 | This article needs additional citations for verification .(May 2013) |
Jury or juror research is an umbrella term for the use of research methods in an attempt to gain some understanding of the juror experience in the courtroom and how jurors individually and collectively come to a determination about the guilt or otherwise of the accused.
Historically, juries have played a significant role in the determination of issues that could not be managed via 'general social interactions' or ones which required punitive measures, retribution and/or compensation. The role of jurors and juries however, has changed over the centuries and have generally been moulded by social and cultural forces embedded in the wider communities in which they have evolved. [1] "Although the role of juries and jurors has a somewhat chequered history, 'the jury, in one form or the other, became the formal method of proof of the guilt or [otherwise] of a person on trial'", [1] [2] and juries remain one of the 'cornerstones' of the criminal justice system in many countries. [3]
There are however, many debates about the efficacy of the jury system and the ability of jurors to adequately determine the guilt or otherwise of the accused. Some argue that lay individuals are incapable of digesting the often complex forensic evidence presented during a trial, others argue that any misunderstanding of the evidence is a flaw in legal cross examination and summing up. Many observe that the juror and the accused seldom can be considered 'peers' which is historically considered a fundamental precept of jury makeup. Others consider the jury system to be inherently flawed as a result of the humanity of jurors. They cite incidents in which the Judiciary have become aware of Juror assumptions made in the absence of supporting evidence, the unidentified effect on Jurors of stereotyping, culture, gender, age, education etc., which can and have influenced their ability to make a decision from an objective stance. These arguments and debates are founded in legal and psychological practice and made by social scientists and legal practitioners, [1] [4] [5] [6] [7]
The juror however has a very personal and different perspective. [1] The role played by the juror is an extraordinary one which is distinctive with minimal resemblance to their 'normal daily experiences/activities'. In effect the juror is plucked from their life, sometimes for considerable periods of time, they are deposited into an environment about which they generally have little knowledge or ability to negotiate, the language and behaviours of which are foreign and they are expected to make sense of their internal and external environments. [1] As a result of their jury experience many in Australia and New Zealand have reported feeling stressed, anxious, frustrated, overwhelmed and a variety of other emotions, cognitions and behaviours which to varying degrees surprised them. [1] [8] [9] [10]
The above factors are but a few of the many and varied variables that can impose on the juror when in the Courtroom and/or the Juryroom. Such a complex and unique experience is the jury deliberation process the outcome of which is profound and potentially lethal. Quite rightfully therefore, the focus on jury research by legal professionals and social scientists has become, in the last 50 years or so a burgeoning area of investigation.
As can be seen from the above, there are a number of reasons juries and jurors have become the target of investigation by legal practitioners and social scientists. Often overlooked is that correlation between the focus of investigation role played in the criminal justice system of the investigator or instructing organisation/individual(s) funding the research. The terms of reference, for example, for jury research performed on behalf of a trial lawyer seeking a beneficial outcome for his or her client, [11] will most probably differ from those of a psychologist investigating the influence of say gender, demographic and personality variables on trial outcomes, [6] which again will most probably differ from an examination by concerned members of the Judiciary about the ability of jurors to understand the legal argument, complex forensic evidence and instructions by the legal representatives in the courtroom. [5] [12]
Similarly methodology will differ depending on terms of reference, level of peer review, experience and ability of researchers and attitudes of funding organisations. Today, there are many companies and individuals providing services as jury consultants or trial strategists. Jury consultants use market research techniques in an attempt to bolster the client's chances of a positive outcome by 'gaining an understanding of the current and environment/location specific trends that might impact the attitudes of jurors. Their job is to shape trial team strategy so as to moderate or take advantage of jurors' preexisting beliefs and experiences by way of how the evidence is presented. Regular market research techniques are used in such instances (e.g., phone surveys, focus groups, feedback sessions etc.). Surrogate or mock jurors are selected carefully so that they are statistically representative of the 'general population in the particular region' and they are presented relevant information, visual exhibits, witness statements, legal cases, timelines etc. in an attempt to elicit a variety of responses, thus allowing the lawyers to prepare adequately for any possibility before it causes difficulty to their case. Jury consultants also use pre-trial techniques such as focus groups when preparing for settlement negotiations. Post-trial juror interviews sometimes allow for better understanding of mistakes or good arguments made in a trial, and that knowledge could be used for future trials or for an appeal. A recent innovation in this type of research is using electronic resources where lawyers 'pitch their submissions to online jurors'. More information about this resource can be found by following this link . Also on these pages are papers which outline some of the perceived benefits of this type of research along with the issues which are still topics of debate.
Jury consultancy is a growing industry[ citation needed ] and one which uses current technologies in innovative ways[ citation needed ]. However, this type of investigation makes up a relatively small proportion of Jury Research, the balance of which is generally conducted by psychologists, criminologists and other interested social scientists. As indicated above in discussions about the personal perspective of jurors, the interaction between the juror and other jurors, the Courtroom environment, etc. is extraordinarily complex and unusual in that the behaviours and expectations of jurors performing jury duty are different from everyday experiences. The tools of the social scientist have evolved over recent decades thus allowing more variables to be considered when investigating phenomena. This is augmented by the continuous development of computer programs that can perform complex multivariate and multilevel analyses of data and models. Nonetheless, flaws inherent in social research must be considered, identified and moderated, and this is particularly relevant in Jury research.[ citation needed ]
Jury research can be done with 'real jurors' or 'mock jurors'. Each of these methods have their downfalls and each provides a different slant on the juror experience.
Access to 'real jurors' is difficult to attain, and observation of jurors whilst performing their duty is prohibited for a variety of reasons, the most prominent of which is a reluctance to allow any imposition on the jurors whilst performing their duty, which might affect the trial's result. As such access to jurors, if allowed, is generally after they have been dismissed which raises difficulties with issues such as memory distortion, overload from stress or other factors which were more pertinent to the juror while on the jury; inability to recognise the influence of demographic factors on their deliberations, etc. These are all factors or variables which are difficult to tease out of the data, but the influence of which can be adjusted in the analysis of the data if the model is theoretically sound.
Research on mock jurors does not provide an avenue for the investigation of the 'Gestalt' of the juror experience. Mock Jurors are not 'in the midst of the experience', they are not imposed upon by the reality that the future of the person sitting before them will in some respects be influenced by them, their ability to concentrate, their attention to detail, their ability to negotiate with other jurors, and other factors which do impose on 'real jurors'. Although mock juror research may be sufficient for examinations of the general attitudes and beliefs of a community by jury consultants[ citation needed ], when investigating the nuances of the internal processes involved in deliberating an outcome of a Court matter, mock jury research techniques fall short in terms of validity. However, again, Mock jury research has provided a significant pool of investigative pursuits and since the 1970s as a result of considerable debate surround the issues associated with simulated research, the design and methodological parameters of simulated jury research have been made more robust. [1]
Jury instructions, directions to the jury, or judge's charge are legal rules that jurors should follow when deciding a case. They are a type of jury control procedure to support a fair trial.
A jury is a sworn body of people convened to render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment. Juries developed in England during the Middle Ages, and are a hallmark of the Anglo common law legal system. They are still commonly used today in Great Britain, the United States, Canada, Australia, and other countries whose legal systems are descended from England's legal traditions.
Remorse is a distressing emotion experienced by an individual who regrets actions which they have done in the past that they deem to be shameful, hurtful, or wrong. Remorse is closely allied to guilt and self-directed resentment. When a person regrets an earlier action or failure to act, it may be because of remorse or in response to various other consequences, including being punished for the act or omission. People may express remorse through apologies, trying to repair the damage they've caused, or self-imposed punishments.
Forensic psychology, a subfield of psychology, involves the application of psychological knowledge and methods to both civil and criminal legal questions. Traditionally, it has a broad definition as well as a narrow definition. The broader classification states that forensic psychology involves the application of all psychological areas of research to the legal field, while the narrower definition characterizes forensic psychology as “The application of clinical specialties to legal institutions and people who come into contact with the law.” While the American Psychological Association (APA) officially recognized forensic psychology as a specialty under the narrower definition in 2001, the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists were revised in 2013 and now include all subfields of psychology that apply "the scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge of psychology to the law."
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.
In the behavioral sciences, ecological validity is often used to refer to the judgment of whether a given study's variables and conclusions are sufficiently relevant to its population. Psychological studies are usually conducted in laboratories though the goal of these studies is to understand human behavior in the real-world. Ideally, an experiment would have generalizable results that predict behavior outside of the lab, thus having more ecological validity. Ecological validity can be considered a commentary on the relative strength of a study's implication(s) for policy, society, culture, etc.
The CSI effect, also known as the CSI syndrome and the CSI infection, is any of several ways in which the exaggerated portrayal of forensic science on crime television shows such as CSI: Crime Scene Investigation influences public perception. The term was first reported in a 2004 USA Today article describing the effect being made on trial jurors by television programs featuring forensic science. It most often refers to the belief that jurors have come to demand more forensic evidence in criminal trials, thereby raising the effective standard of proof for prosecutors. While this belief is widely held among American legal professionals, some studies have suggested that crime shows are unlikely to cause such an effect, although frequent CSI viewers may place a lower value on circumstantial evidence. As technology improves and becomes more prevalent throughout society, people may also develop higher expectations for the capabilities of forensic technology.
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.
In law, a trial is a coming together of parties to a dispute, to present information in a tribunal, a formal setting with the authority to adjudicate claims or disputes. One form of tribunal is a court. The tribunal, which may occur before a judge, jury, or other designated trier of fact, aims to achieve a resolution to their dispute.
Trial advocacy is the branch of knowledge concerned with making attorneys and other advocates more effective in trial proceedings. Trial advocacy is an essential trade skill for litigators and is taught in law schools and in continuing legal education programs. It may also be taught in primary, secondary, and undergraduate schools, usually as a mock trial elective.
Virtual jury research is a technique used by lawyers to prepare for trial.
In eyewitness identification, in criminal law, evidence is received from a witness "who has actually seen an event and can so testify in court".
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 confined to the American legal system.
The court of assizes is the trial court which tries the most serious crimes in the judicial system of Belgium. It is the highest Belgian court with criminal jurisdiction, and as such, it is the only Belgian court that can sentence someone to life imprisonment. The courts of assizes are not permanent courts; a new court of assizes is assembled for each new trial. There is a court of assizes in each of the ten provinces of Belgium, and one in the arrondissement of Brussels-Capital. Further below, an overview is provided of the eleven courts of assizes and their seats. They are the only courts in Belgium for which the provinces are used as territorial subdivisions. They are also the only courts in Belgium that hold jury trials. The jury acts as sole trier of fact, but decides on the penalty together with the judges. The trial by jury of certain crimes is laid down in article 150 of the Belgian Constitution. The Belgian courts of assizes have the same origin as their French namesakes.
The Capital Jury Project (CJP) is a consortium of university-based research studies on the decision-making of jurors in death penalty cases in the United States. It was founded in 1991 and is supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF). The goal of the CJP is to determine whether jurors' sentencing decisions conform to the constitution and do not reflect the arbitrary decisions the United States Supreme Court found when it ruled the death penalty unconstitutional in Furman v. Georgia. That 1972 Supreme Court decision eliminated the death penalty, which was not reinstated until Gregg v. Georgia in 1976.
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.
The Perry Mason syndrome is the manner in which the television crime drama Perry Mason (1957–1966) may have affected perceptions of the United States legal system among defendants and jurors.
Amy Singer is a Florida trial consultant and research psychologist. Singer’s firm, Trial Consultants, Inc., which she founded in Miami in 1979, is one of the first trial consulting firms in the United States. Singer is an acknowledged authority in the field of litigation psychology, a discipline she helped pioneer. Her revolutionary approach, which consists of applying principles of psychology and using open-ended questions to elicit jurors’ value beliefs regarding key trial issues, changed the way that attorneys around the United States conduct voir dire. Largely through Singer’s influence, this became a juror de-selection, not selection, process.
Grand juries in the United States are groups of citizens empowered by United States federal or state law to conduct legal proceedings, chiefly investigating potential criminal conduct and determining whether criminal charges should be brought. The grand jury originated under the law of England and spread through colonization to other jurisdictions as part of the common law. Today, however, the United States is one of only two jurisdictions, along with Liberia, that continues to use the grand jury to screen criminal indictments.
Juror misconduct is when the law of the court is violated by a member of the jury while a court case is in progression or after it has reached a verdict.