Related Research Articles
Voir dire is a legal term for procedures during a trial that help a judge decide certain issues:
Together, legal psychology and forensic psychology form the field more generally recognized as "psychology and law". Following earlier efforts by psychologists to address legal issues, psychology and law became a field of study in the 1960s as part of an effort to enhance justice, though that originating concern has lessened over time. The multidisciplinary American Psychological Association's Division 41, the American Psychology–Law Society, is active with the goal of promoting the contributions of psychology to the understanding of law and legal systems through research, as well as providing education to psychologists in legal issues and providing education to legal personnel on psychological issues. Further, its mandate is to inform the psychological and legal communities and the public at large of current research, educational, and service in the area of psychology and law. There are similar societies in Britain and Europe.
A legal remedy, also referred to as judicial relief or a judicial remedy, is the means with which a court of law, usually in the exercise of civil law jurisdiction, enforces a right, imposes a penalty, or makes another court order to impose its will in order to compensate for the harm of a wrongful act inflicted upon an individual.
A struck jury is a multi-step process of selecting a jury from a pool. First potential jurors are eliminated for hardship. Second jurors are eliminated for cause by conducting voir dire until there is a pool available that is exactly the size of the final jury plus the number of peremptory challenges available to each side. Then the two sides exercise their peremptory challenges on the remaining pool, usually alternating. This procedure "has its roots in ancient common law heritage".
Jury selection is the selection of the people who will serve on a jury during a jury trial. The group of potential jurors is first selected from among the community using a reasonably random method. Jury lists are compiled from voter registrations and driver license or ID renewals. From those lists, summonses are mailed. A panel of jurors is then assigned to a courtroom.
An opening statement is generally the first occasion that the trier of fact has to hear from a lawyer in a trial, aside possibly from questioning during voir dire. The opening statement is generally constructed to serve as a "road map" for the fact-finder. This is especially essential, in many jury trials, since jurors know nothing at all about the case before the trial,. Though such statements may be dramatic and vivid, they must be limited to the evidence reasonably expected to be presented during the trial. Attorneys generally conclude opening statements with a reminder that at the conclusion of evidence, the attorney will return to ask the fact-finder to find in his or her client's favor.
Summary jury trial is an alternative dispute resolution technique, increasingly being used in civil disputes in the United States. In essence, a mock trial is held: a jury is selected and, in some cases, presented with the evidence that would be used at a real trial. The parties are required to attend the proceeding and hear the verdict that the jury brings in. After the verdict, the parties are required to once again attempt a settlement before going to a real trial.
Virtual jury research is a technique used by lawyers to prepare for trial.
Scientific jury selection, often abbreviated SJS, is the use of social science techniques and expertise to choose favorable juries during a criminal or civil trial. Scientific jury selection is used during the jury selection phase of the trial, during which lawyers have the opportunity to question jurors. It almost always entails an expert's assistance in the attorney's use of peremptory challenges—the right to reject a certain number of potential jurors without stating a reason—during jury selection. The practice is currently unique to the American legal system.
Trial consulting is the use of social scientists, particularly psychologists and communication experts, and economists, to aid attorneys in the presentation of a criminal trial or civil lawsuit. Modern trial consultants help prepare witnesses, improve arguments and rhetoric, focus group and mock trials, change of venue surveys, and select juries.
Richard C. Waites, J.D., Ph.D.,, a noted board certified trial attorney and social psychologist, is an internationally recognized expert in jury and courtroom decision maker research, a field he helped to develop and that he continues to advance.
Caylee Marie Anthony was an American toddler who lived in Orlando, Florida, with her mother, Casey Marie Anthony, and her maternal grandparents, George and Cindy Anthony. On July 15, 2008, she was reported missing in a 9-1-1 call made by Cindy, who said she had not seen Caylee for 31 days. According to what Cindy told the operators, Casey had given varied explanations as to Caylee's whereabouts before eventually saying she had not seen Caylee for weeks. Casey later called the police and falsely told a police dispatcher that Caylee had been kidnapped by a nanny on June 9. Casey was charged with first-degree murder in October 2008 and pled not guilty.
Strike for cause is a method of eliminating potential members from a jury panel in the United States.
A stealth juror or rogue juror is a person who, motivated by a hidden agenda in reference to a legal case, attempts to be seated on the jury and to influence the outcome. Legal scholars believe that lawyers can identify stealth jurors by paying close attention to non-verbal behavior connected with deception and identifying discrepancies between answers to oral voir dire and written questionnaires. A potential stealth juror may be hard to read and excessively reserved. The potential for stealth jurors to nullify death penalty statutes has prompted calls to eliminate the requirement of a unanimous verdict in jury trials. On the other hand, the argument has been raised that stealth jurors can serve as a defense against bad laws.
Jury selection in the United States is the choosing of members of grand juries and petit juries for the purpose of conducting trial by jury in the United States.
Wainwright vs. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985), was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning a criminal defendant, Johnny Paul Witt, who argued that his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when he was sentenced to death for first degree murder by the state of Florida. He argued that the trial court had unconstitutionally hand-picked a jury during the voir dire process. This was because certain people were excused from the jury because they admitted pre-trial, that their decision of guilty or not guilty toward capital punishment would be swayed due to personal or religious beliefs.
Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court decision concerning examinations of prospective jurors during voir dire. The Court held that the trial court's failure to "have the jurors interrogated on the issue of racial bias" violated the petitioner's due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment. This right does not extend to any question of bias, but it does not preclude questions of relevant biases.
Warger v. Shauers, 574 U.S. 40 (2014), was a unanimous decision by the United States Supreme Court, ruling that jurors may not testify about what occurred during jury deliberations, even to expose dishonesty during jury selection or voir dire. The Court delivered its ruling on December 9, 2014.
Created in 1982, The American Society of Trial Consultants, Inc. is the only professional organization for litigation and trial consulting. It is the industry driver for standards in practical small group research, effective witness protection and preparation, and informed jury selection. The mission of the ASTC is to "[Make] the most of facts, law and presentation skill," and "...help litigators become better at persuading jurors and other fact-finders [to make] the system work in a way that is more meaningful, more reliable, and ultimately more fair."
The no-impeachment rule is a part of U.S. evidence law that generally prohibits jurors from testifying about their deliberations in an attempt to discredit a verdict. Arising in British common law, the rule has come to be implemented in Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 606(b) and in each state.
References
- ↑ Posey, Amy J. and Wrightsman, Lawrence S., Trial Consulting, Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 17, 18, 24, 81, 82, 85, 90, 254, 263, 270.
- ↑ Westlaw Database Directory, "Race May Be Key In Police Trial Jury Selection Archived 2012-07-26 at archive.today ,” Diana Marrero, SunSentinel.com, January 5, 2003, p. 3., and "Attorneys Use Mock Juries To Predict Cases Archived 2012-09-08 at the Wayback Machine ," Patricia Elich, SunSentinel.com, December 1, 1985.
- ↑ “Jury Research Expert Dr. Amy Singer Interviewed By CVN Archived 2011-07-13 at the Wayback Machine ,” Courtroom Views – The CVN News Blog, June 29, 2010, and “Attorneys Use Mock Juries To Predict Cases Archived 2012-09-08 at the Wayback Machine ,” Patricia Elich, SunSentinel.com, December 1, 1985.
- ↑ “Creating a Fungible Judge and Jury: Breaking Trial Strategies and Kabbalah Techniques,” Boardwalk Seminar 2011, April 15, 2011, New Jersey Association for Justice Education Foundation, Inc.; and Singer Litigation Library.
- ↑ “Secret Sway Archived February 14, 2012, at the Wayback Machine ,” Terry Carter, ABA Journal, p. 63, September 2001, see webpage: The Law Offices of Howard L. Nations.
- ↑ "Hot on the Trial,” Pope Brock, People, Vol. 36, No. 23, December 16, 1991.
- ↑ Blog Posts and Tweets Helped Defense Team Win Acquittal for Casey Anthony in Capital Murder Case Blog Posts and Tweets Helped Defense Team Win Acquittal for Casey Anthony in Capital Murder Case
- ↑ Singer, Amy and Maloney, Pat, Trials and Deliberations: Inside the Jury Room, Shepards/McGraw-Hill, 1992.
