of guilt ratings significantly lower than moderate and low viewers’ in the no DNA control and the DNA innocent conditions. This effect was not present for verdicts. Contrary to a CSI Effect, crime drama viewing was not related to guilt judgments with incriminating DNA evidence. A content analysis of comments made during deliberations found little support for the CSI Effect entering the jury room. Specifically, CSI Effect predictions were not supported when examining the discussion of DNA evidence, expressing DNA opinions, or mentioning missing evidence. Overall, the limited CSI Effect found for individuals was attenuated during deliberation. The alarm raised over a possible CSI Effect influencing jury decision making may be unwarranted.     

The impact of battered woman syndrome evidence on jury decision processes

The impact of battered woman syndrome testimony on jury decision processes in trials of battered women who kill their abusers was investigated in two separate studies. It was hypothesized that the presence of the testimony would influence jurors' verdicts via its mediating effect on the jurors' interpretations of the battered woman's beliefs and actions and that its impact would vary as a function of the degree to which it was linked to the woman on trial. In Experiment I, subjects read a homicide trial involving a battered woman who had killed her husband. They received either no expert testimony (control), expert testimony presenting general research findings on the battered woman syndrome (general expert), or expert testimony in which the expert supplemented the general information with an opinion that the defendant fit the syndrome (specific expert). The presence of the specific expert, compared to the control, led to interpretations that were more consistent with the woman's account of what occurred; these interpretations, in turn, were related to more lenient verdicts. Experiment 2 investigated the effects of the testimony on small groups of deliberating jurors. Compared to the control condition, a moderate shift in verdicts from murder to manslaughter was found in both expert conditions. Content analyses of the deliberations, as well as postdeliberation judgments, indicated that the presence of the testimony led to interpretations that were more favorable to the battered woman's claim of self-defense.Preparation of this research, was supported in part by Fellowships from the Social Sciences & Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Law and Social Science Program of Northwestern University. I. wish to thank Neil Vidmar and James Olson for their invaluable advice throughout all stages of the research, as well as Shari Diamond, Tom Tyler, Richard Lalonde, and Doug McCann for their helpful comments, on earlier drafts of the article. For their diligence and patience in coding the data, I would like to thank Cindi Chandler and Audi Grant.     

陪审制的分权机制与证据法的发展

针对我国人民陪审员制目前面临的“陪而不审”、“审而不议”之晋遍困境,本文探讨了西方国家陪审制产生和发展的过程,认识到“分权是陪审制成长的基本条件”;详细探讨了我国“陪而不审”、“审而不议”现象的主要形态,指出没有实行分权是造成这种困窘局面的根源;讨论了正在兴起的河南人民陪审圆制度的进步意义与局限性;主张我国应当建立以分权为首要特征的人民陪审员制度,为此需要立法机关制定有关陪审团如何与法官分享裁判权的制度,其中最关键的是制定证据法和陪审团法。     

DNA evidence in jury trials: the "CSI effect"

In Murdoch v The Queen (2007) 167 A Crim R 329, Hillier v The Queen (2007) 228 CLR 618 and Forbes v The Queen (2009) 167ACTR 1, Australian appellate courts considered the interpretation of DNA evidence and the possibility of secondary transfer of DNA samples and questions about the statistical calculations used to produce probabilities of DNA matches. Following the 2010 Victorian case of Farrah Jama, whose conviction for rape was quashed 16 months into his prison sentence after it was discovered that the incriminating DNA sample was contaminated, Mr FRH Vincent QC, in his report to the Victorian Attorney-General, was scathing of the conduct of the case and made a number of recommendations, all of which were immediately adopted by the Victorian Government. Following the release of the Vincent Report, Australia's Attorneys-General have established a working party to examine national standards for the use and collection of DNA evidence. The use and interpretation of DNA evidence in jury trials is considered and factors that improve jury understanding of DNA evidence are discussed.     

The death-qualified jury and the defense of insanity

We predicted that people who are excluded from serving on juries in capital cases due to their opposition to the death penalty (excludable subjects) tend to place a greater value on the preservation of due process guarantees than on efficient crime control, and therefore are more likely to accept an insanity defense in criminal cases than are people who are permitted to serve on capital juries (death-qualified subjects). Subjects who had previously been classified as death-qualified or excludable read four summaries of cases in which the defendant entered a plea of insanity, and made judgments of guilt or innocence. In the two cases involving nonorganic disorders (schizophrenia), death-qualified subjects were significantly more likely than excludable subjects to vote guilty; in the two cases involving organic disorders (mental retardation and psychomotor epilepsy), there were no differences between the two groups. In addition, excludable subjects gave significantly higher estimates than death-qualified subjects of the proportion of defendants pleading insanity who really are insane.     

The effect of jury nullification instruction on verdicts and jury functioning in criminal trials

Jury nullification is a mechanism, and a defense, which allows the jury, as representatives of the community, to disregard both the law and the evidence and acquit defendants who have violated the letter, but not the spirit of the law. Should juries simply follow the law as articulated by the trial judge, or should they act as “conscience of the community,” and neglect the strict requirements of the law when it would lead to unjust or inequitable verdicts? The present study was aimed at providing empirical data for the following question: will the jury operate in a manner which is different than its normal functioning if given explicit nullification instructions? Three nullification instructins varying in explicitness as to nullification were combined with three criminal cases to yield a 3×3 factorial design. Forty-five six-person juries (270 subjects), were randomly assigned to the nine experimental groups. The results showed that juries given explicit nullification instructtions were more likely to vote guilty in a drunk driving case, but less likely to do so in a euthanasia case. The third case, which dealt with murder, did not show any differences due to instructions. Juries in receipt of nullification instructions spent less deliberation time on the evidence and more on defendant characteristics, attributions, and personal experiences.     

The jury: Social and psychological variables

The selection of a jury is an important phase of the American court system. Many lawyers believe that wise choices at this point may mean the difference between winning and losing a case. Various means of selecting jurors have been practiced by attorneys, and there seem to be among lawyers general impressions about the type of people best suited for certain cases. These ideas have most often concerned social, economic and psychological variables rather then genetic factors.The purpose of this study is to add to the limited body of knowledge in this area by identifying and testing some of these variables. The first step was to design a research instrument to gather significant data relating to the jury system. Included in this examination were both psychological and socio-economic information. Also incorporated into the study were questions designed to reveal the respondents’ jury backgrounds. Items sought to disclose how a juror perceived the trial, interacted with the group, and voted.After the construction of the research tool, a survey was made using it in one of the counties of Florida. The interviews were conducted to gather data regarding perceptions of jurors and test the research tool. The people chosen to be interviewed came from the venire furnished by the county clerk. Analysis of the information was conducted. Statistical tests of significance revealed that the people illustrated a strong support for the jury system and a relatively high degree of commonality of attitudes. Comparisons were done on groups voting guilty with those voting not guilty. Voting tests on national origin and income further supported a homogeneity of attitudes. The importance of a trial vote to testing jurors was found.This case study aided in identifying some plausible hypotheses and providing data on the relationship of variables that are of import to understanding the jury system.     

The basis of citizen's perceptions of the criminal jury

Two studies examined citizens' perceptions of the criminal jury and their evaluations of 6- or 12-person juries operating under unanimous or majority decision rules. Study 1 was a telephone survey of 130 adult citizens in which respondents evaluated alternative jury structures in the abstract. In Study 2, students were asked to evaluate jury structures for a hypothetical trial in which they were either the defendant or the victim in a crime with a mild or serious outcome. In both studies, jury size and decision rule were related to ratings of procedural cost, and the severity of the crime moderated procedural evaluations. In Study 1, juries were preferred to judges and the 12-person unanimous jury was preferred over other jury structures when the crime involved was serious. In Study 2, there were no direct effects due to variations in jury structure, but subjects appeared to trade off procedural cost and thoroughness of deliberation as a function of the seriousness of the crime. Procedural fairness emerged as the strongest independent predictor of desirability for jury procedures, and fairness was related to representativeness and accuracy. The role manipulation did not influence subjects' responses. In both studies, respondents were very supportive of the jury as an institution, despite a perception that erroneous jury verdicts do occur.     

The detection of deception with the reality monitoring approach: a review of the empirical evidence

One of the verbal approaches to the detection of deceit is based on research on human memory that tries to identify the characteristics that differentiate between internal and external memories (reality monitoring). This approach has attempted to extrapolate the contributions of reality monitoring (RM) research to the deception area. In this paper, we have attempted to review all available studies conducted in several countries in order to yield some general conclusions concerning the discriminative power of this approach. Regarding individual criteria, the empirical results are not very encouraging: few criteria discriminate significantly across studies, and there are several variables that moderate their effect. Some of the contradictory findings may have emerged because of differences in the operationalizations and procedures used across individual studies. However, more promising results have been reported in recent studies, and the approach as a whole appears to discriminate above chance level, reaching accuracy rates that are similar to those of criteria-based content analysis (CBCA). Some suggestions for future research are made.     

Decline of the English jury*

Abstract

This biographical study of the lived experiences of six law teachers offers a new dimension to understanding the dynamics of law teaching. The overall purpose of the study is to reveal how these law teachers make sense of the world of legal education in terms of individual identities, values and whether they necessarily regard themselves as academics. The significance of the study is the contribution it seeks to make in understanding individual law teachers and how they experience the dynamics of a rapidly changing teaching environment. The study reveals how different experiences emerge through a complex interplay between spheres of influence and theoretical frames of reference. A theoretical perspective considers three possible explanations, work orientation, performativity and supercomplexity, with regard to how experiences fit within apparent epistemological shifts in the academy.

The biographical method has not hitherto been applied to understanding this dimension of legal education. The purpose in adopting this method is to make a deliberate departure from more traditional research methods in legal education and to determine the extent to which it might be possible to see the world of legal education as a lived experience. This approach provides tools of analysis for understanding the dynamics of law teaching and dynamic identities.     

Impact of hypnotic testimony on the jury

In the past decade, the forensic use of hypnosis to enhance the memories of victims, witnesses, and defendants has sharply increased. A great deal of controversy surrounds this issue. Some commentators argue that testimony derived from hypnosis should not be allowed as evidence because of its inherent unreliability and the unduly powerful impact it may have on a jury. In the present research, we used a jury simulation technique to study the impact that a hypnotically refreshed witness has upon jurors' decision making. A major finding is that jurors view hypnotic testimony with a certain amount of skepticism. In some respects, its impact is comparable to that of testimony based on delayed recall, and rarely does it have the impact of testimony from an immediate report. In addition, jurors' judgments about hypnotically refreshed testimony affected the way they evaluated other evidence at trial: Jurors who learned that a prosecution witness had been hypnotized were less believing ofother prosecution witnesses than were jurors not exposed to hypnotic testimony. The forensic application of these findings is discussed.This research was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation, Law and Social Sciences Program. We thank Jane Goodman, Doug Leber, Bonnie Sawnson, Russ Wade, Karen Guest, Jonna Barsanti, Don Kline, Elaine Sullivan, and David Kuykendall for their help at various stages of the project.     

The decline of civil jury trial in nineteenth-century England

The nineteenth century saw the beginning of the decline of jury trial as the main dispositive mechanism in civil cases in the Superior Courts. The Common Law Procedure Act 1854 gave civil litigants the choice of jury trial, and during the remainder of the century the proportion of litigants choosing jury trial steadily declined. However, the seeds of this decline were sown in the two decades prior to 1854, during which time three factors combined to undermine the institution of the civil jury: recognition among lawyers of the integrity of the bench, the efforts made by lawyers to professionalize the practise of law, and the successful introduction in 1846 of juryless trials in the County Courts.