Term
|
Definition
right to a trial by an impartial jury in
criminal cases |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
right to a trial by jury in most civil
cases |
|
|
Term
| Do juveniles have a constitutional right to be tried by a jury in delinquency |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
18 y/o
Speak English
Mentally competent
Never been convicted of a felony |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Primary source for potential jurors from voter
registration lists |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Random sample of jurors drawn from jury pool
Could be from 30-100+ potential jurors
Can be excused is would cause “undue hardship or
extreme inconvenience”
One day or one trial |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Final stage in jury selection; first stage in trial
Attorneys/judges may question potential jurors
Purpose: eliminate potential jurors whose biases may
interfere with a fair consideration of the evidence
presented |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
challenges for cause
unlimited
prejudice, bias, or other acceptable reason to
strike
Specific bias: blood relationship & economic
relationship or indicates a bias/prejudice
against group defendant belongs to
Nonspecific bias: member of some group
related to defendant (e.g., writer suing
publisher) |
|
|
Term
| Peremptory challenges general rules |
|
Definition
Not allowed to exclude members of a cognizable group
race, gender thus far recognized
neither side can strike on race, gender alone
number of peremptories limited by statute |
|
|
Term
| Number of peremptory challenges. |
|
Definition
1. If the offense charged is punishable by death or
by imprisonment for life, each side is entitled to
eight peremptory challenges.
2. If the offense charged is punishable by
imprisonment for any other term or by fine or by
both fine and imprisonment, each side is entitled
to four peremptory challenges.
3. The State and the defendant shall exercise their
challenges alternately, in that order. Any challenge
not exercised in its proper order is waived. |
|
|
Term
| "Scientific" Jury Selection |
|
Definition
Social scientists in employ of lawyers-help with voir dire to
find “best” jury for their client
Beginning noted in 1970s
No reliable juror characteristics to predict how a juror will
respond
Psychologists may use attitude & behavioral scales
Concerns (disparity, expense, lack of licensing)
Efficacy in question, though anecdotes of success |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Use mock jury & analyze their reactions &
interpretations to give insight, look for relationships
b/t juror characteristics and responses to evidence in
the case
Design & analyze juror questionnaires
Assist lawyer in crafting arguments
May use shadow jury to get feedback throughout trial |
|
|
Term
| General Personality Tendencies |
|
Definition
Locus of control: how people explain what happens to
them
Internal: see outcomes in life due to own abilities &
efforts
External: see outcomes as due to forces outside them
May have relationship to how decide cases
Belief in a just world
People get what they deserve & deserve what they get
Authoritarianism
Tend to have conventional values, beliefs tend to be
rigid, intolerant of weakness, identify with & submit to
authority figures, suspicious of & punitive toward
people who violate established norms & rules |
|
|
Term
| Similarity-leniency hypothesis |
|
Definition
predicts that jurors
who are similar to the defendant will empathize &
identify with the defendant & be less likely to convict
Seems to apply when evidence is nonconclusive &
when similar jurors outnumber dissimilar jurors
Sometimes similarity causes them to be more harsh
Only race & gender have been examined |
|
|
Term
| Power of Eyewitness Testimony |
|
Definition
People tend to believe that someone who
witnesses something is accurate in describing
what they saw
Jurors have tended to accept eyewitness
testimony at face value
Re: eyewitness testimony…what do people
generally believe? |
|
|
Term
| How many inmates convictions overturned based on DNA evidence? |
|
Definition
110 inmates convictions overturned (24 rape &
murder; 6 murder only) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
110 inmates convictions overturned (24 rape &
murder; 6 murder only)
2/3 mistaken eyewitness testimony
14% imprisoned after mistakes or misconduct by
forensic experts
9 were mentally retarded/borderline retarded &
confessed after being tricked/coerced by authorities
Average 10 ½ years incarcerated (shortest 1 yr,
longest 22 yrs) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
First we need to perceive: seeing, hearing,
smelling, touching, tasting transformed into
meaningful experience for each person
Then those transformed inputs stored in the
brain (memory) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
sensory input transformed, organized
meaningfully
interpretive and non-conscious: your
perception of everything is related to your past
experiences
end product is selective & incomplete: don’t
attend to everything, lose information in filtering process |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Acquisition:
encoding/input
involved with perceptual process
Retention: storage stage
Retrieval: brain searches for
information, retrieves it,
communicates it |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Biochemical representation in the
brain deteriorates with time
memory malleable, changeable
Distortion occurs during retrieval |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Factors to take into account when evaluating the
accuracy of eyewitness identification
1. Witness’s opportunity to view the perpetrator
Accuracy improves the longer you look
But….people consistently overestimate duration
of a brief event, especially if stressful
Can overestimate 3-4 times higher
2. Witness’s level of attention
Difficult to evaluate level of attention
3. The accuracy of the witness’s previous
description of the offender
4. Degree of certainty displayed by the witness
Biased questioning & lineup procedures can
inflate witness’s certainty
5. The amount of time between witnessing the
crime and making the identification
Less time = more accurate |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
People are better at discriminating b/t faces of
their own race/ethnic group than others
Racial attitudes not account for this
whites inaccurate identifying blacks
whites even more inaccurate identifying Asian
faces
blacks some inaccuracy
meta-analysis: both white and black subjects
better identifying own race |
|
|
Term
| Reasons for own race bias |
|
Definition
more than prejudice
differential experience hypothesis: have greater familiarity/experience with members of own race |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Not all details remembered equally
If gun pointed at person-more likely to be
studied intently by witness than other
characteristics
strong support for weapon effect
familiarity with weapon may lessen effect |
|
|
Term
| Witness arousal and stress |
|
Definition
| Yerkes-Dodson Law: level of arousal and complexity of task witness to crime: high arousal, complex task accurate recall still possible |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Identify persons seen before as offenders E.g., clerk confused customer for robber
confusion with previously-observed individual previous encounter must be brief |
|
|
Term
| Leading or Suggestive Comments |
|
Definition
Subjects shown video of
an accident between
two cars
Some subjects asked: How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other? Others asked: How fast were the cars going when they hit each other? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Speed estimates
depended on how the
question was phrased
Subjects memory for
broken glass also
depended on the
phrasing of the speed
question.
But this was a false
memory: there was no
broken glass |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Scripts: can lead to error
What you expect to perceive effects what you
perceive
Crime highly unusual & susceptible to
distortions consistent with expectations |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
generally unrelated to accuracy
optimal viewing conditions (see suspect,
familiar with suspect): confidence and accuracy positively related low optimal conditions: high confidence likely inaccurate Post-identification feedback effect: increases confidence, not accuracy |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Eyewitness: “oh, my God…I don’t know…It’s one
of those two…but I don’t know…Oh, man…the
guy a little bit taller than number two…It’s one
of those two, but I don’t know.”
30 min later: “I don’t know…number two?”
Officer: “Okay.”
Months later at trial: “You were positive it was
number two? It wasn’t a maybe?”
Eyewitness: “There was no maybe about it…I was absolutely positive.” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Blind lineup administrators
Clever hans
Bias-reducing instructions to eyewitnesses:
might not be in lineup
Expert testimony
Unbiased lineups
photograph spreads can’t be unnecessarily
suggestive
composition bias: individuals in line-up should have
as many characteristics remembered by witness as
possible (e.g., age, physical stature, race, hair style) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Obtain statement from witness right after person identified and before feedback given |
|
|
Term
| Other ways to reduce eye witness error |
|
Definition
Confidence ratings
Obtain statement from witness right after person
identified and before feedback given
Video record lineup identification
Sequential lineups
see one person or photo at a time & decide each
one
Witnesses compare people with one another &
then make relative judgment
Reduce ability to compare |
|
|
Term
Techniques for Refreshing the
Memories of Witnesses |
|
Definition
Forensic Hypnosis
Cognitive Interview |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Purpose: enhance or revive memory
Ability to be hypnotized: enduring, stable
attribute
About 10% cannot be hypnotized; 5-10% highly
suggestible; rest fall in middle
motivation important
level of trust in hypnotist
context and reasons
preconceived notions about hypnotism |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Goal: improve retrieval
Phase 1: Reduce witness’s anxiety, develop
rapport, help witness concentrate then asked to
report what happened
Phase 2: witness closes eyes, mentally pictures
setting of crime
Phase 3: probe images & actions reported by
witness; recall events in different orders
Phase 4: take different perspectives of crime,
from criminal & victim
Phase 5: background info collected, witness call if remembers anything new |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Lose touch with reality
Delusions
Hallucinations
Schizophrenia |
|
|
Term
Why is Competency
Important? |
|
Definition
Fairness in criminal justice process to
defendant
Has to decide multiple things: plea
bargain, testify, how to plead |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
“sufficient present ability to consult with [their]
lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational
understanding…and a rational as well as a factual
understanding of the proceedings…”
two-pronged Dusky standard
applies to wide variety of proceedings (pre-trial,
trial, sentencing)
diagnosis per se not enough, but diagnosis
relevant
Need to directly affect abilities
5 |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
“incompetent” means that the person does not have
the present ability to:
(a) Understand the nature of the criminal charges
against him;
(b) Understand the nature and purpose of the court
proceedings; or
(c) Aid and assist his counsel in the defense at any
time during the proceedings with a reasonable degree of rational understanding. |
|
|
Term
| Functional Elements of Competency |
|
Definition
Understand current legal situation
Understand charges against
Understand pleas available
Understand possible penalties
Understand roles of courtroom
participants
Trust & communicate with attorney
Help locate witnesses
Aid in developing strategy for crossexamining
witnesses
Act appropriately during trial
Make appropriate decisions about trial
strategy |
|
|
Term
| Competence to Plea Guilty |
|
Definition
Guilty plea must be knowing,
voluntary, & intelligent
Must understand charges & potential
consequences of conviction
Must understand rights given up: trial by
jury, remain silent, appeal, confront
accusers |
|
|
Term
| How competency inquiry occurs |
|
Definition
may be raised at any point in proceeding
may be raised by either attorney
may be raised by judge
triggering factors: prior hospitalization, bizarre
behavior in jail, comments to police
irrelevant factors: attorney’s wish to buy time,
homelessness, political motives
requests for competency evaluation not frequently challenged |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Range of pre-trial strategies &
decisions
Admit/deny
Lawyer
Diversionary program |
|
|
Term
| Age and developmental considerations of competence |
|
Definition
many studies on adolescent cognitive
development, but more needed on
delinquents’ cognitive development (Grisso)
13 y/o & below: greater risk for not
competent
14-16 y/o vary considerably
delinquents: often different experiences,
learning disabilities, low intellectual
functioning
Delinquents more skeptical than nondelinquents
about benefit of legal counsel
competency standards not always specified |
|
|
Term
| Role of psychologists in competency |
|
Definition
multi-site study of juvenile competence
will advise psychologists conducting
evaluations
Interview lawyer and juvenile
psychologists reluctant to use competency
assessment instruments available for adults
Parent important
Grisso’s book |
|
|
Term
| Ethical considerations of Competency |
|
Definition
privacy, privilege, confidentiality, consent to
treatment
different for juveniles; adults often make decisions |
|
|
Term
| Juveniles found incompetent |
|
Definition
chronological age critical
diagnosis also critical
mixed findings on arrest history
research sparse in this area
Restoration or CHINS |
|
|
Term
| Competency Evaluation Process |
|
Definition
Traditionally inpatient, increasingly
more outpatient
Emphasizes cognitive elements of: Quality of
person’s thought processes & perception of
reality at the time of the crime
Separate inquiry from sanity, though
interrelated
dual purpose evaluations common
troubling issue (Roesch et al.)
mixed findings on arrest history
research sparse in this area
Restoration or CHINS |
|
|
Term
Context-specific approach-
Roesch, 1999 |
|
Definition
Severe disturbance in this defendant
Facing these charges
In light or existing evidence
Anticipating the substantial effort of a particular
attorney
With a relationship of known characteristics
First-time violent offender v. violent offender
with protracted trial |
|
|
Term
| Competency Evaluation Process |
|
Definition
Guidelines and instruments available
State statutes sometime prescribe methods, though
rare
Credentialing or certification required in some states
Defendant must be warned about purpose of exam &
how results will be used-can’t use info in guilty phase
or sentencing w/o Miranda-type warning
Standard psychological tests used, not considered essential |
|
|
Term
| Forensic Assessment Instruments |
|
Definition
Competency Screening Test (CST)
ability to identify clearly competent
defendants
high false-positive rate
Competency Assessment Instrument
(CAI)
not just screening
questionable reliability (Rogers)
Interdisciplinary Fitness Interview (IFI)
joint interviewing by clinician and
lawyer
competency to waive various rights
time efficient, rich data (Melton et al.) considered impractical
Georgia Court Competency Test
(GCCT) and revisions (GCCTMississippi
State Hospital)
decent reliability and validity
compared to others
more research needed
promising screen for malingering
short, easy to administer
MacArthur instruments (MacSAC-CD)
adjudicative competence, decisional
competence (Bonnie)
highly researched, promising
cumbersome, lengthy
MacCAT-CA-22 item structured interview
Other competency measures
Rogers scale (ECST-R)
special populations (juveniles, mentally
retarded)
CAST-MR, Grisso’s book
Competency instruments not widely used
Borum and Grisso study: 40% used often,
36% never used
supplemented with clinical interview |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Clinician’s recommendation typically
sought
Decisions typically based on report, no
testimony
Judges agree, especially if clinician
concludes incompetent |
|
|
Term
| The Incompetent Defendant |
|
Definition
Confinement of incompetent defendants
may not be indefinite (Jackson v. Indiana)
if competency not foreseeable, civil commitment needed
alternative, release
reasonable time period varies by state
NRS 178.460 “no person who is committed under the provisions of
this chapter may be held in the custody of the Administrator or his
designee longer than the longest period of incarceration
provided for the crime or crimes with which he is charged or 10
years, whichever period is shorter.”
dismissal of charges without prejudice |
|
|
Term
| The Incompetent Defendant-Treatment |
|
Definition
typically within institution
drug treatment common
refusal rights unclear—hearing typically needed
if dangerous, may be forced
government’s strong interest in taking to trial
defendant right to remain unmedicated at trial when insanity
defense (Riggins)
Weston case; forced medication- “The government’s
interest in administering antipsychotic drug to make Weston
competent for trial overrides his liberty interest.” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
United States Supreme Court
announced the rule that the
Constitution may permit the
Government involuntarily to administer
antipsychotic drugs to a mentally ill
defendant facing serious criminal
charges in order to render that
defendant competent to stand trial. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
traditional therapy common
information about legal system
recommended, not common |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
the intentional production of false or
grossly exaggerated physical or
psychological symptoms, motivated
by external incentives such as
avoiding military duty, avoiding work,
obtaining financial compensation,
evading criminal prosecution, or
obtaining drugs.
Malingering should be strongly
suspected if any combination of the
following is noted:
1. Medicolegal context of presentation
(e.g., the person is referred by an
attorney to the clinician for
examination)
2. Marked discrepancy between the
person's claimed stress or disability
and the objective findings
3.Lack of cooperation during the
diagnostic evaluation and in
complying with the prescribed
treatment regimen
4.The presence of Antisocial
Personality Disorder |
|
|
Term
| Assessment of Malingering |
|
Definition
Malingering is assessed through:
Collateral sources
Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms
Test of Memory Malingering
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2)
Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales [R-CRAS])
M-FAST
There is, though, no foolproof way to detect
malingering and it is important for the clinician to
use multiple measures rather than one or two tests to assess this. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Guilty mind, evil intent
Required in criminal law, except for strict
liability offenses (generally minor crimes,
e.g., traffic offenses)
If not exhibiting free will, not responsible for crime Insanity defense negates free will |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
mental disorder per se not enough
tests vary by state
jurors often don’t apply standard |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Defendants presumed sane & responsible for their
crime
Not responsible if…
1. The defendant was suffering from a “defect of
reason, from disease of the mind.”
2. As a result, the defendant did not “know” the
“nature and quality of the act he was doing.”
3. As a result, the defendant did not know that “what he was doing was wrong.”
Emphasizes cognitive elements of: Quality of person’s thought processes & perception of reality at the time of the crime |
|
|
Term
| Irresistible Impulse Standard |
|
Definition
M’Naghten criticized for narrow focus on
cognitive knowledge
Was supplemented, temporarily with
irresistible impulse exemption:
If defendant demonstrated cognitive knowledge
of right or wrong, could be NGRI if free will so
destroyed or overruled that person lost power to
chose between right or wrong
Also called volitional aspect of insanity |
|
|
Term
| Durham Rule (product test) |
|
Definition
1954-less restrictive
“an accused is not criminally responsible if
his unlawful act was the product of a mental disease or mental defect”
Focus more on mental disorder
wide discretion given to psychiatrists
mental illness broadly defined
Too vague & difficult to apply-discarded by most jurisdictions |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1972-U.S. v. Brawner
As a result of mental disease or defect…
lack substantial ability to appreciate wrongfulness of act
(cognitive prong)
lack substantial ability to conform conduct to requirement
of law (volitional prong)
Mental disease or defect: condition which substantially
a) Affects mental or emotional processes or
b) Impairs behavioral controls
psychopath and sociopath exception (without additional
disorder) |
|
|
Term
Insanity Defense Reform Act
(federal courts) |
|
Definition
Hinckley-AbPsy 99
following Hinckley verdict
more difficult for defendants using insanity defense
defendant bears burden of proving insanity (clear
and convincing)
volitional prong (lack of control) disappears
not guilty only by reason of insanity
ultimate issue testimony prohibited |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Defendants have right not to be medicated
during trial so jury can see defendant |
|
|
Term
| Changes related to Riggins V. Nevada |
|
Definition
Related changes
states followed lead, placing restrictions
shifts in burden of proof common
some abolished defense
research suggests incompetency increases
questionable for public safety
evidence of mental disorder still allowed |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Finger charged with one count of open murder
Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County (Nevada) denied
his request to enter a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity,
and appellant subsequently entered a plea of "guilty but
mentally ill" to a charge of second-degree murder
court convicted him on that charge and sentenced him to life
imprisonment
Appellant sought review
Appellant alleged that Nevada's abolishment of insanity as an
affirmative defense violated the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Nev.
Const. art. 1, §§ 6 and 8(5)
Supreme Court of Nevada held that the current statutory
scheme would permit an individual to be convicted of a
criminal offense under circumstances where the individual
lacked the mental capacity to form the applicable intent to
commit the crime, a necessary element of the offense
The legislative history led appellant to believe he would have
been prohibited from arguing legal insanity as defined by
M'Naghten; consequently his plea of "guilty, but mentally ill"
was not knowingly entered.
The court concluded that the statutory
scheme violated the due process clauses
of the United States and Nevada
Constitutions. In light of that conclusion,
it was unnecessary to address appellant's
arguments regarding cruel and unusual
punishment. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The defendant may, in the alternative or in addition to any
one of the pleas permitted by subsection 1, plead not guilty
by reason of insanity.
A defendant who has not so pleaded may offer the defense of
insanity during trial upon good cause shown. Under such a
plea or defense, the burden of proof is upon the defendant to
establish by a preponderance of the evidence that:
(a) Due to a disease or defect of the mind, he was in a delusional
state at the time of the alleged offense; and
(b) Due to the delusional state, he either did not:
(1) Know or understand the nature and capacity of his act; or
(2) Appreciate that his conduct was wrong, meaning not
authorized by law. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
allows conviction, suggests treatment
Purpose of plea: decrease number of NGRI
acquittals & assure treatment within
correctional setting
research: little effect on number of defenses
and acquittals
research: treatment in prison not guaranteed
concerns: will be released after minimum care few positive reviews of gbmi statutes |
|
|
Term
| Nevada Guilty but Mentally Ill |
|
Definition
A defendant who has entered a plea of guilty
but mentally ill has the burden of
establishing his mental illness by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Except as otherwise provided by specific
statute, a defendant who enters such a plea is
subject to the same criminal, civil and
administrative penalties and procedures as a defendant who pleads guilty. |
|
|
Term
| Difference between NGRI & GBMI |
|
Definition
NGRI is affirmative defense-if meets, would
be found not guilty
GBMI-is guilty verdict-doesn’t lessen
culpability |
|
|
Term
| Frequency of defense and acquittals |
|
Definition
estimate: raised in less than 1% of felonies
raised for non-violent and misdemeanor
offenses along with violent
nationwide data lacking
rates vary widely across jurisdictions
Callahan 8-state study: 25% acquittal rate more recent surveys, lower rates
~1/3 of murder cases use NGRI plea
impact of charges: threats, assaults, murder =
higher acquittal
diagnosis: most critical factor
psychoses, affective disorders, mental retardation =
high acquittal
personality disorders = low acquittal
Insanity acquittees do not tend to be more
dangerous or greater risk of recidivism than other defendants convicted of felony offenses |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
institutionalization with periodic review
typically must prove no longer mentally ill
and dangerous
typically not held shorter than prison; often longer |
|
|
Term
| Clinical assessment of sanity |
|
Definition
clinician must examine behavior at time of offense
Complex-examine behavior & how it related to
crime
Need to be a good detective
clinical interview must be modified
reports, contact with third persons needed
Records: police, mental health, legal, jail, hospital
Slobogin MSE: screening only
Shapiro: offered detailed outline for performing evaluations |
|
|
Term
| Three Objectives of Clinical assessment of sanity |
|
Definition
1. Assess nature & severity of any mental illness
or disability that defendant may have had at
time of alleged offense
2. Assess defendant’s thought processes &
emotional states before & during the act
3. Assess relationship between them |
|
|
Term
| Clinical assessment of sanity |
|
Definition
R-CRAS: dominant FAI in this context
emphasizes quantitative data
detects malingering
criticisms: not sufficiently qualitative
FAIs for sanity less well developed than for
competency
legal standard for competency more clearcut
more research funding for competency
FAIs for sanity not frequently used (Borum and Grisso) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Delusions at the time of the alleged crime.
(0) No information
(1) Absent
(2) Suspected delusions (e.g., supported only by questionable
self-report)
(3) Definite delusions, but not actually associated with the
commission of the alleged crime
(4) Definite delusions which contributed to, but were not the
predominant force in the commission of the alleged crime
(5) Definite controlling delusions, on the basis of which the
alleged crime was committed. |
|
|
Term
| Rule 704. Opinion on Ultimate Issue |
|
Definition
Prohibited in federal courts (& in some state courts)
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), testimony
in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise
admissible is not objectionable because it embraces
an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.
(b) No expert witness testifying with respect to
the mental state or condition of a defendant in
a criminal case may state an opinion or
inference as to whether the defendant did or
did not have the mental state or condition
constituting an element of the crime charged
or of a defense thereto. Such ultimate issues
are matters for the trier of fact alone.
Is a moral decision, not clinical one
Also, invade on job of judge or jury as fact finder |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Lacks mens rea
Prosecution has to prove mens rea
Could argue defendant did not have capacity
to form specific intent to kill another person
(e.g., think victim alien; if law requires intent
to kill person)
Could reduce type of offense |
|
|
Term
| How Do Juries Make Decisions? |
|
Definition
• Mathematical model: juries use a mental meter
that moves toward guilty or not guilty based
on weight of the evidence
• Story model: jurors create stories to make
sense of the evidence while hearing evidence
at trial, then pick the verdict that best matches their story |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
• Often contains evidence not admissible in trial
• People exposed to pretrial coverage more
likely to presume guilt & may misremember
details as being presented in court
• Judge’s instructions to disregard don’t help
• Postponing trial or changing venue may help |
|
|
Term
| Defendant Characteristics |
|
Definition
• Wealth, social status, gender don’t influence
verdicts in any simple way
• Moral character does seem to matter when
jurors compare it to the victim
• How much the defendant has suffered already
matters
• Civil trials: jurors more harsh with
corporations than individuals |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
• Cannot force jurors to forget what they heard
& may have opposite effect, may cause jurors
to give more weight to that statement
• Jurors tend to use the evidence if they think it
is fair to use it
• Impeachment evidence: jurors use evidence
meant to damage witness’s credibility more
broadly
– Can’t expect them to ignore past convictions |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
• If expert witness’s testimony is complex,
jurors look at witness’s credentials to
determine if persuasive, but not if testimony
simple
• Testimony that is clear, specific to issues &
somewhat repetitive more persuasive
• Some juries disregard….hired guns |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
• Strong jurors rare, majorities have more
power
• Leniency bias: in evenly split juries, final verdict more likely not guilty |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
• Orientation: elect foreperson, discuss
procedures, raise general issues
– Verdict-drive style: these juries take votes early &
then process results in jurors sorting evidence
into supporting conviction or acquittal
– Evidence-drive style: first vote postponed until
careful, systematic discussion of evidence; have richer discussions
• Phase two: Open Conflict
–Differences in opinion become apparent &
coalitions may arise
– Process of reaching decision persuasion
through:
• Informational influence: sway jurors with
compelling arguments
• Normative influence: don’t change views, but
change votes to give in to group pressure
• Phase Three: Reconciliation
– Attempts may be made to soothe hurt feelings &
make everyone feel satisfied with the verdict |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
• Size—12 by tradition
– six-person jury permissible
– six-person must be unanimous
– five-person jury too small
– NV: Juries must consist of 12 jurors, but at any
time before verdict, the parties may stipulate in
writing with the approval of the court that the
jury consist of any number less than 12 but not
less than six.
– Juries must consist of six jurors for the trial of a criminal action in a Justice Court. |
|
|
Term
| Advantages & disadvantages of small/large juries |
|
Definition
• Small allow more active participation, but
sometimes inhibit comments so not upset group
balance
• Large: more diversity of skills & knowledge, but
take longer to deliberate & more likely to hang
• Large: remember testimony, but small better at recalling arguments
• Large: more diverse cross section
• Large: more likely have person who resist majority |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
• typically, unanimity in criminal cases, particularly
felonies (44 states in felony, 26 in misdemeanor,
all in capital)
• unanimity less likely to be required in civil
cases18 states
• quorum juries (not require unanimous verdict)
– stop deliberating when reach required majority
– better argument recall
– better communication among members
• quorum juries: lose viable minority participation |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
• Power of a criminal trial jury to disregard the
evidence or judicial instructions because they
believe the law is wrong, nonsensical or
misapplied
• Commonsense justice or chaos?
– “to hell with both the law and rule of law”
– “it is what ordinary people think the law ought to be”
• Key issue: should jurors be told?
– Reminding them of the power makes them more likely to use |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
• Contain information about verdict
categories (manslaughter vs. seconddegree
murder) & standard of proof
• Pattern instructions: provided by Federal
Judicial Center-standard, uniform
instructions applied across jurisdictions |
|
|
