Trial Day 1: Preliminary Hearing and Jury Selection
Reflect on your experience (whether you were a direct participant or not). Then, tie what you saw/experienced in to psychology and law. It is fine to have an initial paragraph just remarking on what you thought about the experience (weird, wow, boring, whatever). But the remainder of your blog post should be more formal.
I am a jury member in the case and was confused why we had to sit in the hallway for so long then remember they had preliminary hearing stuff to deal with, and then came jury selection, I guess I forgot we were actually doing jury selection, even though no one was “let go.” The prosecution and the defense got to ask the jury a selection of questions they wanted to elaborate on some of our answers, since this a mock trial I know it’s not all professional but as much as it can be, but I found some of answers to be the same or not very in depth with what they were asking. I feel like I may have answered a question wrong based on what I put on my juror questionnaire, but they didn’t say sister-in-law so I just figured it didn’t pertain to me, also I thought they would ask us more about murder cases than domestic abuse, that really had nothing to do with the case at all. I did find the experience to be boring, because we didn’t really do much, but sit, answer questions, and be excused. I am excited for the real trial to start and be able to listen, look at the evidence, and hopefully have an interesting deliberation with the other jurors. There really isn’t much that was seen today, it went quick, and there isn’t much I can tie into psychology and law. We just went through the normal court proceedings, the jury had to wait outside during preliminary hearings, which would have been fun to be able to see just to know what they were doing, we were brought in for jury selection, which took about 15 minutes max, and we left.
I think being the preliminary hearing I expected it to last for a short time which it did.I am the court assistant and was curious to know what my role would be practically.Being the court assistant i had to announce the arrival of the judge and call the jury inside the courtroom.The first day gave me an idea about what the next trial days would be like and an introduction to how my duties are going to be in the future.
The proceedings started after i being the court assistant announced the judge's arrival.After the judge's arrival there were certain motions submitted b y the defense and the prosecution.The jury was called next and the members of the jury were asked certain questions from the members of the jury.The questions ranged from being personal to each member to being more general one's.
The last significant event was the motion submitted by the media for being allowed to use video camera's inside the courtroom.In conclusion i would like to say that it was very interesting and a new experience for me to watch this trial and be a part of it and i am looking forward to the following trial days.
I think the first day went pretty well. I felt a alittle bit confused about things at first, i wish we would have went through what to say and when to say it before the preliminary hearing because I wasnt really sure what i was supposed to say. But i do think it felt formal. Having it in that room was really nice, it gave the "court room" appeal which is really great because it can help people feel comfortable in their roles, it really made it feel "real". I think questioning the jurors was probably pretty boring because they werent very open or elaborative in answering the questions, which made me feel dumb for even asking them. However, i think the jury questionaires they filled out prior to the preliminary hearings provided us with alot of information, so i didnt feel we really needed to ask many more questions. I did like the jury selection, however, because it allowed us to attach a personality to the jurors. How the jurors answered the question helped us decide who we wanted to let go. I think psychology came into play here because the personality of the jurors can have an impact on how everyone votes. For example, if there are 3 passive people, who really think the suspect is innocent, but the majority (and more active and agressive) jurors agree the suspect is innocent i think it will be easy for them to change the minds of the passive jurors. I think that psychology will definitely play a much bigger role in the trial once we get to questioning the people we call to the stand. I think this will make the trial really exciting. Hopefully, as one of the attorneys, i can use what i have learned from this class to prove my side of the case to the jurors. As an attorney i need to use the emotions of the person on the stand to convey the information i want the jurors to know. Cognitive psychology is going to play a major role in the trial because many of the people called to testify will need to rely on their memory from a few months ago to provide the information they are questioned about. Emotion and stress will also play a big part in this trial. I believe that most people will be nervous, and im sure the supsect will be. In real life situations, court can be a very stressful time for everyone. Both sides are trying to win their case and it can be difficult with intelligent and sneaky lawyers on the opposite side! Overall, i think in the next days of the trial we will see evident alot more psychological aspects of the trial! :)
As a juror member, I was incredibly bored for the first half an hour sitting out in the hall (I was really kicking myself for not bringing my laptop so I could work on my other assignments) which I guess would be quite similar to the real jury selection.
Once we got inside for voir dire, I was quite surprised at the questions that were asked. I didn't feel as though they all would really help either side determine who to eliminate. If anything, I don't think they probably asked enough question. For instance, I felt that both attorneys would have wanted the potential juror members who have close families members that have criminal records to elaborate on how they might feel about it. Perhaps, those juror members may be more sympathetic towards the defense because of this connection.
After reviewing Chapter 6 in our text about jury selection, I do see why some of the questions were asked. For example, the question about whether people get in life what they deserve is geared at determining what the potential juror's locus of control is. This would be important because it would help the defense attorney to assess whether the potential juror would be more inclined to blame the person for committing the acts (thus favoring the prosecution's side), or be more willing to consider the circumstances surrounding the crime as mitigating factors (thus favoring the defense's side).
What never ceases to amaze me though, is a point that was brought up in Chapter 6 of our text. The ideology of a jury is to have a panel of people who are supposed to unbiased so that they may effectively evaluate the evidence presented to determine a verdict. However, the whole process of voir dire has kind of moved itself away from this ideology by giving attorneys an opportunity to attempt to stack the jury in their favor through the types of questions they ask. Don't get me wrong, I understand the need for the voir dire process as a way to determine if a person may be too biased to serve on the jury (because they have prior knowledge to the case, know the people involved with the case, etc). I just think that attorneys (whether right or wrong) are taking advantage of this knowledge to stack the jury with people who are "sympathetic" to their side (which I think is just another way to say biased).
Mock Trial is way fun! I am a jury member and I was super confused on why we waited out in the hallway while court appeared to be happening. It was super boring waiting outside but Rob made a funny remark of saying this has to be how real jury duty feels like. I was surprised also that jury selection was in front of everyone, i thought it would be more private. I did however, realize that I was slightly nervous while being asked questions and I could only imagine how real jurors feel. Other than that, I thought the attorneys did a super good job. They were prepared, well dressed, and treated the mock trial as if it was a real one. Just being in that room made everyone act more maturely i think so it is interesting to wonder how normal everyday civilians react to being in such a formal setting. I can't wait for more trial days and to actually begin hearing statements and seeing the evidence!!
Today was day one of the trial. I am a juror in the mock trial. I have to say it was pretty boring over all. We first had to wait outside for a good 20 minutes to maybe even a half an hour before we could even go in. I still remember another juror saying “I have a feeling this is what actual juror duty is”. Because we all sat around, no one knowing each other too well, and were bored with not a lot to do. Finally once we were asked to come in we all sat in a line of chairs in the front. I never realized that it is kind of nerve racking in a way because you are in the front of the room and everyone else in the place is looking at you. The prosecutors and defendants then asked us questions. I did not realize that the questions are asked in front of everyone in the court room, and everyone hears your answers. I was the first person called to ask questions so I was a little nervous just because I didn’t know what to expect. The questions were not hard though, they were the same questions we had answered on our questionnaire from earlier. After that the 2 sides then got to “pick their jurors”. Which in our case since it is a mock trial no one was thrown out and everyone is on the jury. After that the jury and everyone else was dismissed. Day one of the trial was over.
Since it was just day one of the trial and the only thing that happened was the jury selection there is not a ton that can be tied into psychology and law. The way the jury had to wait outside until everyone in the court room was ready was realistic, as well as where we sat. The judge pretty much ran the whole thing which is related to psychology and law. We were all asked questions by the attorneys which is also related to psychology and law. Everyone just noted above was all basic but real stuff that does happen in the court room. I am sure with the next few trials days it will be more interesting and more stuff will happen rather then most of us just being pretty bored. It should be fun listening to what the crime was, the suspects and all the evidence since us as trial members really don't know much about the crime or anyting at all. At least I don't.
For day #1, it went pretty much how i imagined it would. I watch a lot of live court on T.V. and have always gotten into the antics of the whole ordeal and probably a good reason why I am attending law school in a little over a year. I have never really thought of things on the jurors end of things before this class and look forward to getting their point of view. The day began by all of us jurors having to wait out in the lobby, which resembles the real life scenario in which we must wait to be called. We entered the "The Great Reading Room" by the way props to Professor MacLin for letting this take place in an atmosphere that somewhat resembles "the big stage." I loved the idea that it was a massive room and had the feel for a mock trial. Continuing on, us jurors took our seats and the attorney's (both state and defense) were given the floor to ask us questions pertaining to our forms we had filled out. I got called out by the Prosecution on questions about my take on domestic abuse and whether or not i trusted the Criminal Justice System. The defense then took the floor as their attorney had each one of us answer short questions. Although their was one thing that I caught that i may have done differently. He asked the question similarly to "Have you ever personally had an experience with a brother or sister and domestic violence?" The first few people said short answered responses being "No" where the lady before me quoted "If it is restricted to my brother or sister, then No." and she handed the mic to me. I took the question to be one to find out whether or not their was any bias against domestic abuse among the jury members and given the response by one of the jury members I would guess that an attorney would want to have the member elaborate on the answer they gave. Even though it didn't necessarily relate to the question she obviously still had some tie's to the topic and whether or not it related to a sibling it would still have an effect on her stance towards it. I am not criticizing by no means, just something i caught on to. I also noticed the defense attorney used a question to the jury that was to "tell us something interesting about yourself?" I saw the logic in the question in that attorney's really don't care they use it as a mere comforting tactic to make the jury feel as though they care. Kudos for the defense for using that strategy. The prosecution team seemed to be very organized and knew what questions they wanted to ask without hesitation.
Granted this was the first day and only jury selection it was a good experience and I am excited to see how things play out and how the defense and prosecution present their case, it should be a good one. The experience as a jury member seems as though it will be an interesting one, but ultimately I would love to be playing the attorney role, but i look forward to sitting back and watching how they take their roles and what they can come up with. It was a successful first day. Note: The judge sounded like he knew what he was doing, which gives the whole process a good sense of reality!
The trial started off kind of bumpy, but as time progressed, the attorney’s got a handle on what was supposed to happen. I think they did a good job overall, considering the fact that none of us are actually trained in the occupation we are portraying. The beginning was boring for me, just sitting and watching everyone talk about what they are going to use and who they are going to interview.
Once the jury was called in, I figured it would get more interesting, but it was fairly bland. The prosecuting attorney’s didn’t really go about things the way I thought they would. They were very blunt with their questions and brief. They didn’t go through each person individually. Maybe their questionnaires were good enough that they only had a few questions for some people to elaborate about. Nonetheless, it was fairly confusing for me sitting in the gallery. I think the question about the prosecuting attorney’s being arrogant was not a very helpful question in their case. If I were a jury member, I would think they were arrogant by just asking that; that question left me with a “bad taste in my mouth” feeling. It didn’t seem like their questions would truly eliminate some people from the jury.
On the other hand, the defense shocked me as well. They played the “I want to be your pal” card. Defense Attorney Kolton played a nice card by having each of them say their name before answering a question, for the attorney’s to “get to know them”. His questions were fairly relevant to the case and he did a nice job at playing it cool when delivering the questions. Defense Attorney Lovett also played a nice card by closing with each of the jury members stating something interesting about themselves. The defense used the good guy strategy we learned about previously in this class. They began the questioning in a pleasing manner and ended questioning in a pleasing manner. Some questions, like the last one, may not have been completely relevant to the case, but it built a trust and liking towards the defense.
As one of my classmates suggested, and I also think is, a great question to ask would be ‘if you truly believe that this person was innocent, would you conform to a majority vote of guilty? Or vice versa?’ I’m sure everyone would answer with “I would definitely stand behind MY decision.” This question wouldn’t be for the fact of answering it; the jury would remember how they answered that question and maybe they would stick behind their verdict more, and not be so easily swayed to other jury members opinions on the verdict. This would play on each jury member’s cognitive dissonance. They wouldn’t want to contradict themselves at the end of the trial.
Overall, the prosecuting side just didn’t seem to stand up to the likability of the defense. If I were a jury member, I would be more lenient to the defense side merely off of how likable and approachable they seemed. The defense prepared and executed their questions and statements eloquently.
I am looking forward to the trial days to come. I suspect they will interesting and heated with questioning.
I was a jury member, and like the rest of the jurors I was completely bored out of my mind for the first half hour of the mock trial while we waited out in the hallway waiting to be called into the room. I kind of wish I got to witness the process of what went on in the room before we came in. Once we were called in and took our seats I had no idea I would be nervous, but I was. When the attorneys asked questions to each member of the jury I think we probably should have elaborated a little bit more, and I'm sure that is probably what the attorneys would have wanted, but that is easier said than done. I wanted to elaborate on some of the questions, but every time my mind went completely blank, and I ended up just responding with one word answers. After it was over with I kept thinking that I should have said this or I should have said that, instead of just simply yes or no. But like I mentioned earlier it was hard to think of exactly what I wanted to say at that particular moment. I am really interested to see what the rest of the trial will be like. The first day of the trial sort of related to what we read about in chapter 6 of C&K regarding jury selection, although everyone gets to stay on the jury. When the attorneys were asking the jurors questions, this related to how attorneys use different stereotypes when selecting jury members that will work more in their favor. I also think social psychology can be related to the jury selection process since attorneys use typical stereotypes of the individual jury members to try to predict how they would think about the case, and ultimately what verdict they would most likely come up with. Since the only part of the trial I was allowed in the room for was jury selection that is pretty much it for what aspects of psychology I think would relate to the first day of trial.
I am an expert witness and really had no part in Trial Day 1. I really had no idea what to expect but thought that it would be a little more exciting. I was especially bored when the attorneys spent all of that time with the judge and we coud not hear what was going on. I am a very curious person and like to just know what is going on. I guess that is not how real court goes and do enjoy how seriously this is being taken. I thought it was interesting the questions the attorneys asked of the jury members and got a little "emotionally involved" I guess. When one of the jurors said they did not think that handwriting analysis was very reliable, I got a little upset because that is my part in the trial. The defense attorney did a good job it sort of "getting in good" with the jury members as well. I thought that they did an especially good job of asking the right questions, since all jury members had to be selected, it was a good tactic to seem interested in their lives.
I did not feel that there were many aspects of psychology and law applied today, just the jury selection; but since they were all going to be picked regardless, there was not much application of what we have learned thus far in the class.
I was not a part of the court proceedings but from an outside observer it seemed to go alright. I didn’t think it would last very long which I was right about. It looked like playing the part of an attorney or the judge was not too easy. I am glad I didn’t choose one of those jobs because I do not think I would have been very good under the pressure in front of everyone. Saying that, the lawyers and judges had sort of a rough start, but I think anyone would have. Once they got a hold of it, it went smoothly and started to seem more and more like a real court room. They inquired about the motions they wanted to be made and the judge said he would mull it over and come with a decision the next day. Even worse than that, the job of a juror would have been terrible. I used to want to get called for jury duty because I thought it would be interesting. After actually witnessing how boring being a juror would be, I have changed my mind about thinking jury duty would be interesting.
I did find the process to be slightly boring, but I didn’t really expect anything different. This isn’t Law and Order and it isn’t going to be highly dramatic during the preliminary hearings. I am looking forward to the actual trial, however. I think it will be exciting to see all of the evidence presented and I will be able to determine what I think about the crime based on how the evidence is presented. I have seen a lot of the evidence so I am already familiar with it. It will be cool to see how the lawyers portray the evidence compared to how I saw it originally. I also haven’t been exposed to all of the evidence so I am also looking forward to seeing what I haven’t seen yet.
I also think the lawyers did a good job during jury selection. I felt like the defense attempted to make a connection to the jury which was good. They asked them to tell the court something interesting and also tried to put a name to the face. This could make the defense seem more personable to the jury which can help in the long run.
I am a character witness in the mock trial. So for the first day I just sat back and listened. It was quite boring since I had no involvement. It will be more interesting from here on out I believe though. I felt bad for the jurors having to wait so long but I guess that is realistic. Not too mention it was probably not so hot out in the hallway, lucky people.
Once the jurors entered it became a little more interesting. Glad everything has been kept formal so far. But I am getting nervous for my part. I was also a little taken back by the "breaking news" media release. I am just trying to piece together this trial. Keeps me on my toes, that's for sure. I am definitely getting this feeling of boredom from waiting around, which again is realistic. Just makes me hope I never have to be involved in a real trial.
So far, I do not feel I can blog about any related topics of the legal system and psychology yet. We just have gotten into the case enough yet. I do feel we are getting a feeling of authority from the judge though, he is doing a good job! I also noticed the attorneys trying to gain trust from the jurors which is very good. They need to be viewed as reliable and trustworthy. I am excited for day two!!!!
The first day or trial was rather boring like what a lot of other people said. I was on the jury so I had to wait outside for about half an hour waiting for everybody to get organized and go through pre-trial things. Waiting for a trial to begin is probably a lot like what we as the jury experienced on Tuesday, a lot of waiting around not sure when we will be called in. So in the future if I am ever called in for jury duty I will be prepared and bring lots of stuff to keep me busy. Once we got called in it felt more like a real trial, there were audience members, the judge, attorneys and the suspect. I thought that the jury would be asked more questions than we were and the ones we were asked were kind of vague and didn’t really see what the point of some of them were. I think that maybe even the questionnaire was kind of general in some parts but then really specific and personal in others. I though at least everybody would have like one question asked specifically to them, but I’m sure in a real trial there would be more emphasis put on this jury selection because it could really impact the way the trial turns out. But like everybody knows this is just a mock trial and everybody needs to play a part so none of the jury members were actually taken off because of their beliefs, how they answered questions or how they might impact the verdict in the end.
When I was going back over some of our lecture notes and flipping through our book there are definitely going to be a lot of elements of psychology in play. For me as part of the jury there is going to be a lot of cognitive psychology and motivation and emotion. I think as us as the jury we are going to have our first impressions of the evidence that is presented and the story told by each side. If I have a negative first impression of either the prosecution or defense it might alter my perception of whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. Also how jury members connect with the defendant, if we had past experiences that were similar to the ones brought up in trial or even with someone or who reminded us of anybody involved in the court proceedings we might be biased in our perception of them and how we see them throughout the trial. Also elements of social psychology on both the jury and attorneys’’ points of view because there are stereotypes that some people hold from their previous social interactions that may be a factor with selecting jury members or liking one attorney over the other.
I will start off by saying I was SUPER nervous and I know I could have been a lot more personable, but I didn't want to look like I didn't know what I was doing so I was very focused on that. However, after already speaking in front of the group I feel like it will be better once the actual trial starts. Part of the problem too was I was confused at exactly how a pretrial hearing went. I didn't know how things started off, so the beginning and the first day was shakey but the trial should be much better! Maquel and I didn't have many questions for the jurors because we had already spent a night looking over their questionnaires and felt that we got really good answers from them. We had an idea of who we wanted to exclude, but had a few clarifying questions for those we thought could go either way. We also asked on the questionnaires what people thought about murder, whether they would follow the crowd on a decision, etc. in order to get a basic idea of that beforehand. That being said, we could have been more personable like the defense was, but, like I said before I was very nervous and completely forgot about it! With the preliminary hearing, it was confusing at first, but once we got into the swing of things, it was interesting to see what motions the defense used. I didn't understand the phone records one as it was 'official,' but I'm glad the judge said he'd consider it. I thought the first day was very interesting, although not as good as it could have/should have been, but the actual trial will be better and more exciting! Probably just as nerve-wracking, but hopefully not! I will say I loved having it in the Great Reading Room...it seemed very professional.
As far as psychology plays into the first day, the jury's questionnaires and answers to the questions asked could already have an impact on other jurors. If someone stated they agreed with handwriting analysis, some other juror may feel it's something they could consider. Social psychology will have a major part in the trial. Also, the way the attorneys present themselves as being confident or not (and we are!!), may affect how the jurors perceive the evidence being presented and the overall air of the trial.
While the first day was rough and kind of slow going, I am very excited, and anxious, to actually start the trial so Maquel and I can show how personable and prepared we are, and we can prove our case!
From my experience: yep, it sounded like a court room. I didn’t play much of a role the first day of the trial (leading the defendant in and out of the court room) but it reminded me of when I had jury duty. I know the jury isn’t let in until after the preliminary hearing but I was surprised at how much the attorneys were up at the Judge’s Table. The trial I was a jury member on I remember the attorneys were up at the Judge’s Table a lot either both talking to the Judge or the Judge telling the attorneys what they could and could not do. Because I couldn’t be in the court room for the preliminary hearing I was also surprised at how many motions the attorneys made. I didn’t think there would be so many or that they would be suppressing evidence (at least as much as I felt they did). The jury selection went as I remember it. I was interested to hear the questions that the attorneys would be asking. I didn’t expect one side to ask just a few people questions and then the other side have everyone answer a few questions. I think though they should have had everyone sit in a designated seat so that the attorneys could put a face with questionnaire answers. That way they were not searching for people and if someone answered a group question the attorneys would know who to mark without having to ask for their name. I felt kind of weird knowing where the questions the attorneys were asking were coming from. Both sides obviously want people on the jury that will agree with their evidence either for or against the defendant; I believe that will make this even harder than if it were a real court room.
In a real court room, jurors don’t know much about forensics or the court process in general. They only really know about what they see on TV (CSI Effect that was talked about in the beginning of the semester). Because this jury knows more about eyewitness accounts and the reliability of evidence, I think they will judge the evidence in the trial a little more harshly than average jurors would. They may be dismissing evidence that is very strong evidence in the case but or look more at a small detail that was not looked at closely by the police department when they were putting the case together.
I think a lot more of what we have been talking about in class will make sense when we get into the attorneys presenting their case to the jury. Right now, it just kind of feels like we were getting things out of the way so that the trial could begin (even though it already has). I am interested to see how the attorneys will do.
As a jury member, I thought the first half of the class was pretty boring as we sat out in the hallway. I am sure this is what an actual jury selection day would feel like—yet, taking up more than just 30 minutes of the day. During this time, I learned that persons in the courtroom were administering the preliminary hearing. When it was time to be accompanied into the room, I felt a little awkward because could feel everyone in the room watching us enter. When we were seated, the direction was turned towards us in the process of jury selection. Feeling nervous to be called on to answer questions into a microphone, the prosecution and defense attorney were able to ask us questions based on what information we had written about ourselves on the juror questionnaire. Answering more than just a simple yes or no question was a little nerve racking for me. The prosecution and defense wanted more in depth answers to questions that we had filled out on our questionnaire. However, I noticed that we passed the microphone down the line quickly, somewhat agreeing on each question during jury selection. Therefore, I learned that persons can probably be persuaded to agree with one another due to nervousness. Before experiencing jury selection, I did not realize that there were more people in the room. Finally, when questioning was over, then the sides decided to pick their jurors. When the jurors were picked and no jurors were dismissed (in this case), the judge dismissed the court for the day.
I related this jury selection experience to the psychology and law book, chapter 6. This chapter discussed the process of jury selection. I reviewed the procedures a person called for jury duty has to do before and during jury selection. The questioning was much like I imagined it would be after reading the chapter and doing my own research about the jury selection process earlier this semester. However, none of the jury selected members were dismissed from the courtroom, so we didn’t have to go through the long process of further questioning.
Overall, I thought this was a neat experience and am anxious to experience what happens next.
On the first day of the trial I was not directly involved. Although the trial itself is not ‘real’ when my name was called on the witness list I was nervous. I thought the first day was interesting and the questions asked by prosecuting and defense attorneys were interesting as others elaborated on previously. I did not know that attorneys had to present everything to the judge the day of the preliminary hearing. My visit to the court house was pretty eventless and I only listed to a public intox case and parole violation case so it was quite different. I always believed the attorneys kept the information they had secret as if it were ammunition they would use in trial.
When presented with a case attorneys are allowed to remove members of the public as potential jurors in jury selection. They may be removed because they know the defendant or have a particular bias or prejudice that would incline them to convict or not convict no matter what. The goal of the courts is to have an impartial jury, which can be a difficult task. It is a multi-step process that can be, at times, frustrating for citizens, judges, and attorneys.
The first step is very broad. US citizens that are eligible must be put into a jury pool. To be eligible, an individual must be “mentally competent, English-speaking, over 18 years of age, and not be convicted of a felony” (p. 123). From the jury pool, another group is creating by random sampling. The people picked are required to appear to court to determine if their services are needed. Those individuals that show up to court are then asked questions, like was done at the first day of trial. The questions the attorneys ask are actually a process known as voir dire which is similar to a pretrial interview for potential jury members. Based on the questions asked they may be allowed to remove individuals if they do not believe they will help their case, however, the judge must agree to the dismissal of all jurors. After this questioning phase attorneys are left with the jury and also an alternate. Attorneys can possibly change the outcome of their case based on jury selection. Everyone has their own opinions, attitudes, beliefs, and personalities that could potentially change a verdict.
In our class the jury was already predetermined so this process was a little hard to understand. However, being able to see how they waited outside during the pretrial motions helped.
I thought the first day of trial was interesting. Yes, I’ll agree with the majority of students, it was also boring; Pretrial usually is. I did not realize that the attorneys had to make a motion to submit the evidence and everything on the first day. In TV shows, you always see them submit the evidence as they go, so that was interesting. I also didn’t realize just how often the attorneys approach the bench. I thought that they rarely did. Seeing as I didn’t get to see a “real” case when I went to the courthouse, I only expected to see what is on TV. It is definitely different. Of course when you watch the shows they don’t show you the boring things, but I got a sense that even the pretrial was more intense. I thought that the jury selection was awkward but cool. I have been called for jury duty before but didn’t get as far as selection, because the defendant copped a plea bargain during the night. I did have to go to the courthouse and wait for about 8 hours before they let us go home. I can see how the jury was so bored sitting in the hallway. Like some other students have said, it was interesting to see the different approaches the attorneys took.
While it is understandable that the prosecution forgot to do some things or act personable, I think it will impact the jury. I thought the questions asked, for the most part, were good questions and would help ascertain which way the jurors might go. I think this is where psychology and law comes in play the most. In our book, we read about how attorneys ask questions to choose jurors that will be sensitive to their side. Pretty much, they are trying to stack the jury so they can win. It takes a lot of psychology to think of the questions that will help them get into the mindset of the jurors. How each juror thinks will determine how they deliberate. Social psychology is important in that respect. The influence each member has on another will decide if they will be swayed to change their mind. This also depends on the personality of each member. I’m sure there will be some members that are more passive and some that are more dominant. It is a difficult process to put all of psychology behind it together. I would not want to be an attorney. I wouldn’t want to be responsible for a bad jury that might convict an innocent or release a guilty man. It definitely takes a lot of thought and planning. I’m sure as the trial continues psychology will be much more applicable. I can’t wait to get to the actual “meat” of the trial!
The preliminary hearing and jury selection was very fun. As expected I think we were all kind of lost during the preliminary hearing, as prepared as I came into it, I really didn’t know the specific order of events, but after things got rolling it started to go more smoothly. It was nice to have it in the Great Reading Room, it definitely makes you feel like you are in a real courtroom. Jury selection went alright, I should have done a better job of describing and specifically annunciating what I wanted the jury to reply to, I think my wording may have been a bit confusing, leading them to give short somewhat nondescriptive answers. I was a little surprised that the prosecution only asked two or three people questions. I tried to use voir dire to get a general feeling of the jury and use that to determine how I am going to present the case, but I was somewhat unsuccessful at that. However, the questionnaires the jury filled out were really in depth and gave me an overall outlook on the jury. The worst part about the day was probably using those microphones, next time I may just try and talk loudly.
Well I don’t think the preliminary hearing used too much psychology, it did however incorporate some law, I stayed up most of the night before searching through Iowa law to support the motions I was making. The bulk of psychology and law came into play during jury selection. The first question I asked was whether anyone recognized the defendant, after actually seeing him. I did this because if someone had a relationship with him it would either be good for us or bad for us depending on the relationship. I then asked if anyone had been involved with the legal system, how has it affected their view of the police and the legal system in general. Overall this brought a mixed response from the jury, leaning in favor of the defense. Many of the jury members did not particularly like the police, which is good, but a few also didn’t agree with our legal system, stating that you can by freedom with a good lawyer or things of that nature. The best question I had was also worded probably the poorest and to add to that the jurors all seemed to have mixed feelings about what was asked, which lead to a short answer. The question was something like, do you believe people have control over what happens to them and do you think people get what they deserve in life? To which most people replied yes. The basis of this question lay in the fact that jurors who believe in an internal locus of control, meaning the outcomes of their lives are due to their own effort and abilities, will likely blame the victim for her difficulties and be less likely to convict and vice versa. While a juror who believes people get what they deserve in life, tends to derogate victims, or believe that the victim somehow brought it on herself. However, the question was poorly worded and should have been split into two questions to get the full effect of it.
Overall, the preliminary hearing and jury selection was a really good experience and I am excited to see how the trial will play out.
The first day of trial, was well, the first day. It started off slow and everyone was getting a feel on what they had to do. I can see this happening in regular court as well, not the same mistakes, but still slow to progress. I think once the lawyers and the judge get a little more comfortable proceedings will run much more smoothly.
I saw the most psychology addressed in the type of questions asked to the jurors. You can see that the lawyers wanted to get a sense of each person's characteristics and how they would benefit to the case. Specifically remembering one question about how people feel about the police, one juror responded, "I don't trust the 5-0". This statement made the defense smile because this could perhaps benefit them in this case. I think that if this was a real trial or there was an actual "juror" selection then some of the people would have been eliminated.
Again, once the lawyers get more comfortable in their role, the trial will go much better. I am excited to see how the trial unfolds, and this is certainly proving to be my most interesting final project.
As a juror, I spent what felt like most of the time on Tuesday sitting in the hall. The other jurors and I hardly spoke, I tried to sleep. I remember remarking "this must be what actual jury service feels like" as I was being overcome with boredom.
Once in the courtroom, I was curious as to how everything would proceed considering we had not begun with a jury pool and could therefore not participate in voir dire. However, I felt the attorney's questioning period to be a reflection of real life. Each attorney's personality affected how I perceived their confidence, abilities, as well as how I should return their questions. From Dr. MacLin I have gathered attorney's personalities to be important factors in courts.It was interesting that the prosecution asked only select individuals questions they had prepared beforehand, whereas the defense asked all of us a series a questions I had (for the most part) already answered. While this did make me favor the prosecution's directness and brevity, I think the defense may have gathered a more complete picture of their jury. I also think the defense must have been pleased when I stated "I don't trust the 5-0" and my fellow jurors followed suit with similar answers.
I was a little taken back by all attorney's apparent unpreparedness, or at least, frustrations in communicating questions to jury members. I understand they have been under a lot of pressure and a mountain of work, as real attorneys are. Questions had to be explained more than once, and attorneys' responses were often, "Oh, great." However, this is understandable given our respectable classmate's have never questioned a jury before. In real life, such handling of the jury would make me seriously question the merits of the case presented before me later in trial.
Sitting before the officers of the court and the audience, I felt I was the center of attention. I also felt annoyed, which is why my answers were a little curt. Trust me, if this were real life I would have acted no different, I feel as a member of a jury it is my right to answer whichever way I deem fit so long as I use respectable language and only answer the question asked. A juror is performing an important duty, after all.
Perception, personality, and social psychology are critical to voir dire. A juror's initial assessment of each attorney's delivery can play a huge role in how that juror will accept later proceedings. Without confident delivery even the brightest lawyer can appear incompetent to the detriment of his or her case. Attorneys must be constantly aware of the image they are projecting. This includes, though is not limited to, being aware of body image, words that may have more than one interpretation, hair and clothing style, and speech rate and tone. I understand why the ability to control and accent, command regional dialect, or even controlling eye contact can be powerful tools in the attorney's arsenal. It goes to show that even in something as purportedly black-and-white as law individuals' personalities can create shades of gray. I am excited to see how my assessments of each attorney affect my perceptions of evidence and testimony.
Also, the interactions between jurors presents another opportunity for psychology to shed light on the workings of the legal system. Group cohesion and comfortableness affect deliberation. I can imagine that in real life jurors are made to share a small room rather than a large hallway. Like me, they are also bored and slightly annoyed. This can not be the best of circumstance to meet several strangers in, let alone be spending long periods of time with. Perhaps psychology could also provide clues into making jury's time as comfortable and warm as possible in order to keep everyone fully involved and committed to the case. This would include a focus on environment, e.g. what lights should be used, what colors should the walls be, does the jury's environment affect deliberation is such a way to warrant lighting changes? Deliberating a case should not be easy, but is should not be made more difficult because a few members are grouchy.
Finally, considering the workload judges undergo with even these initial proceedings, maybe judges' lives can be improved by similar attention to judges' chambers. We want happy judges, too!
I Would like this to be my Free-B
My role in the trial is the judge and i had, and will have pretty eventful trial days. I was involved in almost everything that took place, from the motions to the jury selection. My part didnt go as smoothly as i had hoped but that may have been in part due to the lack of preperation and familiarity towards the position. I know, after going through the binder, that i will be more prepared for future classes which will hopefully in turn make the trial even more fun and interesting for me.
I like how if there is something that i, or anyone else for that matter, needs clarification on, you are there to help and guide us through. It makes the process easier to understand and more enjoyable. There are several aspects of psychology and law that pertain to the trial. Obviously it is a mock trial so many of the concerns and topics are what take place in an actual trial. This makes it much easier to follow because it is like the real thing. I even have a gavel. To be involved in a trial, instead of just reading or taking notes about one, is so much more interesting and helps to grasp a concept. There are psychological factors in this process as well. For example, the questioning of the jurys. There is a lot of psychological aspects involved to pick a jury. You want to know what the person thinks and how they feel about society and other generalities. This shows both biological and social parts of psychology.
Considering the fact that I had zero involvement during the first day of trial, I thought it was rather uneventful. Also, it was hard to hear much of what was going on during the beginning of the trial simply because I think people were having difficulties with the microphone (mumbling, soft voices,etc). The attorney's seemed to start off slow but they quickly began getting more comfortable it seemed. Also, it appeared to be a little confusing for everyone because they had to ask permission to approach the bench to speak with the judge. I didn't realize how slow-paced everything in the court actually was. Even when I went to the Blackhawk County Courthouse to watch a trial it was pretty relaxed. Obviously none of the trials I have watched were extremely high profile or real, in the case of our class trial, but I expected a bit more excitement.
In relating the trial to psychology and law, what most struck me in relevance to the topic was the questioning of the jury. It's different to read about something than to actually watch it happen, so I didn't expect what I saw with the jury selection process. It was interesting to see the different answers from some of the jury members. Considering that most of our jury members fell into the same type of category, 18-25 yrs, student, Caucasian, most of the answers were fairly similar. I was surprised by some of the questions the attorney's asked. Some of the questions appeared to be unrelated to the case at hand. But then I remembered talking about jury selection and how the attorney's are trying to get a feel for each jury member's background and stance on political and social issues.
As the media I had the judge sign a motion for us to even be present in the court room. Day 1 was basically naming off the witnesses in which I am a witness on both sides. This really surprised me considering I had no idea this was the case.
The jury was then allowed to enter and were asked questions. The questions they were asked were mostly unrelated to the case at all. They were asked about their feelings toward domestic abuse which added a new sector to the case. They were also asked just random questions about something interesting about them as well. The attorneys did not get any sense as to how the jury stands on personal issues such as political or views on many things. The jury was asked if they knew Nathan at all, which was a crucial question that can eliminate any sorts of bias within the case. The attorneys I feel should have asked more directed questions.
The media is now allowed to document the case via camera and video camera which we hopefully intend to do the next case. All in all things went fairly well day one.
I thought the case was kind of slow. I feel like we were a little unprepared. I was not a part of the eresting trial so it was very uneventful. I'm excited to see what happens later on in the trial. I think it will be really intersting to see how the prosecution and the defense will try their case. I think once the trial gets going it will be more intersting to watch.
It was boring. It was embarrassing too, because I was a member of the media and didn't know I was supposed to ask for permission to approach.
I noticed a few things that wierded me out though. I swear that both sides asked for permission to exclude evidence. But that's so counter intuitive! How are you supposed to make a fair judgement about something if you purposely exclude evidence?
I also noticed that one of the attorneys asked about the just world phenomenon. The instant I heard it, I thought back to the chapter we read on Jury Selection. They were asking if the person believed that people get what they deserve. If people believe that people get what they deserve, they blame the victim. So it is no surprise that the defense attorney asked this question and not the prosecution.
I think if the jury had tended toward belief in the just world phenomenon, Kolton would have played the "she was beep, she deserved what she got" sort of defense (at least, he would have implied it to make it more likely for the Jury to favor him.
The first day of the trial was veryyyy boring and pretty confusing. I didn't really understand all of the things the judge or the attorneys said but I guess that's just because neither was my role.
The jury interview part was probably the most interesting but the jury members kind of sucked it up. I mean one person said their opinion and ALL OF THEM took on the same opinion. That makes me think that if one person says what they think about the verdict everyone else is just going to jump on the bandwagon.
It reminded me of the chapter on jury selection where they talked about "strong" jury members who other jury members seem to follow and agree with. It also reminded me of the Asch conformity experiments. Even when the answer is CLEARLY wrong, the subject usually went with the majority. I really hope that each jury member will decide to make their OWN decisions regarding the case and not bend under the peer pressure.
I was just in the audience for court. I thought it went by really slow. I was not expecting it to be like a TV show but I did think it would have gone by a little faster. I am very happy I am not a lawyer. They have a lot of work to do for these couple of weeks. I think I would have liked to have been a juror. They are more involved. Just being in the audience doing nothing and our opinions not mattering make it feel really pointless being there. I liked the jury selecting part when the lawyers were asking the jury members questions. That was the highlight of the day. I also see now that lawyers and the personality of the lawyers can play a huge role in winning or losing a case. The jury members are only human and if a lawyer is being boring and not keeping the jury members interested, the information that the lawyer is trying to get across is not going to matter. Halfway through the proceedings it started gaining momentum. I think this is because the attorneys were starting to get more comfortable with what they needed to do. Before class I never really knew what a pretrial was. TV shows fail to show the boring parts of court cases. I am looking forward to how the rest of the mock trial will go
I was unable to attend this day due to a death in the family. I am not sure what I am supposed to write about, so if there is an alternative I should write about in order to get the points please let me know! Thank you again for the understanding!
Once again, I was unable to attend this trial day due to a difficult work schedule. However, in reading other posts, it seems as though the jury selection and preliminary hearing were very similar to that of a real-life courtroom. I assume that the judge and attorneys questioned the jurors, and then made a decision as to who would serve on the actual jury for the mock trial case. In regards to the preliminary hearing, I assume it was also much like that of a real-life preliminary hearing. In this process, it should be decided whether or not the case has enough substance to continue with a trial. With that, the probable cause of the defendant being the actual perpetrator would be determined.