Judge-versus attorney-conducted voir dire

Broeder (1965) found that potential jurors frequently distort their replies to questions posed during the voir dire. Considerable controversy has arisen over whether more honest, accurate information is elecited by a judge or by an attorney. The experiment manipulated two target (judge-versus attorney-conducted voir dire) and two interpersonal style variables (personal versus formal). The dependent measure was the consistency of subjects' attitude reports given at pretest and again verbally in court. One-hundred-and-sixteen jury-eligible community residents participated. The results provide support for the hypothesis that attorneys are more effective than judges in eliciting candid self-disclosure from potential jurors. Subjects changed their answers almost twice as much when questioned by a judge as when interviewed by an attorney. It was suggested that the judge's presence evokes considerable pressure toward conformity to a set of perceived judicial standards among jurors, which is minimized during an attorney voir dire.     

The Effects of Rehabilitative Voir Dire on Juror Bias and Decision Making

During voir dire, judges frequently attempt to “rehabilitate” venirepersons who express an inability to be impartial. Venirepersons who agree to ignore their biases and base their verdict on the evidence and the law are eligible for jury service. In Experiment 1, biased and unbiased mock jurors participated in either a standard or rehabilitative voir dire conducted by a judge and watched a trial video. Rehabilitation influenced insanity defense attitudes and perceptions of the defendant’s mental state, and decreased scaled guilt judgments compared to standard questioning. Although rehabilitation is intended to correct for partiality among biased jurors, rehabilitation similarly influenced biased and unbiased jurors. Experiment 2 found that watching rehabilitation did not influence jurors’ perceptions of the judge’s personal beliefs about the case.     

The Impact of Psychological Injury Evidence and Jurors’ Schemas on Civil Case Decisions

Psychological injury evidence is at the heart of many civil claims. Due to the recent burgeoning of sexual harassment and assault claims which predominantly involve psychological distress, it is especially important to understand how jurors process this evidence at the most basic (or schema) level, and how these preconceived notions influence processing of trial evidence and subsequent legal judgments. As a result, the present paper explores rarely addressed—but fundamental—issues regarding how jurors perceive psychological injury evidence. Specifically, do jurors have psychological injury schemas? And if so, what injuries do these schemas contain, how stable are they, how are they evaluated, and how do they affect jurors’ case perceptions and legal decisions? A review of relevant theory and empirical research reveals that jurors have psychological injury schemas, but they are often poorly developed and susceptible to the influence of prompts used to retrieve these schemas (e.g., questions posed by attorneys during voir dire, the actual injuries adduced by the plaintiff). Also interesting is that despite the relative importance of psychological injury evidence, tremendous gaps remain regarding what actual types of psychological injuries jurors believe typically result in civil cases, how stable these injury schemas are, and precisely how they affect jurors’ decisions. This paper addresses these important issues to help organize and direct future research on the subject, including proposing a model for how psychological injury schemas interact with jurors’ perceptions of the plaintiff’s alleged injuries to affect their legal decisions.     

Race and peremptory challenges during voir dire: Do prosecution and defense agree?

Recent litigation in state and federal courts in the United States suggests that black prospective jurors may be systematically excluded from sitting on trial juries through the issue of peremptory challenges during the voir dire process. Numerous trial and appellate cases have reaffirmed the importance of excluding prospective jurors without cause through peremptory challenges. An insufficient number of studies have examined peremptory challenge data to determine if a systematic bias against black prospective jurors actually exists. This study analyzes peremptory challenges issued by both prosecution and defense to determine if both adversary parties agree on the proclivity of black jurors to influence a jury verdict in a given direction. The study concludes that both prosecution and defense agree, as evidenced in the issue of peremptory challenges, that black jurors are prone to move a jury toward a verdict of acquittal.     

Felony voir dire

The practice of voir dire has a venerable history in the United States. However, despite numerous historical and legal discussions of the topic, and the increased participation of social scientists in the process, few empirical studies have been conducted on what actually occurs during voir dire. The lack of normative data is especially troublesome in the face of recent attacks on the process itself and numerous proposals to drastically limit or even prohibit what many regard as an important criminal justice safeguard—attorney-conducted voir dire in felony trials. This exploratory study attempts to provide some insight into the nature and content of felony voir dire. Our results—based on direct observation as well as juror interview responses—suggest that much of the criticism and calls for drastic reform may be misplaced.     

Examining the “CSI-effect” in the cases of circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony: Multivariate and path analyses

As part of a larger investigation of the changing nature of juror behavior in the context of technology development, this study examined important questions unanswered by previous studies on the “CSI-effect.” In answering such questions, the present study applied multivariate and path analyses for the first time. The results showed that (a) watching CSI dramas had no independent effect on jurors' verdicts, (b) the exposure to CSI dramas did not interact with individual characteristics, (c) different individual characteristics were significantly associated with different types of evidence, and (d) CSI watching had no direct effect on jurors' decisions, and it had an indirect effect on conviction in the case of circumstantial evidence only as it raised expectations about scientific evidence, but it produced no indirect effect in the case of eyewitness testimony only. Finally, implications of the present study as well as for future research on the “CSI-effect” on jurors are discussed.     

Examining legal authoritarianism in the impact of punishment severity on juror decisions

Recent Supreme Court decisions point to an increased reliance on juries to determine a defendant's sentence. Evidence is mixed on whether jurors are more likely to convict when the potential punishment is mild. The current study examined this issue, as well as the impact of legal authoritarianism (LA) (Kravitz, D. A., Cutler, B. L., & Brock, P. 1993. Reliability and validity of the original and revised legal attitudes questionnaire. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 661–677. doi: 10.1007/BF01044688), on jurors’ decisions. An ethnically diverse sample of participants completed the individual difference measure prior to viewing a videotaped, reenacted criminal trial. We manipulated the severity of the punishment the defendant would receive if convicted. Results indicated LA moderated the effect of punishment severity on verdict. Specifically, at higher levels of punishment severity, civil libertarians convicted less, while legal authoritarians convicted more. That is, the severity-leniency effect held for civil libertarians, but not for legal authoritarians. As juries become more responsible for determining a defendant's sentence, attorneys should be aware of the defendant's potential sentence and use voir dire to identify jurors who are higher on LA.     

Race-Based Peremptory Challenges: An Empirical Analysis of Litigation from the U.S. Court of Appeals, 2002–2006

This paper examines race-based peremptory challenges. Such challenges occur during the voir dire jury selection process. The process allows both the defense and the prosecution to strike jurors who they believe will not decide cases fairly. However, in the case of Batson v. Kentucky 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the Supreme Court ruled that race could not be used as a factor in eliminating prospective jurors. This paper examines federal litigation for five years in which it was alleged that race was used as a factor in removing a juror. An examination of the cases revealed that most of the cases involved sole male litigants who allege that there were multiple race-based peremptory challenges used in their cases. Moreover, most of the cases that led to the allegations involved violent offenses. Other case characteristics are noted, but of most significance was the finding that most appellants lost their cases. As such, the courts felt that most of the challenges were, in fact, race neutral. The implications of this research are discussed. This study was funded by an undergraduate research grant from Penn State University.     

Defendant-juror similarity and mock joror judgments

It was hypothesized that joror-defendant similarity would lead to greater leniency toward a criminal defendant when the evidence against that defendant was weak or inconclusive; but when evidence was strong, it was expected that this relationship would be reversed. In Study 1, religious similarity was found to be simply and positively related to evaluation of the defendant and leniency, a relationship unaffected by the strength of evidence. This pattern of results was attributed to (a) insufficiently strong evidence against the defendant and (b) the lack of anticipated jury deliberation, problems addressed in Study 2. In that study, when evidence was strong against the defendant, juror-defendant racial similarity did increase the likelihood of conviction, but only when jurors anticipated being in the racial minority in their jury. Implications of the findings for psychological theory and for voir dire were discussed.The authors wish to thank Howard Klein and Jane Stanfel for their assistance in data collection and analysis in Experiment 2, and the Editor and two anonymous reviewers for their suggestions on an earlier draft.     

Women's accounts of their prison experiences: A retrospective view of their subjective realities

This article examines the subjective experiences of previously imprisoned women. Their retrospective narratives of prison life reveal overt behavioral and underlying structural tensions that create an atmosphere of fear and violence. Furthermore, attitudes of indifference between inmates and correctional staff often contribute to fostering an environment of neglect. The study, based on in-depth interviews with fifty-four female subjects, describes and analyzes several aspects of the socialization process for inmates as related by women on parole. The research shows that the “pains of imprisonment” for women are suffered to a greater degree than previously acknowledged. Prison for these women is a social world filled with anxiety and, perhaps, represents a punishment well beyond what the law intended.     

A New Look at the Gender Gap in Offending

Studies of public support for capital punishment have consistently observed a strong and enduring gender gap in the level of death penalty support, with males consistently more inclined than females to support capital punishment. This unexplained relationship has endured over time and space as well as across a myriad of research designs. The present study uses attribution theory in a factorial survey design to account for this relationship. Analyses of data obtained from jurors provide mixed support for attribution theory yet fails to bridge the gender gap in death penalty support. The implications of these findings as they relate to gender, socialization, and attributions are discussed.     

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).     

Pandora's box: Women guards in men's prisons

The assignment of women guards to security positions in men's prisons in the United States is increasingly a correctional reality. This article considers the problems these women face in entering a previously all-male, “front-line” occupation. The discussion focuses on (1) how well female officers meet the security demands of security work, (2) the nature of, and basis for, difficulties in relating to male co-workers, and (3) occupational socialization and advancement. Drawing on available empirical and anecdotal data on women officers in male prisons and on the more general prison guard literature, the intent is to present what is known about these women officers. A research agenda is offered to guide inquiry into the problems of the sexual integration of correctional institutions.     

Venirepersons’s Attitudes Toward the Insanity Defense: Developing,Refining, and Validating a Scale

Given the prevalence and predictive strength of negative attitudes toward the insanity defense, we conducted three studies with 426 venirepersons to develop an understanding and a measure of public attitudes toward the insanity defense. In these studies, we developed, iteratively refined, and cross-validated the insanity defense attitude-revised (IDA-R) scale. The results suggest that IDAs are underpinned by ones degree of (a) orientation toward strict liability, and (b) concern about perceived injustice and danger associated with the defense. The IDA-R assesses these two-dimensions with good internal consistency, convergent and divergent validity, and predictive utility. The IDA-Rs predictive utility generalizes across jurisdictions and manipulation of case facts. Theoretical and practical implications for research and for identifying impartial jurors at voir dire are discussed.     

The myth of the new female offender: Some evidence from attitudes toward law and justice

This study compared the attitudes of male and female prisoners toward law and justice. Three distinct factors were examined: attitudes toward criminal justice personnel, attitudes concerning the sanctity of law, and attitudes regarding rationalizations for law violation and conditions justifying it. Female prisoners were found to exhibit more negative attitudes toward criminal justice system personnel but more positive attitudes toward the sanctity of the law, and they did not endorse rationalizations for law violation. The finding of females' positive attitudes toward the law is consistent with gender role socialization. The study findings indicate strong internalization of gender roles by the female prisoners. The women's negative attitudes toward criminal justice personnel may have resulted from differential expectations or from the fact that women experience incarceration differently than men. Further research is necessary to clarify this finding. The present study suggests that if there is a “new breed” of female offenders who are hostile to law and justice, they do not represent the majority of women who are incarcerated in American correctional institutions.     

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.     

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.