Evidence and Juries

Nota:

• Judicium parium-a guarantee to the right trial by one's peers- difficult to term what one peers means
• 18-70 year olds - not to be in disqualified categories: e.g mental health
• Random Selection from electoral role may not be fair-  young and poor less likely to appear on electoral role

1. "50% summoned for jury duty fail to attend"
2. Marshall (1975) jury is not necessary impartial

   Nota:

   • Jurly characterstics influence how jurors respone to cases
   • Gender difference in cases involving rape, child abuse and sexual harrassment Jurors with positive attitudes about death sentences most likely convict -race ages and previous jury duties Individual differences play a role
3. Jury Influence

   Nota:

   • pre-trial publicity, indamissble evidence, retracked confessions These variables influcence jurors even if the judge says ignore it
   • Defendant attractiveness, socio-economic status- extra-evidental factor is more likely if cases are weak >if these extra-factoral influences are strong can the jurors be seen as reliable? Juries are influenced by eyewitiness testimony found to underestimate reliabilty of eyewitness testimoney

Nota:

• USA- voir dire process -UK challenges aboloshied though criminal act 1988_so hardly ever happens
• Juries have probles understanding defining legal definition, Juror share poor recall of trial information Recall gets worse when complexity of evidence increasing helps if they have clear logical story line "storytelling"

Nota:

• most effective witness of trial is the beginning and end of trial-important feature- central action to which characterstics, objects, and events clearly connect
• Good stories have phsycial and psychological conditions and goals- events and situation are revaled to help listner make sense of strong -,make sense there is credibilty but only makes sens to listeners social understanding-personal experiences as evidence

1. Examination in Chief

   Nota:

   • -must present witness consistent with story order- reveal event- glean all information from them examination simple and logical ask open ended questions if confusion; ask witness to clarity so do not lose thread of story exhibit emphasis points made by witnesses
   1. Cross examination

      Nota:

      • Cast doubt on other side's witness's be kind to others side witnesses questions should have purpose- ask in spirit of enquiry not hostility. Not looking for witness assistance questions should be short Ask best questions first and last- jurors likely to remember ''primacy and recency"

Nota:

• chronological oder of evidence-reinforce story McCoullgh (1994) exository approach- compares two opposing views on same issues - also gives jurors who blieve your story line an arguement during deliberation

Nota:

• Jurors may have already decaled before deliberation -Jurors are interessted in consensus not accuracy : evidence type jury  deliberated (if there is reasonable doubt)  :verdict driven  jury - condcut first ballot before deliberation Whether either type depends on criteria

Nota:

• Kalven and Ziesal (1966) Knowing judges preferred verdict improved prediction of juries decision by only 27% Juries seem to be more inclined to acquite than judges. McCane and Purves (1974) shadow jury technique - Juries do not seem to be reliable. Black victims more likely to be victimes of perverse convictions

1. Empathy

   Nota:

   • a multidimensial construct having both affective and cognitive components  Trait empathy and State empathy Trait empathy- fairly stable individual differences in people's general ability to emphasize with others State empathy-is empathy that has been temporarily prompted or elicited by a stimulus in the social environment (through perspective taking or actively engagin in role-playing behaviour)
   1. Trait
   2. State
   3. Situationally induced empathy "child abuse"
   4. Gender inlfuence empathy

      Nota:

      • -Women more empathetic then men in child abuse case? More empathetic more liniency? "Many men find child abuse less serious crime than women" "Men find child abuse victims less credibe and and they are less likely  to convict defendents accused of child sexual abuse"
   5. Discussion/Results
      1. Empathy and Juror

         Nota:

         • Jurors's case related judgment are affected when an attorney asks them to identify affectively and cognitively  with a defendtant. Jurors in control condition, jurors in empathy condition had more empathy for the defendant, were more lenient in their guilt judgemens, considered the defendent to be less responsible for the killing and were more lilkely to think abuse was a mitigating factor in the trial 
         • empathy for another involves understanding what it would be like to be in the other place, which may lead to feelings of similiarity with the other person Empathy did not effect jurors perceptions of defendents credibilty nor beliefs that the alleged abuse occurred. Jurors can feel epathic and less punitive toward a defendant without necessarily believing the defendant more or less
      2. Women are more lenient in their verdics and consdered the defendant more cridible and less responsible for the murder

         Nota:

         • more pro-abuse victim tteh men when abuse victimed is accused women appear to be more likely than men to believe that chronic abuse (either against children or against romantic partners)