2. CJ202: Problems of the Criminal Judiciary The Institution of the Jury Valerie P. Hans

3. Jury Under Attack Competence criticized Fairness doubted Representativeness questioned

4. The Question: Abolish or reform?

5. What Does Jury Research Say? Jury is generally competent as a factfinder. Jury reflects biases of the community. Jury representativeness and group decision making provide factfinding strength. Jury has difficulty with certain evidence and legal instructions. Jury reforms can improve some of the weaknesses of jury decision making.

6. The Beginning of Scientific Study of the Jury a 1950s Ford Foundation grant to University of Chicago Law School Harry Kalven, Jr. and Hans Zeisel, jury research pioneers combined multiple methods to study the institution of the jury stimulated experimental and other research on the jury

7. Methods of Jury Research archival studies of jury case outcomes judge-jury agreement studies post-trial interviews with jurors field experiments

8. More Methods of Jury Research laboratory simulation experiments taping jury deliberations (actual or simulated) basic research in psychology and sociology

9. Findings from Jury Research

10. How Jurors Decide: Three Models

11. Traditional “Legal” Model jurors are passive jurors are blank slates jurors wait until the end of the trial to form opinions about the case

12. Meter Reader Model jurors assess the weight and value of each piece of evidence the pieces of evidence are independent jurors average together the evidence to form a final judgment somewhat compatible with the legal model

13. Story Model jurors actively process information and evidence as they hear it jurors shape evidence together in the form of a “story” story influenced by jurors’ preconceptions and world knowledge gaps and inconsistencies are “filled in” in line with the overall story incompatible with the legal model

14. Story Model and the Jury Jurors are influenced by pretrial attitudes and information. Jurors are active decision makers. Jurors do not wait until the end of the trial to form opinions. Jurors make inferences about missing evidence.

15. Story Model and Jury Reform: Implications need assessment of preexisting views may be difficult to remove the impact of a piece of evidence trial procedures could recognize or encourage jurors’ active role may be reasonable to introduce legal instructions earlier may be reasonable to discuss evidence as trial progresses

16. Jury Competence

17. Kalven and Zeisel Study

19. Vulnerabilities in Juror and Jury Comprehension scientific, technical, and statistical evidence expert evidence judicial legal instructions

20. Implications for Jury Reform general competence is sound, but jurors need help in some areas encourage active learning approach allow notetaking, question asking allow contemporaneous interaction among jurors

21. Additional Implications for Jury Reform provide multiple sources of information –written copies of evidence, summaries –oral testimony –taped testimony –jury notebooks with backup material

22. Judicial Instructions: The Jury’s Achilles Heel? Legal instructions may be complex and confusing Legal instructions may ask jurors to disregard common sense! Written in “legalese” Presented orally in court

23. Improving Juror Understanding of Legal Instructions rewrite according to psycholinguistic principles –consider organization –use short, simple sentences –avoid negatives –use active rather than passive voice –avoid legal jargon and uncommon words

24. Improving Juror Understanding of Legal Instructions pre-instruction give jurors written copies of instructions Repeat! Repeat! Repeat!

25. Research on the Role of Juror Attitudes and Prejudice story model suggests pervasive impact of attitudes pretrial publicity studies demonstrate that pretrial information can affect jurors’ character judgments, information processing it’s difficult for jurors to assess whether or not they are influenced by specific factors

26. Twelve Heads Are Better Than One group decision making allows pooling of knowledge, memories –Hastie study: 90% of facts recalled by at least one member; 80% of judicial instructions recalled by at least one member –Discussions about complex evidence often led by most able jurors –Diverse jury could reduce expression of prejudice.

27. Error Correction during Jury Deliberation Jurors test their construals of evidence against one another’s. Error correction on facts is common. Error correction on law is infrequent.

28. Strength of Deliberation: Implications for Jury Reform Promote heterogeneity of the jury. Use larger rather than smaller juries. Keep the unanimity requirement.

29. Jury Research Conclusion: Reform don’t Abolish! The jury is a generally sound decision maker. Most vulnerabilities could be corrected through targeted reforms. Test the impact of reforms.