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     

Perceptions of domestic violence and mock jurors' sentencing decisions

The purpose of the investigation was to examine the influence of the victim's provocation and hopefulness on the sentencing of a husband convicted of domestic violence. It was hypothesized that mock jurors would assign less-severe sentencing if the victim was provoking and hopeful. Mock jurors read one of four factorial court case combinations of provocation and hopefulness and rendered an individual predeliberation sentence and a group postdeliberation sentence. Analyses revealed a significant effect of provocation, indicating that participants reduced the sentencing for the defendant when the wife was provoking relative to when she was not provoking. The analyses also revealed an effect of gender on predeliberation sentencing, with women delivering more-severe sentences than men. The effect of gender was not present in the postdeliberation sentencing, indicating that deliberation produced a sentencing compromise between women and men. The implications of these findings are discussed.     

Factors affecting simulated jurors' decisions in capital cases

Abstract

Previous psycho-legal research has claimed that the process of selecting death-qualified jurors for capital cases creates conviction-prone juries. The studies on which these claims are based have employed simulation methodologies to examine the relationship between subjects' death-penalty attitudes and verdict decisions, as well as the effect of the death-qualifying voir dire itself. Despite admitted weaknesses of simulations in general, this method was employed in the present research so that conceptual comparisons to past findings could be drawn. Two experiments were designed to examine the issue of death-qualification and biased juries in a context of other potentially highly influential factors, namely, the strength of evidence and the degree of heinousness. Our results failed to find any of the relationships between death-penalty attitudes and verdict decisions that would be predicted from past research. Instead, the subjects' decisions were influenced, virtually exclusively, by the strength of the evidence presented in the case, as is legally prescribed. In the light of these findings, the discussion focused on the questions of reliability and external validity of simulation research, the potential problems caused by method-specific factors in determining the outcome of such methodology, the attitude-behavior link, and the danger of premature and un-warranted application to the legal system of findings from simulations.     

Death penalty beliefs and jurors' responses to aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials

Two studies explored the relationship between attitudes toward the death penalty and support for or rejection of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in a capital trial. Jurors serving on jury duty voluntarily completed questionnaires in the jury lounge. In Study 1, jurors strongly opposed to the death penalty were significantly more receptive to mitigating circumstances than were the remaining jurors. In Study 2, jurors who would have been excluded for their opposition to the death penalty under theWitherspoon standard were significantly less receptive to aggravating circumstances than were the other jurors. It is suggested that the present system of death qualification in capital cases results in biases against the interest of the defendant at all stages of the trial process—jury selection, determination of guilt, and sentencing.     

Real jurors' understanding of the law in real cases

A survey of 224 Michigan citizens called for jury duty over a 2-month period was conducted to assess the jurors' comprehension of the law they had been given in the judges' instructions. Citizens who served as jurors were compared with a base line of those who were called for duty but not selected to serve, and with those who served on different kinds of cases. Consistent with previous studies of mock jurors, this study found that actual jurors understand fewer than half of the instructions they receive at trial. Subjects who received judges' instructions performed significantly better than uninstructed subjects on questions about the procedural law, but no better on questions about the substantive (criminal) law. Additionally, jurors who asked for help from the judge understood the instructions better than other jurors. Since the results replicate previous research using simulated trials, this study provides evidence for the generalizability of earlier work to actual trials.     

Rape myth beliefs and prejudiced instructions: Effects on decisions of guilt in a case of date rape

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to investigate the potential effects of pro and anti rape myth bias in judges' summing up statements on verdicts given by individuals. Method. A convenience sample of 90 male and 90 female students from a British university completed the Rape myth acceptance (RMA) scale ( Burt, 1980 ). A scenario depicting a date rape was read, ending with guidance that was either pro or anti rape myth, or neutral. Results. Rape myth supporting guidance was associated with innocent verdicts, and anti rape myth guidance with guilty verdicts, regardless of degree of rape myth acceptance. Level of rape myth acceptance and gender were also found to predict verdict. Conclusion. Rape myth biased guidance may influence verdicts in a rape scenario in which the attribution of blame to the man and woman depicted could be perceived as being ambiguous.     

Mock jurors' perceptions of identifications made by intoxicated eyewitnesses

Abstract

Psychology research has generally neglected intoxicated eyewitnesses. The current study addressed this need by exploring mock jurors' perceptions of intoxicated witnesses. Undergraduate participants read summarized sexual or aggravated battery cases in which either the victim or a bystander identified the defendant under varying intoxication levels. They answered questions about the case and provided verdicts. Participants were sensitive to the effect that intoxication may have on witnesses' cognitive ability, but not to varying degrees of intoxication. Neither the role of the eyewitness nor the type of crime committed had an effect on perceptions of witness impairment. Participants' perceptions of witness impairment informed identification credibility ratings, and credibility assessments affected verdicts. Impairment and credibility ratings fully mediated intoxication's effect on verdicts. Unlike much prior research, our results suggest that mock jurors can consider potentially important witness information when rendering verdicts.     

An analysis of the relationship between jurors' personal attributes and decision making

Using a survey from a jury simulation study, this study examines the relationship between jurors' personal and social attributes and their decision-making behavior. The hypothesis is examined whether personal attributes and socialization of jurors have any significant effect on their decision-making behavior. The analysis suggests that personal and/or social attributes of jurors have little, if any, impact on their decision-making behavior. Instead, jury instruction and information about the matter appear to be major influence contributors. Additionally, evidence presented during the trial and knowledge of law have significant effects upon how jurors decide cases and give verdicts. Author's Note: Suman Kakar, Ph.D., is associate professor at Florida International University, College of Health and Urban Affairs. She conducts research in the areas of juvenile delinquency, child abuse, family dynamics, minorities, and the prevention of violence. She has published two books,Child Abuse and Delinquency (1996) andCriminal Justice Approaches to Domestic Violence (1998).     

Rape Victim Advocates' Knowledge and Insight on Rape Laws

Abstract

Although previous literature details the successes and failures of reforms of rape laws designed to better support and protect victims, there is a lack of research on rape victim advocates' knowledge of and views about rape laws. It is essential that we understand advocates' level of legal knowledge because they may be the first or only source of legal information for victims. Based on analysis of interviews with 58 rape victim advocates serving six rape crisis centers in four East coast states, this article explores advocates' knowledge about rape laws, possible reasons for limited knowledge, and perceptions about various laws that aim to protect rape victims. This research suggests that although advocates have a somewhat limited grasp of laws intended to aid rape victims, they have an overall negative view of the legal system.     

Severity of penalty,seriousness of the charge,and mock jurors' verdicts

It has been suggested that jurors in criminal trials are less likely to convict when the penalty is more severe or the charge is more serious. This was explained by Kerr (1975) in terms of a perceived increase in the cost of a Type I error (convicting an innocent person) that resulted in a criterion shift in the amount of evidence jurors required to vote guilty. The previous research found only weak support for the prediction regarding severity but consistent support for the predicted effect of seriousness. However, in the case materials used in these studies, more evidence was legally required to prove guilt on the more serious charges. This article presents studies in which the amount of evidence needed to prove guilt was equated for all charges. Under these circumstances, there was no effect on verdicts of seriousness of charge or severity of penalty and no evidence of a criterion shift due to either variable. There may still be reason to believe that these factors affect real juries, but this belief is not supported by the systematic evidence from mock jury studies.     

Effects of jurors' identification with the victim depend on likelihood of victimization

Courtroom lore suggests that jurors identifying with rape victims will show antidefendant biases, but empirical findings do not unequivocally support this supposition. On theoretical bases, it was predicted that identification with the victim's gender would bias judgment against the defendant when the circumstances of the crime are likely to be encountered in the daily life of the juror or a related potential victim. Parents of female-only (PFs) or of male-only children (PMs) judged defendants in an alleged rape, occurring either in a library, where the victim had engaged in normal routine, or in a street, under unusual and risky conditions. PEs were more conviction-prone and punitive than PMs only for the library case. Findings support theories of defensive attribution (Shaver, 1970) and of attribution of actors and observers (Jones & Nisbett, 1972) but are inconsistent with a variant of defensive attribution (Walster, 1966) based on denial of chance occurrence of threatened harm. The systematic exclusion of jurors with certain characteristics from particular cases based on suppositional criteria is questioned, rigor of juror assessment notwithstanding. It is suggested that research concentrate on discovering the conditions under which biases are, or are not manifested, and on developing means of reducing bias effects in impaneled jurors.     

Rape and the Reasonable Man

Standards of reasonability play an important role in some of the most difficult cases of rape. In recent years, the notion of the reasonable person has supplanted the historical concept of the reasonable man as the test of reasonability. Contemporary feminist critics like Catharine MacKinnon and Kim Lane Scheppele have challenged the notion of the reasonable person on the grounds that reasonability standards are gendered to the ground and so, in practice, the reasonable person is just the reasonable man in a gender neutral guise. These critics call for the explicit employment of a reasonable woman standard for application to the actions of female victims of rape. But the arguments for abandoning a gender-neutral standard are double-edged and the employment of gendered standards of reasonability is likely to have implications that are neither foreseen by, nor acceptable to, advocates of such standards. Reasonable agent standards can be dropped, in favor of appeals to the notion of a reasonable demand (or expectation) by the law. However, if reasonable agent standards are to be retained, gendered versions of such standards are not preferable to gender-neutral ones.     

Rape and the devalued victim

Numerous jurisdictions have made changes in their rape statutes in recent years. Five modifications that have commonly appeared in the amended rape legislations are aboulition of capital punishment as a sanction for rape, lowered sentence structure, a graduated continuum of offenses and penalties for rape, the reformulation of rape statutes to a sex-neutral definition of participants, and a change in terminology away from rape to such nomenclature as criminal sexual conduct. While the intent of the legal reforms was to insure fairness, we contend that the unintended effect of many of these changes is to trivialize the offense of rape and to devalue the victim.     

Rape Without Consent

This article is a defence of a differentiated offence of rape.A differentiated offence is an offence which can be completedin a number of different ways that cannot be captured in a simpledefinition. It is argued that such an offence would meet severalconcerns that have been expressed in the feminist literatureabout the law of rape. It would assist certainty, it would reducethe extent to which the offence focuses on the conduct of thecomplainant, it would allow the law to express that violenceis central to the offence of rape where violence is present,but it would also allow convictions of rape where there is noviolence. The argument is developed through critical engagementwith the law of rape as set out in the Sexual Offences Act 2003.The Sexual Offences Act, it is argued, fails adequately to meetthe concerns outlined above.     

Rape trauma syndrome

This article analyzes recent case law on the admissibility of rape trauma syndrome evidence. Because many rulings on the admissibility of this evidence have been based on judicial assumptions about human behavior, rather than on scientific evidence, we next describe psychological research relevant to concerns raised about its scientific reliability, helpfulness, and prejudicial impact. Following this review, we evaluate both the expert testimony provided and the judicial decisions in recent cases in light of current research. Finally, we provide suggestions for future psychological research that could 1 inform discussions of the admissiblity of rape trauma syndrome evidence.     

The effects of death qualification on jurors' predisposition to convict and on the quality of deliberation

This study provides a straightforward test of the proposition that people who are permitted to serve on juries in capital cases (death-qualified jurors) are more likely to convict a defendant than are people who are excluded from serving on capital juries due to their unwillingness to impose the death penalty (excludable jurors). A sample of 288 subjects classified as death-qualified or excludable under theWitherspoon standard watched a 2 1/2-hour videotape of a simulated homicide trial including the judge's instructions, and gave an initial verdict. Death-qualified subjects were significantly more likely than excludable subjects to vote guilty, both on the initial ballot and after an hour's deliberation in 12-person juries. Nine juries were composed entirely of death-qualified subjects (death-qualified juries), while 10 contained from 2 to 4 excludable subjects (mixed juries). On postdeliberation measures, with initial death-penalty attitudes controlled, subjects who had served on the mixed juries were generally more critical of the witnesses, less satisfied with their juries, and better able to remember the evidence than subjects from the death-qualified juries, suggesting that diversity may improve the vigor, thoroughness, and accuracy of the jury's deliberations.