Документ взят из кэша поисковой машины. Адрес оригинального документа : http://www.psy.msu.ru/science/lectures/hans/hans_psychology_and_law.pdf Дата изменения: Sat Nov 5 20:12:39 2011 Дата индексирования: Tue Oct 2 06:45:43 2012 Кодировка:

Psychology, Law, and the Jury: Jurors' Characteristics and Jury Decision Making
Professor Valerie Hans, Cornell Law School and Paul Klebnikov Rule of Law Fellow 2011 Open Lecture, Psychology Department, Moscow State University Moscow, Russia October 28, 2011
1


Legal Debates, Law Practice, and Psychological Research on the Jury
n Traditionally, in the United States, judges, legislators,

and lawyers relied on their own intuitions about juries ­ whether it was in deciding a legal issue in a jury trial, fashioning laws related to juries, or developing litigation strategy. n Systematic research on juries began in the 1950s, picking up speed in the 1970s and 1980s and beyond.
n

Both the ps ychology-law field and the jury consulting field expanded dramatically. Both focused on the study of jury decision making.


The Field of Psychology and Law in the USA
n Stimulated by the social movements of the

1960s and 1970s
n n

n

n

Civil rights, racial justice, women's movement Focus on law and legal remedies as methods for improving equality of treatment of women and minorities Students and professors of psychology were increasingly attracted to using the theories and methods of psychology to achieve social justice It was an optimistic time!

3


The Jury Was an Early Focus of Psychology and Law Researchers
n Political trials of the 1960s and 1970s

(particularly from anti-Vietnam war protesters who were arrested) gave rise to the use of systematic methods of jury selection
n

n

Jay Schulman was the first to use survey research results to try to help the defense in the anti-war protest trial of the Berrigan brothers He founded the Jury Project, which did pretrial research to help in criminal defense and civil plaintiffs' work
4


Jury Consulting Field Has Been Transformed

"Trials are too important to be left to juries."
Jury consultant Rankin Fitch (played by Gene Hackman), in The Runaway Jury


Other psychology and law researchers were interested in justice motives.
n Melvin Lerner studied psychological

responses to victims of crime. n The social psychologists David Landy and Elliott Aronson conducted one of the first mock juror experiments in 1969: "The influence of the character of the criminal and his victim on the decisions of simulated jurors"
n n

Designed to test basic psychological theory of attraction But they claimed some relevance to actual jury decisions ­ and excited others to do the same!

6


The result: Bookshelves of jury research!


50 years of research on the American jury
n Research has examined individual juror psychology and

the group behavior and verdicts of juries using multiple approaches.
n n n n n

Observations of jury trials Post-trial interviews with jurors Analysis of jury verdicts Mock jury experiments Questionnaires given to judges, attorneys, jurors, and the public
8


What Jury Research Has Discovered about the American Jury
n In the USA, judges agree with most jury

verdicts. n When they disagree, it is for understandable reasons. n The jury experience has positive effects on the jurors.

9


What We Know from Judge-Jury Agreement Studies
n One of the earliest forms of empirical jury

research in the US n Researchers ask judges who preside over actual jury trials to provide their views of the evidence and the verdict they would have reached had they been deciding the case on the bench n Researchers then compare the two decisions n Comparisons of jury verdicts and judge decisions show distinctive contribution of jury
10


Judge-Jury Agreement, Chicago Jury Project Study (USA,1950s)

11


Judge-Jury Agreement, National Center for State Courts Project (USA, 2000-01)

12


Chicago Jury Project Study (USA, 1950s)
Jury: Not Guilty Judge: Not Guilty Judge: Guilty Jury: Guilty

14% 19%

3% 64%

13


National Center for State Courts (USA, 2000-2001)
Jury: Not Guilty Judge: Not Guilty Judge: Guilty Jury: Guilty

13% 19%

6% 62%

14


15


What Jury Research Has Discovered about Disagreement between Judge and Jury
n Judges are more likely to convict on evidence juries

see as weak. n Jurors have a broader view of "beyond a reasonable doubt." n Jurors reflect community judgments of fairness and justice. n Disagreement is not due to case complexity.

16


Psychological Effects of Jury Service

Photo from News-Herald, showing US jury selection

17


Effects of jury service on attitudes toward the jury system & the courts
n American jurors are more positive about the

courts and the jury system after their jury service.
n

n n

National survey of more than 8,000 US jurors found 63% were more favorable about the jury system after serving. US citizens who serve as jurors are more likely to see the courts as fair and just. Similar positive reactions in Japan, Korea following the introduction of lay judge/jury systems in those countries

18


Jury Service and Democratic Participation
n The Jury and Democracy Project:
n

n

Studied jury service and voting records of more than 13,000 American jurors in different cities. Found that people who were infrequent voters and deliberated on a criminal jury were more likely to vote in the next election.

19


Conclusion of Overview of Psychology and Law Research on the US Jury
n Psychology and law research and theory

have contributed to understanding the American jury system. n In general, despite some limitations, the research shows the strength of the jury as decision makers. n Psychology and law research on other jury systems like Russia's could contribute a lot to the understanding of the promises and limits of the jury system.
20


Jurors' Characteristics and Jury Decision Making
21


My Research Question: Who Participates in US Jury Deliberations?
Two elements of participation n Who is selected to serve on the jury?
n n n

Citizens drawn from a representative crosssection of the qualified community Must be fair and impartial (judge decides) Must survive attorney peremptory challenges Who expresses views, perspectives, arguments; who exerts influence?

n Who joins in the discussion?
n


Full Participation is Related to Hypothesized Benefits of Trial by Jury
n Decision making by a representative cross-section of the

community will promote fact finding and legitimacy. n Because they are drawn from a wide range of people from the community, juries can incorporate community notions of justice and fairness into legal judgments. n Juries whose members hold diverse views and perspectives will engage in robust and vigorous fact finding. n Juries offer some protection against biased prosecutors and judges. n Jury decisions are more acceptable to the public. n Jury service is an exercise in deliberative democracy that promotes other forms of civic engagement such as voting.


My Project with Erin Cornwell (Law & Society Review 2011)
n Uses the post-trial questionnaire approach

to explore the nature of participation on juries, and in particular, whether the ideal of a fully participatory jury is realized in practice. n Empirical Questions n Does jury participation differ according to jurors' gender, race, or social class? n Do case and/or jury characteristics affect the relationship between jurors' social status and their participation?


The Ideal: Fully Participatory Juries Will Best Fulfill Purposes of Jury Trial
n High average levels of participation
n n n

Evidence-driven deliberation Ю more efficient and accurate fact-finding Increases civic engagement (voting and other forms of community involvement) Increases support for and confidence in the jury s ystem

n Equality across gender, race, and class
n n n n

Achieve goals of jury representativeness Exchange greater amount and breadth of information Counterbalance of biases Equalize power/resources across jurors

n Unanimity requirement, juror orientation and judicial instructions all

encourage full participation.


The Reality: Participation may differ across social groups
n Extensive body of psychological & sociological research

on groups finds social status differences in participation. n Early mock jury research also found social status differences.
n n n

3 jurors = about 80% of total speaking acts Men jurors spoke more than women jurors Upper-class jurors spoke more than lower-class jurors.

n More recently, mock jury studies have found... n That men continue to talk more than women. n Race and ethnicity effects have been difficult to explore because many mock juries are not racially diverse.


US National Center for State Courts Jury Study
n Collected data from felony jury trials in 2000-

2001 in four US locations
n

Bronx, New York; Los Angeles, California, Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona, and W ashington, D.C.

n 80% response rate (jurors) n Data include:
n n n

Post-verdict juror questionnaires Judge and attorney questionnaires Case data forms

n N = 2,306 jurors (on 311 criminal cases)


Juror Characteristics We Examined
n Individual characteristics
n n n n n

Age Gender Race/Ethnicity Education Foreperson
n n

Appointed (Bronx) Elected (DC, LA, Maricopa)

n Size of faction (number of total jurors supporting

the individual juror's first ballot vote)


Jury Characteristics We Examined
n Location n Case characteristics n Case type n Case complexity (judge's rating) n Jury characteristics n Timing of first vote n Gender diversity n Racial diversity


Statistical Analysis (Multi-level Regression)
n Dependent measure: self-reported participation in the

jury deliberation (1= not at all; 7 = a great deal)
n Multilevel regression analysis allowed us to observe

variations in jury participation according to juror characteristics AND jury-level factors.
n We were able to take into account the nesting of

jurors within juries.
n We could also test cross-level interactions.


Impact of Individual Juror Characteristics on Juror Participation

31


Impact of Case and Jury Characteristics on Juror Participation
n Jury composition/diversity ­ not significantly

related to overall participation
n n n

Proportion of female jurors Proportion of minority jurors Racial/ethnic range

n Case complexity a significant factor -- increases

overall participation overall participation

n Faction size ­ a significant factor related to


Participation by Juror Race/Ethnicity and Faction Size
6.5 6.3 6.1 Black Hispanic White

Pr e dict e d Par t icipat ion

5.9 5.7 5.5 5.3 5.1 4.9 4.7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
33

Jur or 's Fact ion Size


Have We Studied the Wrong Thing?
n Have we studied the wrong thing?
n

n

What is relationship between self-reported participation and actual participation? (decent, we think, from the few jury studies that have examined both) What is self-reported participation also linked to? (self-reported influence; reports by other jurors of influence, friendliness of jury, and conflict on the jury)


Conclusion
n Limitations of our analysis n Employed self-reported participation n Unable to address other contextual factors (e.g., defendant race; jury unanimity and size) n Used racially and ethnically diverse urban jurisdictions n Implications for jury research and jury trial practice n Importance of considering contextual factors in further research on jury deliberations n Unanimity requirement may minimize status differences ­ an issue I am now exploring with some other data sets of juries that are only required to reach majority decisions.