the psychology of juries

attorney options during voir dire 1

- accept juror - challenge juror for cause * judge can do this too and must decide * request to remove because person does not meet statutory requirement for impartiality * so biased as to be unable to render verdict based solely on law and evidence in trial

goal of scientific jury selection

- apply research on JDM to voir dire process to identify who is likely to be favorable or unfavorable to one's side - jury consultant uses research to write voir dire questions - jury consultant applies research to juror characteristics (revealed through voir dire and/or background info gathering) - assumption is that prospective jurors will act consistent with research findings

jury consultants

- attorneys may hire jury consultant (often psychologist) * may choose consultant rather than relying on own judgement * research: attorneys are poor at identifying biased jurors - help during voir dire process to choose peremptory challenges - recommendations based on research about public opinions, JDM, group interactions

difficult to test effectiveness in a specific trial

- attorneys who hire jury consultants * higher paid, have more resources, spend more time on case * difficult to separate these attorney effects from effects of scientific jury selection - excluded jurors are no longer participating so their influence on jury is unknown

constitutional bias: civil defendants

- civil defendants have a right to a trial by jury - 7th amendment to the U.S. constitution

constitutional bias: criminal defendants

- criminal defendants have a right to a trial by jury - 6th amendment to the U.S. constitution

juror gender

- female jurors more likely to convict - remember: no peremptory challenges based on gender

creating the venire

- first stage: venire - drawn from eligible population within local geographic area - jury selection and service act (1968, 1975): federal jury pools must be chosen at random from voter registration lists - state laws dictate creation of local venires

constitution: jury compisition

- jury composition must be "impartial" and drawn from the local geographic area - exceptions to local geographic area: PTP biased local jurors

composition of venire

- must represent cross-section of local area - proportional representation ? - people in venire who are not exempted can be considered for any trial jury during a particular period of time ("jury duty")

jury selection is ethically challenging for psychologists

- psychologists' code of ethics > be fair and just to all individuals involved * should be interested in selecting jurors who are least likely to be biased in any way * conflicts with attorney's needs to pick jurors sympathetic to their side - no code of ethics specifically for jury consulting - questionable fairness: hired by those with more resources

voir dire

- second stage of jury selection, first stage of a trial - process of questioning prospective jurors to decide whether any need to be disqualified - judge controls process: number and type of questions, who asks them, pre voir-dire qs - continue process until 12 jurors and 2 alternatives are implaneled

supreme court rulings on voir dire

- swaim v. alabama (1965) - allowed peremptory challenges - batson v. kentucky (1986) and georgia v. mccollum (1992) limited peremptory challenges based on race - J.E.B. v. alabama (1994) - limited peremptory challenges based on gender

research on the effectiveness of scientific jury selection

- when evidence is strong and well presented > persuasiveness and nature of evidence outweighs juror personality and other characteristics - when evidence is ambiguous or poorly presented > juror characteristics are likely to play a role in the verdict

federal and state laws

federal and state laws provide specific procedures to be used to ensure an impartial jury

federal and state laws: 3 principles

guided by 3 principles - adult citizens are expected to serve if called, except when exempted by statute or excused - jury pool must represent a cross-section of the community ("jury of peers") - biased jurors who might decide cases unfairly or with prejudice must be excused

attorney options during voir dire 2

peremptory challenge - request removal of juror without providing reason - based on attorney's or jury consultant's belief that juror will be biased against their side - number based on statute or by judge

venire

pool of prospective jurors