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.     

The Role of Mitigating Factors in Capital Sentencing Before and After McKoy v. North Carolina

In 1990, the United States Supreme Court ruled that capital jurors do not have to be unanimous in deciding whether or not to accept any particular mitigating circumstance presented to them by the defense during the penalty phase of a capital murder trial. This study examines whether this shift in procedure may have altered the role of mitigation in predicting capital sentencing outcomes by comparing death sentencing predictors before and after the McKoy decision with data from an extensive sample of capital cases in North Carolina tried between 1977 and 2002. The results indicate that (1) both the number of aggravating and mitigating circumstances accepted by capital jurors had statistically significant and substantial effects on capital sentencing outcomes both before and after the McKoy decision; (2) the number of mitigating circumstances presented to and accepted by capital juries in North Carolina doubled during the post‐McKoy period; and (3) the influence of mitigating circumstance on capital sentencing outcomes was attenuated in the post‐McKoy period. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

An Examination of Defendant Sex Disparity in Capital Sentencing: A Propensity Score Matching Approach

Although much prior work has examined the influence of extralegal factors on jury capital sentencing decision-making, the influence of defendant sex has been largely omitted from previous investigations. Using propensity score matching methods, the current study analyzes data from the North Carolina Capital Sentencing Project to examine whether “sex matters” in capital sentencing. Findings demonstrated that prior to matching there was a significant difference in the likelihood of receiving the death penalty for female and male defendant cases; however, after matching cases on an array of legal and extralegal case characteristics, these differences were no longer significant. Further results revealed that male defendants’ cases included different aggravating and mitigating factors than female defendants’ cases and that female defendants had limited “paths” to capital trials. Findings suggest that any apparent sex effects that are observed in capital sentencing stem from real differences in the case characteristics found in female and male defendants’ cases rather than any direct effects of defendant sex on jury decision-making. Study limitations and implications for death penalty research are also discussed.     

Life or death decisions

The penalty phase deliberation experiences of capital jurors guided by the “special issues” sentencing instructions were investigated. These instructions ask jurors to consider three specific issues to determine whether a defendant should receive a sentence of life imprisonment or the death penalty: whether the crime was committed deliberately; whether there is a probability that the defendant would pose a continuing threat to society; and whether the conduct of the defendant was unreasonable in light of any provocation on the part of the victim. In-depth interviews with 27 jurors explored the organization of the penalty deliberation, the topics discussed, influential factors in the decision-making process, the impact of sentencing instructions, the importance of the possibility of parole, and the stress associated with capital jury service. Jurors relied heavily on sentencing instructions to guide their deliberations and to determine their responsibilities. Future dangerousness and the possibility of parole were critical considerations in deciding between life and death. Although jurors found the capital trial to be stressful, most believed that the life or death decision should be made by jurors. Findings are discussed in light of constitutional concerns about the administration of the death penalty.     

Predictors of Death Sentencing for Minority,Equal, and Majority Female Juries in Capital Murder Trials

The relatively small body of prior research investigating whether the sex composition of juries impacts sentencing decisions has produced equivocal results. Exploring this topic further, the current study used a large sample of capital cases from North Carolina (n = 675) to examine (a) whether jury sex composition predicted jury capital punishment sentencing decisions; and (b) whether there were different models of sentencing for male-majority, equal male-female, and female-majority juries. When we controlled for a number of legal and extralegal factors, our findings indicated that jury sex composition was independently related to sentencing outcomes. Specifically, equal male-female juries were significantly more likely and female-majority juries were significantly less likely to choose the death penalty versus a sentence of life in prison. In addition, different models (predictors) of sentencing were revealed for each of the jury sex compositions. Implications for future research and policy are discussed.     

Discrimination and Instructional Comprehension: Guided Discretion,Racial Bias,and the Death Penalty

This study links two previously unrelated lines of research: the lack of comprehension of capital penalty-phase jury instructions and discriminatory death sentencing. Jury-eligible subjects were randomly assigned to view one of four versions of a simulated capital penalty trial in which the race of defendant (Black or White) and the race of victim (Black or White) were varied orthogonally. Dependent measures included a sentencing verdict (life without the possibility of parole or the death penalty), ratings of penalty phase evidence, and a test of instructional comprehension. Results indicated that instructional comprehension was poor overall and that, although Black defendants were treated only slightly more punitively than White defendants in general, discriminatory effects were concentrated among participants whose comprehension was poorest. In addition, the use of penalty phase evidence differed as a function of race of defendant and whether the participant sentenced the defendant to life or death. The study suggest that racially biased and capricious death sentencing may be in part caused or exacerbated by the inability to comprehend penalty phase instructions.     

Comprehending life and death matters

Modern capital jurisprudence places special significance on judicial instructions to guide the discretion of the capital jury in reaching a penalty phase decision. Yet, previous social science research has raised doubts about the extent to which judicial instructions are generally understood by jurors and questioned their utility in producing intended effects. The present study measured the comprehension of the capital sentencing instruction employed in California. Data suggest widespread inability to define accurately the central concepts of aggravation and mitigation in use in virtually every state that currently has a death penalty statute, as well as the inability to distinguish properly the sentencing significance of the enumerated factors jurors are directed to use in reaching their life and death verdicts. In addition, an inordinate focus on the circumstances of the crime—to the exclusion of other potentially important factors—was identified, as well as special problems in comprehending the crucial concept of mitigation in constitutionally required ways.We would like to thank Suzanne Ban, Cori Nardello, and Maryanne Tagavilla for assistance in transcribing and content-analyzing the data.     

Death Qualification in Black and White: Racialized Decision Making and Death‐Qualified Juries

Death qualification has been shown to have a number of biasing effects that appear to undermine a capital defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair jury. Attitudes toward the death penalty have shifted modestly but consistently over the last several decades in ways that may have changed the overall impact of death qualification. Specifically, the very large gap between black and white Americans' current support for capital punishment raises the question of whether death qualification procedures disproportionately exclude African Americans from capital jury participation. In order to examine this possibility, we conducted two countywide death penalty attitude surveys in the California county that has the highest percentage of African American residents in the state. Results show that death qualification continues to have a number of serious biasing effects—including disproportionately excluding death penalty opponents—which result in the significant underrepresentation of African Americans. This creates a death‐qualified jury pool with the potential to be significantly more likely to ignore and even misuse mitigating factors and to rely more heavily on aggravating factors in their death penalty decision making. The implications of these findings for the fair administration of capital punishment are discussed.     

Capital Jury Deliberation: Effects on Death Sentencing,Comprehension, and Discrimination

This study focused on whether and how deliberations affected the comprehension of capital penalty phase jury instructions and patterns of racially discriminatory death sentencing. Jury-eligible subjects were randomly assigned to view one of four versions of a simulated capital penalty trial in which the race of defendant (Black or White) and the race of victim (Black or White) were varied orthogonally. The participants provided their initial “straw” sentencing verdicts individually and then deliberated in simulated 4–7 person “juries.” Results indicated that deliberation created a punitive rather than lenient shift in the jurors’ death sentencing behavior, failed to improve characteristically poor instructional comprehension, did not reduce the tendency for jurors to misuse penalty phase evidence (especially, mitigation), and exacerbated the tendency among White mock jurors to sentence Black defendants to death more often than White defendants.     

美国死刑量刑程序的历史考察

美国死刑量刑程序经历了一个正当化的历史过程,早期的陪审团废法现象催生了死刑陪审团制度,死刑陪审团制度的建立又引发了死刑案件审判的两分式改革并使死刑量刑程序得以独立,特殊的"凌驾陪审团"规则体现出美国司法界力图保持死刑裁量中职业法官与平民陪审团间的权力制衡。     

Evaluating the Comprehensibility of Jury Instructions: A Method and an Example

Methodological problems in jury simulation research involve issues of sampling, choice of stimulus materials, appropriate unit of analysis, appropriate dependent variable, corroborative data, and problems of role playing. Despite these issues, comprehension of jury instructions may be suitable for examination by jury simulation techniques--if certain of these methodological concerns can be satisfied. In a series of 5 experiments using typical Canadian legal instructions on criminal conspiracy and the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule, this study attempted to validate a simple and inexpensive technique for testing the incomprehensibility of a given set of jury instructions by requiring participants to apply those legal instructions to a set of facts. The results demonstrate the utility of an application test, and suggest that for assessing the comprehensibility of jury instructions, it may be acceptable to use undergraduate students as participants, to use individual participants without group deliberation, and to employ written stimulus materials.     

Mitigation Evidence and the Ethical Role of a Defense Attorney in a Capital Case

In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Furman v. Georgia. This landmark case changed the death penalty in the United States. In Gregg v. Georgia (1976), the Supreme Court made it clear that mitigating factors were to be heard before sentencing to ensure individualized sentencing. Every defendant has a story, a family, a childhood, trauma, and celebration—a reason their life should be spared from execution. In a capital case, a defense attorney’s ethical role is to craft that story and articulate it in a way that enables the jury to have a complete picture of the defendant’s background and character as they decide his punishment. Mitigating factors are not an excuse for the defendant’s behavior, but rather an insight into who the defendant is and what has shaped his life. A defense attorney’s ethical duty in a capital case is to argue the case on all legal points and to present a thorough investigation of mitigating evidence. A thorough investigation of all such evidence is required by case law and explained by the standards set forth by the ABA guidelines.     

Due Process and the Death Penalty: The Role of Prosecutorial Misconduct in Closing Argument in Capital Trials

Prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument during the penalty phase of capital trials can be defined as any disparaging or prejudicial statements calculated to influence the jury to consider improper factors in determining life in prison or the death penalty (Gaskill, 1991, p. 13). Improper statements made by the prosecutor during closing argument may jeopardize a defendant's right to a fair trial. While acknowledging such statements as misconduct, courts sometimes permit them on the theory that the presence of improper statements in closing argument would not change the juries' verdicts and therefore are not fundamentally unfair (Chapman v. California, 1967). The present study examined whether improper statements made by the prosecutor in closing argument during the penalty phase of a capital trial would result in more death penalty recommendations. Three hundred and twenty jury-eligible individuals viewed a videotape based on the penalty phase of an actual capital trial (Brooks v. State, 1977). Individuals exposed to improper statements made by the prosecutor in closing argument recommended the death penalty significantly more often than those not exposed to the statements.     

Gender differences in the evaluation of aggravating and mitigating circumstances: the mediating role of attributional complexity*

At the penalty phase of a capital trial, jurors endorse and weigh aggravators and mitigators. The purpose of the current studies was to examine how gender differences in attributional complexity relate to endorsements of aggravators and mitigators. In Study 1, undergraduate participants read definitions of aggravators and mitigators and rated the extent to which circumstances were aggravating or mitigating. In Study 2, a death qualified community sample read a trial summary, rated the extent to which aggravators and mitigators were present in the case, reported whether mitigators outweighed aggravators, and rendered a sentence. Results indicated that gender differences in mitigator endorsement were mediated by attributional complexity, and that gender differences in sentencing decisions were serially mediated by attributional complexity, mitigator endorsement, and aggravator and mitigator weighing.     

USING A JURY SIMULATION AS A CLASSROOM EXERCISE

The authors' empirical research project considers the effects of differences in actual legal rules on jury decisions and, concurrently, gives business students the opportunity to participate in a realistic jury experience. The project uses actual trial evidence to produce a videotaped simulated trial presentation thereby insuring that the testimony, legal arguments, jury instructions and facts are realistic. To date, approximately 2,000 business students have participated in the simulation, under the supervision of 13 different Academy members at 11 different universities. This article describes the project and its curricular benefits within the context of an introductory course in law.     

The Role of Death Qualification in Venirepersons' Evaluations of Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances in Capital Trials

Previous research has found that death qualification impacts jurors' receptiveness to aggravating and mitigating circumstances (e.g., J. Luginbuhl & K. Middendorf, 1988). However, the purpose of this study was to investigate whether death qualification affects jurors' endorsements of aggravating and mitigating circumstances when Witt, rather than Witherspoon, is the legal standard for death qualification. Four hundred and fifty venirepersons from the 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami, Florida completed a booklet of stimulus materials that contained the following: two death qualification questions; a case scenario that included a summary of the guilt and penalty phases of a capital case; a 26-item measure that required participants to endorse aggravators, nonstatutory mitigators, and statutory mitigators on a 6-point Likert scale; and standard demographic questions. Results indicated that death-qualified venirepersons, when compared to excludables, were more likely to endorse aggravating circumstances. Excludable participants, when compared to death-qualified venirepersons, were more likely to endorse nonstatutory mitigators. There was no significant difference between death-qualified and excludable venirepersons with respect to their endorsement of 6 out of 7 statutory mitigators. It would appear that the Gregg v. Georgia (1976) decision to declare the death penalty unconstitutional is frustrated by the Lockhart v. McCree (1986) affirmation of death qualification.     

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     

The Sociologist as Story Teller: The Broken Foster Care System Used as Mitigation at Criminal Trial

This paper describes the role a sociologist in a capital murder case involving a defendant who was in foster care and adoption for most of his youth. The author of this paper worked as a sociologist/ mitigation expert in this case. The circumstances of his tragic life leading up to and in the foster care system is presented as mitigation. A literature review on the issues surrounding foster care, presented here, was developed and given to all experts and attorneys working on this case. These issues were to be presented whenever appropriate in their testimony or questioning, during both the guilt and penalty phase. The jury found him guilty of two counts of first degree murder; but voted for life during the sentencing phase. The utility of sociology in criminal cases in general is discussed.     

国人对民决团在英美法庭中的功能的误解

民决团仅仅负责事实审,决定事实问题;法官则负责法律审,决定法律问题。这个认识的错误在于：普通法中没有“事实审”、“法律审”的术语,这是国人杜撰出来的。普通法事实发展出来法律,法律是事实的积累。民决团事实上既决定法律又决定事实。它在美国,具有最高权力,大于总统、国会和最高法庭。另外民决团在美国7个州还决定量刑,在有死刑的州,还决定死刑。事实与法律的区分和混合,有助于法官将复杂问题交给民决团决定并在上诉中捍卫民决团的最高权力;也有助于法官对法律问题下命令、进行违宪性审查。总之,理解民决团的最高权力,是理解普通法的关键。     

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.