法国重罪陪审制度的启示与借鉴

陪审制度具有重要的政治意蕴与司法功能。在法国,对于法定刑较重的重大案件,实行以随机方式抽选一般国民担任陪审员,由陪审员与职业法官组成合议庭,共同审理案件,一起决定定罪量刑的制度。法国重罪陪审制度对于完善我国人民陪审员制度,如构建重罪、复杂案件由陪审团审理的制度,取消对陪审员学历的要求、确立科学的陪审员遴选程序与陪审团评议表决程序方面具有重要的借鉴意义。     

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。     

The Mr. Big technique on trial by jury

Mr. Big is a Canadian undercover police technique used to elicit confessions. Undercover officers befriend the suspect, and gradually draw them into a fictitious criminal organization. Upon meeting the boss of the organization, ‘Mr. Big’, the suspect is pressured to confess. When evidence from the sting operation, including the confession, is presented later in court, it may induce juror moral prejudice towards a defendant. We evaluated how situational and dispositional sting factors (crime task severity, financial incentive, and defendant intelligence) influence mock juror moral prejudice and decision-making in Mr. Big cases. Results from Experiment 1 (N?=?270) showed fewer guilty verdicts in the high incentive conditions. In Experiment 2 (N?=?1,666), high incentive and low defendant intelligence were related to fewer guilty verdicts, more favorable ratings of defendant character, and more skeptical evaluations of confession evidence. Additionally, there were differences between community and student participants on multiple outcomes.     

Perceived infallibility of detection dog evidence: implications for juror decision-making

This study focuses on the trust that potential jurors have in unsubstantiated evidence and the implications of such trust for legal decision-making. We examined whether participants’ motivation to think deeply (‘need for cognition,’ NC) and belief in science moderated their trust in potentially fallible detection dog evidence when selecting a verdict in a trial scenario. A detection dog twice indicated the presence of drugs in the scenario, yet no drugs were actually found. Those who chose a guilty verdict without drugs present featured stronger beliefs in detection dog evidence. They were also more confident that a dog alert indicated the presence of drugs, even though the scientific literature actually shows that detection dog evidence is subject to biases and other challenges to reliability. Our findings indicate that an unsubstantiated belief and trust in detection dog evidence may negatively influence juror decision-making, which may, in turn, pose consequences for fairness and justice. Participants believed that detection dogs provide powerful and reliable evidence, and these beliefs were clearly associated with stronger beliefs in science. These findings, therefore, raise serious concerns about jurors’ indiscriminate trust in forensic evidence, be it detection dog evidence or other lines of evidence presented in court.     

Understanding juror perceptions of forensic evidence: investigating the impact of case context on perceptions of forensic evidence strength

The most widely accepted model of juror decision making acknowledges the importance of both the case-specific information presented in the courtroom, as well as the prior general knowledge and beliefs held by each juror. The studies presented in this paper investigated whether mock jurors could differentiate between evidence of varying strengths in the absence of case information and then followed on to determine the influence that case context (and therefore the story model) has on judgments made about the strength of forensic DNA evidence. The results illustrated that mock jurors correctly identified various strengths of evidence when it was not presented with case information; however, the perceived strength of evidence was significantly inflated when presented in the context of a criminal case, particularly when the evidence was of a weak or ambiguous standard. These findings are discussed in relation to the story model, and the potential implications for real juries.     

Juries and Viewpoint Representation

To generate high-quality deliberations, juries should be diverse in terms of not only demographics but also viewpoints. Using data from the Survey of Texas Adults (n = 1380), we examine whether existing processes select for individuals who represent the population on a variety of viewpoint characteristics, particularly whether the process of forming juries selects for people who are more independent-minded versus authority-minded. We find, on average, that those who believe in the importance of speaking English, are less compassionate, support Biblical literalism, and express more concern about the community effects of wrongdoing are more likely to have been former jurors than to not have served. Death penalty support is also modestly predictive of jury membership. Non-jurors rate their neighborhoods as cleaner than do former jurors. Results point to composition effects in the summonsing process and to the possibility that some types of people exempt themselves from this civic obligation.     

Effects of judicial instructions and juror characteristics on interpretations of beyond reasonable doubt

The standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt (BRD), serves as a threshold for reaching verdicts in criminal cases. Past research has demonstrated that factors such as the wording of judicial instructions defining the standard can influence people's interpretation of it. In addition, there is some concern that instructions may not be effective for the wider jury-eligible population. In an experimental study involving members of the general public, we examined the effect of two commonly used judicial instructions (i.e. sure and firmly convinced) against a situation when BRD was undefined, on people's quantitative interpretations of BRD as well as on their self-reported understanding of the standard and confidence in applying it. We also explored the effect of juror characteristics (i.e. gender, age and education). Compared to when the standard was undefined, the sure instruction helped to reduce inter-individual variability in interpretations of BRD and the firmly convinced instruction increased people's understanding of the standard. However, neither instruction was effective in increasing confidence in applying the standard or in reducing observed individual differences. These findings underscore the importance of developing evidence-based judicial instructions that can benefit the broad jury-eligible population equally and in a variety of ways.     

Whither Equality? Securing the Lay Citizens' Place Inside the Criminal Justice System

This paper argues that lay jurors should be given a more extensive position in making decisions about misdemeanour cases. The paper constitutes a qualified defense of the 2011 judicial French reform. This reform associates two extra jurors to the already existing three magistrates in charge of misdemeanour cases. Two arguments are presented in favour of this measure. The first argument is that increasing the number of decision‐makers improves the accuracy of verdicts. I call this the argument from quantity. The second argument is that fostering more identity diversity between decision‐makers tends to improve the quality of group decisions. I call this the argument from diversity. The argument from quantity and the argument from diversity are supported by the more general idea that one of the chief rationales of any judicial system is that of ensuring the defendants' equality of protection.