Reading Blog due Monday @ midnight 4/16

Chapter 13 is about the juries and judges as decision-makers. The main points of this chapter are: the process of jury decision-making, the effects of biasing information, the group dynamics of jury deliberations, jury reform, and judges compared to juries.

A useful way to describe the decision-making processes of jurors is through mathematical models. Mathematical models are the use of mathematical equations to describe the relationships between variables and to predict outcomes. It is assumed that jurors use a mental scale that moves them toward guilty or innocent. The weight of evidence presented helps determine which way their scale will go. The other way to describe decision-making is the story model. The story model is a psychological theory on how jurors decide cases. This model proposes that jurors create stories to explain evidence as a casual chain of events. Jurors create these stories as they hear the evidence presented in court, so when it comes time to decide the verdict the jurors go with the verdict that best fits with their story. Evidence can have a strong impact on the verdict. Many jurors, judges, and attorneys claim the weight of the evidence relevant to the crime is the best predictor of what the verdict will be.

Jurors are expected to set their biases aside and decide whether a person is guilty based on the information and evidence presented but sometimes our biases slip into our decisions. Pretrial publicity is the first major way people can let their biases affect their decisions. If there is a high-profile case then there will most likely be coverage on it in the newspapers, on TV, and on the internet. If a person is exposed to a lot of pretrial publicity then they are more likely to rule the defendant guilty than a person that wasn't exposed to pretrial publicity. The most effective way to prevent pretrial publicity is too move the trial to a town that the crime did not occur in. This is called a change in venue. The defendant's characteristics have some influence on the verdict but not alot. For example, wealth, social status, gender, and attractiveness do not have much effect on the jurors decision. There is some evidence that jurors are more lenient with more attractive defendants more harsh on ugly defendants. Jurors also take into account the moral character of the defendant. If the victim has higher morals than the defendant then the jury will judge the defendant more harshly. Another way to cause biases is inadmissable evidence. Inadmissable evidence is heard from the witness or the attorney. If the judge tells the jury to disregard a statement then they are supposed to completely forget about it and cannot use that information to make their decision. It is almost impossible for a juror to forget what was told to them especially if they are being told not to remember it. This is called ironic processes. When we try to not think about something it often dominates our thoughts, especially in high stress situations. Another reason why it is hard for jurors to forget is because of the reactance theory. This theory means that people like their freedom and when they are told to forget something they believe it is a threat put on their freedom. The last two ways to form biases are impeachment evidence and expert witnesses. Impeachment evidence is evidence used to destroy the credibility of a witnesses statements. Jurors can look at this and think of it as a predisposition for dishonest behavior. Expert witnesses are supposed to give information from their specialized area. If the testimony of the expert is hard to comprehend then the jurors believe that the expert is very prestigious and just judge the testimony based on their credentials and not the information. If the testimony is less complex then the jurors can draw conclusion as to what he/she was talking about and don't pay attention to the expert's credentials.

The dynamics of the jury are very important. Lawyers often look at juries and decide who they think will be strong jurors and take lead. Strong jurors are often well-educated and have a high status job. Juries are often majority juries, meaning that most of the time people agree on one verdict, but there are also juries with a leniency bias. In this type of jury, if it is split evenly half guilty half innocent, the final verdict usually ends up non-guilty. There are three stages in the deliberation process. The first stage is orientation. During this stage the jurors elect a foreperson, discuss procedures, and raise general issues. There are three main ways jurors start deliberation including: taking a vote right away to see where people stand, postpone voting and discuss issues, or discussing each witness that testified. The second phase is open conflict. This stage is when the differences in opinion among the members becomes apparent and coalitions may form between members of the jury. This phase can cause two things to happen, informational influence and noramtive influence. Informational influence is when jurors change their vote because the other jurors make compelling arguements. Normative influence is when jurors change their votes because they fell under pressure by the other jurors. The final stage is reconciliation. This last stage is used to mend any hurt feelings and make everyone feel satisfied about the verdict. There are many theories why a jury contains 12 members. One theory is that there are 12 jurors because Christ had 12 apostles. Another theory is that is an example of the English affinity for the number 12. 12 jurors were the standard number until the mid 1900s. After the Williams v. Florida case in 1970, the Supreme Court decided that a six person jury can be used for noncapital cases. Back in the day the jurors had to all agree on one verdict, but in 1972 the Supreme Court decided that nonunanimous verdicts were constitutional. Michael Saks studied decision rules and found out that juries that had to come to a unanimous decision deliberated longer than those that only had to come to a majority. Juries that have to come to a unanimous decision are twice as likely to hang, meaning they cannot come to a decision. Today, 26 states require a unanimity in misdemeanor cases, 44 states require unanimity votes in criminal cases, and all states require unanimity votes in captial cases. Jurors are not required to give an explanation as to why they voted the way they did. They also can decide whether someone is guilty or not based on their moral character and can go beyond the law for their basis of their decision. For example, in the 1990s a Michigan doctor was put on trial for euthanasia. He was found innocent the first three times he went to trial because the jurors could not convict a man that was trying to help his patients that were suffering from a terminal illness. This is an example of jurors disregarding the law to make their decision.

There are many reforms that were done to help jurors understand their job better. The juror instructions were simplified and rewritten so they could be better understood. The jurors are also read instructions before the trial begins rather than after the trial is over. The most controversial reform is whether or not the jurors should be able to discuss the trial during breaks. People that support this think it will help clear up any misunderstandings, improve later recall of information, and help make deliberation more efficient. People opposed of this idea think that it would have jurors make premature verdicts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States
this website is about jury nullification.

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/01/manipulating_ju.html
this website is how to manipulate jury biases and how to overcome them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberation
this website is about the deliberation process.

Chapter 13 discusses juries and judges as decision makers. I was particuarly interested in this chapter, as my role in the mock trial is a jury member.

There are two different models that represent the decision making process of jurors. One is called the mathematical model. This model sees the jurors as having a "mental meter" which shifts from guilty to not guilty based on the evidence presented in trial. A very persuasive piece of evidence may "freeze" the meter to point in one direction or another, limiting the weight of any new information. The second model is called the story model. instead of using the weights of evidence as the mathematical model does, this model states that jurors create stories in order to interpret evidence. This model also suggests that jurors use their past experiences and preexisting knowledge of similar events as ways to figure out the inferenes of the story. The verdict is selected by which one best fits with the story.

Research has shown that jurors rely on evidence that is presented to make a decision. It has also been found that the severity of the charge, negative pretrial publicity, and the complexity of the trial all played a role in verdicts as well. The liberation hypothesis stats that jury verdicts are based on the strength of the evidence, but if the evidence is not strong, they then consider other aspects, such as their assumptions or predjudice.

There are a number of ways in which biasing can occur when making a decision. One source of this bias is the information heard in pretrial publicity. Some of the information that is heard through the news stations as pretrial publicity can be misremembered as information that was heard during the trial. As discussed in class discussions, the judge may say that the inforamtion heard through the pretrial publicity is inadmissible. this does not,however, mean that the jury members are able to forget that information. Changing the venue of the trial may help with the bias of pretrial publicity.Defendant characteristics also come into play. If attractiveness is used to commit a crime, attractiveness is taken into account and juries are more likely to suggest more severe sentencing. Juries also pay attention to moral character of the defendant. As discussed before, inadmissible evidence is another means of biased inforamtion. Telling jurors to not pay attention to something often makes them remember it more clearly.

The dynamics of the jury are important aspects of the decision making process. Strong jurors have influence over the deliberation. Jurors who are assumed to fall in this category are well-educated, articulate, and have high occupational status. In most cases, juries will decide on the verdict of the majority of the group. The leniency bias states that if half of the jurors vote guilty and half vote not guilty, the verdict is most likely to be not guilty in the end.
The size of the jury is an important determinant of group dynamics. In 1978, Ballew v. Georgia stated that 5 person juries were too small and 6 person juries were the minimum. It was later found that larger juries deliberate longer, recall evidence more accurately, and generate more arguments. The verdicts of larger juries are also most likely to match the opinions of the community.

Jury reforms are considered in a variety of ways. One way is in the simplification of instructions that are directed to the jury. Instructions are generally read without examples or attempting to apply legal categories to the case. Judges hadly ever try to clarify their instructions because they are worried that attempting to do so will end up with grounds for an appeal. A suggestion to help with the issue of jury instructions is to present the instructions at the beginning of the trial. This would help jurors to organize informtion presented to them. Arizona is the only state that requires judges to preinstruct jurors. Another debatable topic is allowing the juries to discuss evidence during the trial. Allowing discussion seems to increase the liklihood of evidence recall, but it can also cause for premature verdicts to be decided.

It has been found that judges and juries agreed on approximately 3/4 verdicts. When there was disagreement, juries tended to be more lenient. It was also found that experiencved jurors were mote likely to convict a defendant than first time jurors were.

In choosing to look up more jury reform proposals, I found a lot of interesting information:
http://juries.typepad.com/juries/jury-reform/
http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2011/05/16/news/local_news/doc4dd079caa7cd8116504841.txt
http://www.legalnews.com/jackson/1001404/

These websites states that jurors in Michigan are being allowed to take notes, ask questions, discuss the case before deliberating. they are allowing these changes to eliminate jurors using improper communication and research. These new rules are being promoted for allowing jurors to be engaged and involved in the trial. It is believed that this will allow them to make more well-informed decsions.

Juries are given the difficult task of sifting through evidence on both sides of a case and reaching a non-biased verdict based on relevant evidence. The best predicator of a verdict is the strength of relevant evidence. This makes sense because that’s the way it should be. It doesn’t mean that evidence is the only factor in a verdict. Severity of the charge, negative pretrial publicity, and trial complexity are associated with verdicts. Lack of evidence that favors the prosecution or defense forces juries to base their decisions on their prior beliefs, assumptions, pretrial publicity, or prejudice.

Pretrial publicity seems to favor the prosecution. Jurors exposed to more pretrial publicity are more likely to find the defendant guilty. A judge’s instructions to disregard pretrial publicity aren’t very effective. Postponing a trial or changing the venue are effective ways of reducing pretrial publicity bias. The defendant’s appearance doesn’t seem to play a factor in a verdict unless a very attractive defendant uses their attractiveness to commit a crime. Inadmissible evidence although inadmissible, can play a role in a jury’s verdict. If an attorney makes an objection to something the opposing counsel or witness says the judge can overrule or sustain it. When the judge orders the statement to be sustained it means the jury should disregard what the just heard which is obviously difficult to do. Being told to forget what they just heard can cause the jury to actually think about it even more. Sometimes juries are subject to evidence that they can’t understand. The complex evidence comes from expert witnesses who have specialized knowledge in a particular field relating to the trial.

The jury as a whole has to make the final decision for a verdict and this group aspect involves a lot of social psychology. After watching Twelve Angry Men I could see some of these social factors that go into a juror’s vote of guilty or not guilty. If the juries vote is 8 – 4 there is a strong chance that the majority vote will persuade the minority to vote in their favor. A split jury is more likely to hand down a verdict of not guilty this is because jurors with a not guilty vote only have to have reasonable doubt while a guilty vote has to eliminate all reasonable doubt. Some jurors don’t change their private views on what the verdict should be but change their vote because of normative influence, folding under group pressure. A 12 person jury has longer deliberations, recalls more evidence accurately, is more representative of the community, and has more consistent verdicts than a 6 person jury. There aren’t a lot of big differences among 12 and 6 person juries verdicts but 6 person juries are less predictable.

Juries have the right to ignore or disregard the law because they are supposed to represent the moral conscience of the community (jury nullification). However, juries are almost never told by the judge that they can disregard the law. A defendant can be guilty in the eyes of the law but morally right leading to a not guilty verdict.

I was unaware of a jury's right of nullification so I looked up some cases where the jury exercised their right to nullify the law.
A retired professor was an advocate of jury nullification and would stand outside of a US courthouse in Manhattan and hand out brochures on jury nullification to passer-byrs hoping they were jury members. Consequently he was brought up on charges of jury tampering.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/nyregion/brief-details-jury-nullification-case-against-julian-heicklen.html

A Navy veteran from Illinois was caught with 25 pounds of marijuana in his home. He was smoking it to calm his post traumatic stress (but in Illinois medical marijuana is not legal). The jury nullified the law and found him not guilty. (good for them)
http://www.examiner.com/civil-liberties-in-national/jury-nullification-at-work-marijuana-gun-cases

Chapter thirteen talks about juries and judges as decision makers. The first method that is discussed to describe the decision making process for jury members is the mathematical model. In this method, jurors are assumed to use a mental meter that moves them towards either guilty or not guilty. This is based on the weight of evidence. The evidence shown to them represents numerical weights that shift their mental meter in one direction or the other. At some point, a particular piece of evidence can cause a juror's decision to "freeze" and from then on little else can change their minds the other way.

The story model is another alternative method used. This model says that jurors create stories to make sense of the evidence provided. Jurors construct their stories while hearing evidence and then learn about possible verdicts. Lastly, they select the verdict that best fits the story they have created to make sense based on all the evidence they've seen. This has been shown to be a useful model for jurors in trials such as rape, murder, and sexual harassment.

Evidence typically has a pretty strong link to whether a person is found guilty or not guilty. Verdict decisions tend to only be based on relevant evidence however, and other factors also were found to come into play, such as the severity of the charge, any negative pretrial publicity, and the complexity of the trial. Sometimes pretrial information can set up a bias for certain jurors, even though they are asked to set aside their prejudices and any preconceptions. The best solution for this that has been found is to move trials to a community where the people have not been exposed to pretrial media. Inadmissible evidence is information that a jury might see or hear that may be prejudicial and the judge asks that the jury disregard the statement made or whatever else may have just occurred. However, this is something that is skeptical for most because it's hard to erase something like that from memory and not consider it when thinking about the defendant, especially when you're trying to decide guilty or not guilty. One argument with this is that by the judge telling jurors to disregard something it will actually stick in their minds more than if he said not to. One way this is explained is the ironic processes. This says that when we make an effort not to think about something in particular than it usually ends up dominating our thoughts. Especially if we are stressed out. Another explanation is the reactance theory, which says people are motivated to maintain their freedom. The judge saying they have to disregard something will make them feel threatened and feel as if they have less freedom and therefore allow that certain piece of inadmissible evidence to have more weight in their thought process instead.

For centuries juries have consisted of a 12 person jury with a foreperson that is seen as the strongest juror who takes charge of the others and is the voice for the jurors as a whole in court. No one really knows why exactly 12 was the number chosen. Some say it's because there were 12 apostles or because it's an example of the English affinity for the number 12, such as 12 inches to a foot, 12 pence to a shilling, a dozen is 12, etc. There was one case in 1970 however when a man who was convicted of armed robbery had a 6 person jury. It was found that there is no difference in findings between a 6 or 12 person jury, however it was later found the court got it wrong. Michael Saks reviewed this in 1977 and found that larger juries tend to deliberate longer, generate more arguments, recall evidence accurately, are more representative of the community, have consistent verdicts, and agree more on their ratings of jury performance.

So how do judges compare to juries? Judges have to make the decision on their own, but are seen as more impartial and something they learn to recognize and are able to detatch their emotions from their own rational thoughts. We trust judges to make decisions that are right, just, and equal on their own. When a study was done involving more than 500 judges to see the verdict they would reach in a case that was actually decided by jurors, 74% of criminal cases and 78% of civil cases were agreed upon between the judges. When the juries and judges decisions were different, it was found that the juries were more leanient in 16% of the cases. Some even acquitted when the judge would have convicted.

This link talks a little more about jury nullification. This was something that interested me because I didn't realize jurors could do this and I found it quite intriguing.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html

This next link is short and simple but that's also why it works. It pretty much is a small article about the breakdown of a jury process and defines terms we've read about. I liked it because as I said before it was short and sweet and got the point across with being boring.
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/jurydeliberate.html

This chapter was about juries and judges. It seemed like most of this information was review from what we have already discussed about juries. Two different models of decision making were discussed. The first was the mathematical model. In this model, jurors are thought to use methods that move them to vote either guilty or not guilty based on the weight of the given evidence. Their decision is based on this evidence. The second model is a story model. To me, this one makes the most sense. This model suggests that jurors come up with a story that goes along and is the product of the evidence. Once they have heard all of the evidence and are given the instructions on the verdicts, they choose the verdict that fits best with the story they came up with. Evidence has the biggest impact in a trial. There is quite a bit of research showing that the strength of the evidence is the best determinate of a verdict. One concept that is related to this is the liberation hypothesis. This hypothesis says that jury verdicts are based on the strength of the evidence presented to them.

There is a lot of bias that can take place during a trial, not just by a jury, but by the media. Pretrial publicity can damage a case before it even goes to trial. Different facts of the media can get ahold of pieces of information from the police dealing with the case. Once this happens, things can become skewed and acts are reported that are not even facts at all. When a case is highly publicized, it seems like it would be difficult to find juries that are not aware of the case. When jurors know some details through the media, they bring in their biases into the trial. The media plays on people's emotions. So, jurors who have already been exposed have a fard time forgetting the emotion from the media and are more likely to vote guilty. One way to get rid of the pretrial prejudice is to have a change of venue. This just means moving the trial to somewhere where the case has not been publicized as much.

I thought the section on group dynamics was interesting. It had even mentioned 12 Angry Men that we watched earlier in the semester. Strong jurors are those that are most likely to be voted as the foreperson. There are some general characteristics of people who get voted to be the foreperson on a jury. They are usually outspoken, well-educated, articulate, and have a high status job. These people are better able to influence and persuade other jurors. There is a lot of persuasion that goes on in a court room. As we saw in the movie, one man was able to persuade the 11 others to go along with his not guilty vote. This is somewhat unrealistic though. Most of the time, the majority wins. If most of the jury votes guilty, the other jurors will most likely change their vote, either by their own will, through harrassment, or through persuasion. The same goes for a not guilty vote.

There are different stages in the deliberation process. The first phase is orientation. During this, the jury selects their foreperson and raises general issues. They also discuss the different procedures. There are also different styles of structuring the deliberation process: verdict-driven style and evidence-driven style. The verdict-driven style asks jurors to put the evidence into two seperate categories, supporting conviction or supporting acquittal. The evidence-driven style puts off the first vote until there has been a thorough disussion of the evidence. There has been a lot of controversy regarding the issue of whether or not jurors should be able to discuss the evidence with other jurors during breaks. You would think that being able to discuss it would help with any misunderstandings and would improve their memory at the end of trial during deliberation. If juries were to be rid of, the trial process would consist of only the judge. Some people think that the judge does not have as much bias, but every person has their own biases, whether they recognize them or not. In previous studies, it has been shown that judges do use their biases in decision making. When juries are used, there are ways to "get around" biases. Because there are more people, there are more biases and may essentially even out. Another thing that can happen to eliminate jurors bias is the attorney's power to use challenges to get rid of people they dont want. If I were to go to trial, I would want a trial by jury.

I decided to look up more about jury nullification. Jury nullification is perfectly legal and allows jurors to acquit a defendant although by law they are technically guilty. They believe that they do not deserve punishment. One of the first cases dealing with jury nullification was in 1735 with John Peter Zenger. Zenger was being prosecuted for printing pamphlet that criticized the king. This was against the British law. During the trial, Zenger's attorney was questioning the legality of the crimes that he was being prosecuted for. Instead of challenging and trying to focus on his innocence, the attorney was challenging the law. Since this was not seen before, the jury was shocked and did not know what to do. In the end, they voted not guilty

Chapter 13 begins with a section detailing the process that is jury decision-making. It is said here that mathematical models are useful ways of describing how the jury goes about the entire decision-making process. In the mathematical model, the jury uses a complex system of "weight" and "meters" in order to determine what evidence determines innocence or guilt in a trial. Another form of describing a jury decision-making process would be the story model. The story model differs from the mathematical model in that it promotes jurors to "create stories to make sense of evidence presented at trial"(274).

The next section discusses the importance of evidence in the jury decision-making process. After all, the strength and amount of evidence is said by the author to be the #1 predictor of a verdict. The liberation hypothesis states that in cases where evidence is ambiguous jurors may have a tendency to fall back on previous beliefs, perhaps prejudicial in nature.

The effects of biasing information was the most interesting chapter to me for one reason. I believe that many cases are over before they even get started. We may be looking at such a case with the George Zimmerman trial. All the negative pretrial publicity of Zimmerman has now led to a situation where Zimmerman has a major uphill climb in order to maintain his professed innocence. With the internet, there is so much more information available to the general public than there ever has been. It is very difficult for someone who has been charged with a crime to successfully proclaim innocence. More often than not, someone in the media will stir the pot for ratings and provides a story that is tainted and twisted to their liking. In such cases, an individual may in fact be innocent, but will initially be viewed guilty as a result of a few morally defunct individuals. Changing venue is important for several reasons. If someone is viewed in a negative light in a given community, they may not be given a fair trial. It is important to remain fair.

The following part of the chapter focuses on inadmissible evidence. This kind of evidence comes from both attorneys as well as witnesses. When a lawyer hears or sees this kind of evidence they can shout "objection" at which time the judge decides whether or not to sustain or overrule said objection. If the objection is sustained, it is vital that the jury "disregard" what they heard. This is impossible as many point out. I think this is ripe for abuse. I know that if I had solid evidence, but it was inadmissible, I would still make every effort to make this knowledge apparent to the jury through whatever trickery I deemed necessary.

Group dynamics of jury deliberations is the next section touched upon in the chapter. Here the author points out just how important a strong juror can be. In 12 Angry Men, we saw a strong juror change the minds of all those who previously had opposed his view. Strong jurors are people who are seen to have a great amount of sway in a jury. The leniency bias states that in cases where the voting of guilty and not guilty is split, then the tendency is for the verdict to lean towards not guilty.

The following section about the stages of the deliberation process tells us of how juries often go through a three stage process: orientation, open conflict, and reconciliation. In orientation, juries pick a foreperson and hold initial discussions (general issues/procedures). During the open conflict stage, jurors often begin to take sides based on differences in opinion regarding the trial. Reconciliation is the final phase and the phase where jury member try to patch up differences and get everyone together on the final decision.

Jury size is discussed. I have learned most of what I read here by completing the juror role essays. One useful bit of information I acquired here was that 12 pence equals a schilling. Much as I would have predicted, larger juries are always better for many reasons. There are more voices, more points of view, and as a result more information brought up for discussion as it relates to the case. There are both unanimous and majority-rule juries. A hung jury is one that cannot reach a unanimous verdict. I'm not too keen on the dynamite charge as I think it gives the judge too much power in swaying jurors' opinions.

Jury reform and judge/jury comparisons close out chapter 13. There are both moderate and radical reformers. Moderate reformers simply believe that we can improve an already decent system. Radical reformers believe the current system is broke and that other avenues including abandonment should be considered. I strongly disagree with one of the reforms discussed. Allowing juries to discuss the trial during trial could ultimately cause more disruption than anything else. You could end up having arguments or disagreements in how things are presented by the prosecuting and defense attorneys. This could be looked at as a positive in that everyone would be able to have a chance to clarify anything at any time. However, I just don't see the positives of being able to discuss things on the fly outweighing the need to have an organized proceeding. I was impressed at the 75% figure as it related to judge and jury agreement. I still think it's a bit low, but I don't see that number going much higher. I will always feel that those who pursue a career as a judge more often than not hold themselves in higher regard than your average citizen (pompous, self-righteous).

http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/courtrv/cr43-2/CR43-2Bornstein.pdf
- This website focuses on judge/jury agreement and points to research finding and editorials in support of statements made.

http://jurydemocracy.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/juries-judges-and-the-determination-to-reach-a-verdict/
- This website talks more about how judges urge on deadlocked juries. In my opinion, you are more likely to reach a tainted or false agreement in order to appease to a judge. This is definitely not the best way to go about things.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-zimmerman-king-jury-20120416,0,2424854.story
This is a recent story about the Zimmerman case and how the jury selection process will go.

Chapter thirteen talks about the underlying factors that play into judges and juries decisions. Juries use two different models in order to come to their decisions. First is the mathematical model. This is like using weights. Each fact or piece of evidence is provided shifts the meter in the direction of guilty or not guilty. The second model is the story model. A jury member uses the timeline of a crime to create a story in the scene. From there, they can determine why the act was committed and if the sentence is necessary due to that reason. A jury uses their past experiences and preexisting knowledge to evaluate the situation. In both of these models, evidence plays an important role. The impact of the evidence is usually a major factor in determining the verdict. The stronger the evidence, the higher likely the will be convicted. If there is no good evidence, jurors then base their decisions on other factors such as beliefs, assumptions, or pretrial publicity.
There are several things that can also skew a person’s decision. Pretrial publicity is one of them. It may help a juror decided on their verdict; however, it is usually skewed and bias. IT is proven that a juror who sees pretrial publicity is more likely to decide the defendant is guilty, especially when that publicity is negative. In order to fix this problem, a change of venue can be put in place. This allows for the trial to be moved somewhere where there is less likely to be publicity. Another factor is the defendant’s characteristics. Although many might think wealth, social status, and gender play an important role, they are one of the less influential characteristic. Race does play a small role. An individual is more likely to be lenient on someone of their same race. A person’s character is also highly relevant. Inadmissible evidence is also a problem. Although judge objects to the information being brought into the case, it is hard to delete something someone has already heard. Lastly, complex evidence are other things that can hinder a person’s thoughts on a case, in other words, expert witnesses. Jurors may find themselves believing in this person because of their credibility which in turns sways their own decision on the case.
Understanding a jury would be ideal in situations, however, that is impossible. Instead, attorneys try to gage juries dynamic and use those skills to direct their arguments. They can also classify jurors such as strong jurors. Strong jurors are key jurors that are dynamic and powerful in swaying decisions of other members. This person is elected through the orientation portion. Here they also decided how they will proceed with deciding upon a decision. There are two paths, the verdict-driven style and the evidence-driven style. The second phase brings light to the different opinions among jurors, also known as the open conflict stage. Here the jurors converse on their own beliefs. Jurors can also be swayed to change their vote during this process through information influences, because other jurors make good arguments, or through normative influences, changing their public vote. The final phase, reconciliation, tries to smooth over any upset individuals and come to a final agreement.
Many jury reforms have taken place over the years. Instructions were revised so that it was easier for jurors to understand the process and what they need to do. Jurors are now also allowed to talk with one another about eh evidence presented during the trial. It is argued that individuals will reach premature verdicts and it will hurt the case; however, others suggest it will help the jurors have a better understanding of the trial. I found it really interesting the difference between juries and judges. I have always been curious if judges followed guidelines or some type of rules when doing their job.
I decided to look up more information on jury nullification. I found it very intriguing that the jury has the right to nullify the law. I still am not sure if I fully understand the whole process and how it works. However, this website explained a little more and helped me understand. The most influential part was the example of a trial John Peter Zenger. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html
Because of the website before, I then went to look up more information about John Zenger and his case. In his case, he was charged with libel, which back then meant that he was spreading talking negatively about the government. Although he did it, the jury said he was not guilty because they believed he had the right to print anything he wanted under the first amendment. This then led to the law become nullified.
http://www.ushistory.org/us/7c.asp

Chapter 13 is all about juries and judges and their processes of decision-making. Evidence can have a huge impact on the decision making of a judge or jury member, given how relevant the evidence is and how convincing the evidence is as well. However, in all cases especially high profile ones, many biases can occur. One bias is called pretrial publicity. Which in high profile cases can be a big deal because there is likely to be a lot of coverage of the case and often contain evidence that would not be allowed to be used in trial so if jury members or judges see these news coverages it can already make them think one way or another without the trial even starting. One way to try and eliminate this type of bias is to move the trial to a place where a community has not been exposed to pretrial publicity, this is called a change of venue.

One thing that I found interesting was the group dynamics of jury deliberations. Lawyers try to predict the group dynamics of a jury during the jury selection process. They talk about potential jurors being strong jurors or those who are well-educated, articulate, and have a high occupational status. The example they used of a strong juror is the movie 12 Angry Men, which we watched earlier in the semester.

There is also the deliberation process. There are three stages to the deliberation process. The first phase is called orientation. This is where juries elect a foreperson, discuss procedures, and raise general issues. From here juries can go one of two ways. The first way is called the verdict-driven style which is where juries vote to see where everyone in the jury is at and then deliberate and have discussions around the possible verdict options. The other way is the evidence-driven style which is where no voting takes place until after careful deliberation has taken place. The second phase is called open conflict which is where difference between jury members opinions are brought about and much discussion takes place. Each side tries to convince other jurors to take their side. Jurors can be persuaded through the process of informational influence, where they change their opinion due to a compelling argument another jury member may make, or through the process of normative influence, which is where they give into pressure and tend to vote the way the majority of people are voting. The final phase is called reconciliation which is where juries make sure everyone feels satisfied with the verdict and that there are no hard feelings.

Another thing I found interesting was the fact that juries have the power to reject or nullify the law. This is allowed because juries are expected to represent the moral conscience of the community which may lead them in a different direction than what the law might say.

Chapter 13 discusses Juries and Judges as Decision-Makers.

One way to describe the process of jury decision-making is through the use of mathematical models. The model assumes that jurors use a sort of mental meter that moves toward either a “guilty” or “not guilty” verdict depending on the strength of the evidence. During the trial jurors continually update their judgments. However, there is some evidence that can persuade jurors to stick with one side and not allow other evidence to change their mind. For example, a persuasive eye witness may be weighed too heavily and the jurors might not allow additional information or evidence to shift their decision. The alternative solution to mathematical models is the story model or juror decision-making. The story model allows the jurors to construct stories to make sense of evidence presented at trial. Initiating events causes characters to have psychological responses to form goals which cause motivate actions and those actions lead to consequences. Jurors create their stories by hearing the evidence at trial. The story model has been proven to be useful in describing juror decision processes in many types of trials including rape, murder, and sexual harassment.

The impact of evidence has a strong influence on jurors and their final verdict decision. A large-scale analysis of juries indicated that the “weight” and “direction” of evidence rated by judges, jurors, and attorneys were strong predictors of verdicts. The liberation hypothesis proposes that, in most trials, jury verdicts are determined by the strength of the evidence because evidence for the conviction or acquittal is usually compelling. Although the legal system tries to prevent biased information from confusing or tricking the jurors there are some instances where the information persuades them to believe wrong information. Pretrial publicity is a problem because it could cause biased information to be presented to the media and to potential jurors. A change of venue might be in order if the legal system feels that the jurors could become biased due to the strong pretrial publicity. Therefore, the trial is moved to another community that has not been exposed to the publicity and its biasing effects. In some cases inadmissible evidence can cause problems when it comes to preventing biased decisions. The judge has the power to overrule or sustain the information he feels is appropriate or inappropriate for the case. Inadmissible information may come from witnesses or attorneys. Impeachment evidence could be very crucial to a witness’s statements. Impeachment evidence is used to damage the credibility of the person who is on the stand during questioning.

This chapter involves a lot of research that involves jurors instead of the group aspect or juries. The jury is made up of individual jurors but what is all comes down to the decision made by the overall jury and not by the individual juror. Due to the University of Chicago Jury Project of the 1950’s the law prevents the study of juries. In the Jury Project juries were recorded without being notified and eventually the tapes surfaces and a scandal broke out. The media caused it to reach the U.S. Senate subcommittee and hearings were held about the scandal.
The dynamics of juries differ depending on the type of case and the people who make up the jury. Many juries appear to move through a three stage process. The first phase is orientation. Where juries elect a foreperson, discuss procedures, and bring up issues. Some juries vote immediately to get an idea where people stand, other juries wait until later to vote and begin by discussing the issues to be decided, other juries start by discussing each witness who testified at trial. The verdict-driven style of structuring the deliberation process often encourages jurors to sort the evidence into two different categories: supporting conviction or supporting acquittal. Another style used by juries is the evidence-driven style where the first vote is postponed until after careful, systematic discussion of the evidence takes place. The second phase involves open conflict. This is when differences in opinion between members of the jury become apparent and alliances may form between members of the group. Informational influence can cause a juror to change their opinion because other jurors make compelling arguments. Normative influence is when a juror does not change their views but gives into group pressures and changes their vote in order to avoid criticism. The final phase is reconciliation. This is where attempts may be made to sooth hurt feelings and makes everyone satisfied with their verdict decision.

I was really surprised at the 13.1 table on page 286. It gives a variety of information that relate to hung jury rates. I was surprised to learn that a racially diverse jury wasn't related to causing a hung jury. Also that the quantity of evidence didn't either. But the fact the timing of the first vote did have an impact on causing a hung jury.

Here is an article that talks about the jury’s decision making process, providing framework, and also coming up with a verdict. I wanted to read more about the process that occurs inside the jury room and this article helped answer a lot of my questions.
http://www.britsoccrim.org/volume4/004.pdf

Chapter 13 discusses how the juries and judges come into conclusions through decision making. The beginning of this chapter begins with discussing the process of jury decision-making. Mathematical models are used to describe these processes of the jurors by pieces of evidence at the trial to shift the jurors mental meter more towards the guilty or not guilty side. Some pieces of evidence, such as an eyewitness or a DNA sample, may have that meter stick on one side. Some jurors use the story model to make sense of the evidence presented at the trial. Jurors construct these stories while hearing the evidence at the trial and they learn about the possible verdicts at the end of the trial and select the verdict to best fit the story they constructed. Before this chapter, I had never heard of what the liberation hypothesis was. This hypothesis states that in most trials, jury verdicts are determined by the strength of the evidence because evidence for conviction is usually compelling. In cases where the evidence is close, the jurors will be liberated from the lack of clear evidence to base their decisions on other factors like prior beliefs, prejudice or assumptions. Learning about this really settled in how much clear and good evidence matters for a trial and the CSI and investigators need to make sure they get all of the evidence from the crime as they can.
The effects of biasing information came next in the chapter. I learned people who are exposed to negative pretrial publicity are significantly more likely to judge the defendant guilty than the people who are not exposed. This made sense to me but what I did not know was pretrial publicity will often contain information not admissible as evidence during the trial. A judge may instruct the jurors to disregard the pretrial publicity but the effect is too strong when there is television involved as well as an emotional story. I learned you can fix this issue by asking for a change of venue to where the trial has not been exposed to this pretrial publicity. I found it very interesting how jurors compare the moral character of the defendant and the victim. If there is a large gap between the two then the jurors tend to judge the defendant more harsh than they would if the gap were close. I have always thought inadmissible evidence was a dumb concept. There is no way a juror can hear a piece of information from a witness or attorney and be told to erase that from their memory. When a judge tells the jurors to disregard this information, this information would have more weight in my eyes because of a couple of reasons. One is the ironic processes. When a person tries to forget about something, he or she cannot stop thinking about it and become obsessed with the information he or she tries to forget. I also learned about the explanation of reactance theory. This is when people are motivated to maintain their freedom and when a judge tells them to not use a piece of information, the jurors may see that as a threat to their freedom to make a decision based on the evidence. Sometimes it is hard for jurors to understand information presented to them at the trial, especially when complex scientific and technical evidence is given by expert witnesses. I found it very interesting to learn expert testimonies do not have an overpowering impact on verdicts. I thought having an expert witness present valid information would help and sway people, but I had never really thought about how complex the information was and how it may be hard for people to follow and understand.
Next discussed was the group dynamics of jury deliberations. Lawyers talk about potential jurors as strong jurors who seem likely to have a large influence on the deliberation process. These 'strong jurors' are normally the well-educated high-status career people. When reading about the foreperson as the leader of the jury who sometimes contributes less to the discussion of the evidence made me think of Twelve Angry Men because the foreperson was more concerned with following the procedural rules than he was in becoming involved with the discussions. I found the stages of the deliberation process interesting how there are different styles of structure. The verdict-driven style and the evidence-driven style. I would probably see myself wanting to do the verdict-driven style because it seems reasonable to separate the evidence into supporting the conviction and supporting acquittal. During open conflict, informational influence and normative influence have an influence on changing juror's votes. Informational is when other jurors make good arguments but normative is when the juror's give in to peer pressure which I also saw in Twelve Angry Men. Reconciliation is when the jurors try to make everyone satisfied with the verdict. When reading about hung juries, the most interesting piece of information I read was the dynamite charge. This was a completely new piece of information to me because I did not know a judge would ask the jury to reexamine their views and consider each person's argument to be convinced. This is pretty much saying the minority will probably lose against the majority due to peer pressure. I found it interesting how juries do not have to explain the reasoning behind their verdicts. So no matter what the courtroom may say, the juror's verdict may go beyond the law into something like prejudices. This is because they are expected the represent the morality of the neighborhood. I agree with making the instructions given to the jury more simple. Jurors are common people coming into the courtroom ran by people who know the in and out of the trial. Common people do not know what is done and are not aware of everything. I know I would be lost if I had to go in as a juror. The judge will read instructions to the jurors without providing examples and without attempting to apply the legal categories to the case. There have been improvements to the instructions given though. Preinstructions help the jurors organize the information of the trial and helps ease their experience rather than only receiving post-instructions.

Psychology is evident in all deliberations of juries because it is social psychology in the works. Social psychology is played out when the juries are discussing the trial, the evidence, as well as attempting to persuade the other jurors who disagree with some of the others decision. Jurors are strangers who must come together and work together to decide the fate for a person. They must be able to communicate and reach a decision. I am in a social psychology course and I recognized the terms normative influence and informational influence. People interacting and creating arguments can definitely influence the way a person may act or in this case vote. Normative influence can come into play when there are people who are the majority vote and pressure the others to vote their way. Cognitive psychology is present in the jurors because a juror has to be able to process the evidence and the trial in order to be able to discuss and come to a decision of what should happen in the conclusion of the trial. A person must also be able to process the instructions and be able to 'disregard' information which can be very difficult I learned.

I looked more into the Kevorkian case:

http://articles.cnn.com/2007-12-17/us/court.archive.kevorkian4_1_john-skrzynski-kevorkian-case-judge-jessica-cooper?_s=PM:US

This went into the opening statement of Dr. Kevorkian and how he decided to represent himself in court. I found it interesting when he misdefined malice as a vicious act that required a vicious will when in reality it is simply the intent to kill which is misleading to the jury. He also did this in his opening statement which he is not allowed to do. This led to an objection by the prosecutor who had to clear up the definition of malice to Kevorkian. This may lead to confusion on what malice is for the jury or it may discredit Kevorkian's information.

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/26/us/kevorkian-case-difficult-to-prosecute-experts-say.html

this is an article from the new york times which starts out by saying the case may be hard for the prosecutors to win because the jury might sympathize with Kevorkian trying to help the terminally ill. Jurors may find sympathy with the people suffering to be in control of their death if they are in enough pain to want to end their life. The jury may be in that favor of Kevorkian. Something else which may lead the jury to vote in favor of Kevorkian was how the family of the dying man approved of his decision.

This chapter is about The Judge's and Jury's process. It talks about each ones deliberation process and the steps it takes in the trial process. The jury members most often make a verdict from two ways. The timeline method has a juror follow the crime throughout what occurred and make a decision based upon how it turned out in their head. The weight method has jurors take each individual piece of evidence and weigh the the validity and said 'weight' of the piece versus a contradicting or a weak piece of evidence. In reality, people do both these methods in everyday life when making decisions. The judge's going about differs from the jury for reasons such as the sentencing part rests on the shoulders of only one person. However, the chapter also talks about jury nullification, the specific ways a jury deliberates, and so on.

One of the first point that this chapter makes is the fact that judges and jurors are biased. This is unfortunate when it comes to cases and its unfixable.
Jurors use mathematical models to move towards either innocent or guilty based on the weight of the evidence. Each piece of evidence is given a numerical weight of its own, but a piece can become so heavily weighed that the meter becomes frozen and more evidence does little to shift the jurors overall judgement. There is another model the jurors use called the story model. This is when the jury uses the evidence to create a story that makes sense. In the story model, jurors first construct their stories while they hear the evidence at trial. Then they hear the possible verdicts, and from that they pick the story that makes the most sense out of the evidence.
jurors are expected to be unbiased, set aside prejudices and preconceptions, and to make sense of the unsensable. At lot of biases in bigger cases come from pretrial publicity. Due to public coverage on the case there tends to be a prosecution slant. The best way to get rid of pretrial publicity is for the defendant to get a change of venue to somewhere that has not had any pretrial publicity.
This like wealth, status, gender, and attractiveness seem to have little to do with influencing the jury. Jurors do, however, seem to judge character. in the character of the victim is significantly superior to the defendant the jurors tend to judge the defendant more harshly. Inadmissible evidence also affects a jury. When attorneys or witness say things that are objected to and sustained the jury is expected to forget about it, but its thought that you cant forget what youve already herd. The ironic process it thought to take effect in inadmissible evidence. When someone tries to forget something it becomes a dominating force in their mind. The reactance theory may be possible as well. People are motivated to maintain their freedom.
when things tend to get confusing expert witnesses are brought it to share their specific knowledge about a topic and make sense of it. It seems that if the expert message is difficult to understand jurors may weigh the testimony based on more peripheral cues.
Dynamics of a jury are assume before hand. The try and predict things like the strong jurors who seem more likely to influence the deliberation. Being a foreperson doesnt mean you will do more, but you may do less. Tallying up all the votes and things wont leave you as much time to deliberate as the other jurors.
There are 3 stages to the deliberation process, first is orientation (jury elects a foreperson, discusses procedures and raises general issues) next stage is open conflict (differences become apparent and coalitions may form) and lastly is reconciliation (attempts are made to soothe out hurt feelings and make every happy with the verdict.)
It is not sure why the size of a jury has become 12, but people say its due to the influence of Christianity or the affinity for the number 12.
Juries have the ability to null the law, that is, to ignore or disregard or go beyond the law. Sometimes what appears to be disregard for the law is actually an inability to understand the law. Jury reforms come in two different groups, moderate reformers (believe we have a good system that could be better) and radical reformers ( believe jurors are incapable of doing the job well and the jury system should be abandoned. When the case is about to end the jury is read instructions meant to help and make things simpler, but jurors actually have difficulty understanding them.
A proposed change for the jury is to allow them to talk amongst eachother during the trial. They argue that being able to talk about evidence during brakes helps jurors correct misunderstandings, but others argue that early discussion would get rid of full debate and lead jurors to reach premature verdicts.
If they threw out a jury the one who would be best able to take their place would be a trial by a judge. There is evidence that judges dont have much awareness of their own decision making processes and are biased just like jurors. There seems to be a tendency for juries to be a bit more lenient. A reason for this may be the prior experience a judge has and a jury doesnt.

Since i am a jury member I wanted to look a little more into what foreperson does.
They have the duty of facilitating communication. If a jury member has a question the foreperson needs to communicate that to the court. They also notify the judge when the verdict is reached and communicates it when the judge instructs them to do so. The foreperson also has to make sure each jury member gets to state his view on the best decision for the case and reasons that support that. They get to call the vote for the decision and sentencing. Among all this they have to maintain order and keep steering the discussion back to the facts and make sure the communication is open and honest.
http://www.ehow.com/list_7582368_jury-foreperson-duties.html

The C&K Chapter 13 talks about the jury and judges, their processes and their procedures. It starts off by discussing how the jury goes about making their decisions. The jurors can do it through the use of two different models. The first is the mathematical model example. The jury utilizes what the C&K book calls a “mental meter”. They motioned for an either guilty or not guilty verdict depending on the evidence provided in court. The evidence in court symbolizes the numerical weight that can move the juries thought process towards either guilty or not guilty. Then throughout the court hearing the jury “fills in” their thinking until all evidence has been presented and they’re able to make a complete decision. The second of the “method” to which a jury makes their decisions is the story model. As an alternative to the mathematical model, the story model says that jurors create different “stories” to be able to understand the evidence that is given at the trail. After the jurors have seen all of the evidence and have come up with a story, they find a way to size it up with a guilty or non-guilty verdict. In C&K it’s stated that this story model has been used and found to be most useful in cases of murder, rape and sexual harassment. The judge’s decision is most of the time based on the jury’s decision but the judge of course has a great influence on the decision to sentence and the severity of the sentencing to be imposed upon the defendant. The type of crime committed and the defendants past record plays a huge role on the sentence that ends up being implemented.

This chapter in a way covered everything that I've learned in my American Politics class. Things like majority rule and strong personalities play a huge role in both juries and our political system. However, instead of lobbyists trying to unethically sway the politicians' opinions, it is the lawyers who will do virtually anything to sway the jury's opinion. I have always found it interesting that the justice system allows for the jury to be shown inadmissible evidence and then just expects them to unbiasedly forget about what they saw. This is like when I used to sneak into my christmas presents before they were wrapped, and my mom would know by the look on my face that I was just acting surprised...because in all honesty there were a couple of years in which I knew all of my presents, and what is seen cannot be unseen. This is why I think that the judge ought to be more vigilant, and declare a mistrial if any inadmissible evidence is shown...and give harsh punishments to the attorneys who unethically use inadmissible evidence, as a deterrent from it ever happening again.
As for unanimity vs. majority rule, I think that they must require unanimity...this is because if you're in the majority, you're more likely to be able to swing the few in opposition over to your side anyway. It just gives more power to the minority. In our society, all you need for basically any decision is 50% plus one person in favor of something. That means that essentially 50% minus one person is going to be left unhappy. In a situation where normal citizens are deciding the fate of a person's life, it is imperative that we give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. Even if the defense attorney is able to convince one juror that the defendant is not guilty, then there needs to be something said for that. The prosecution, in our system, already has a huge advantage...and the one person is likely to just cave and vote guilty anyway, just to be able to quit and go home.
This chapter was very long and informative...it was interesting to read. I think that it is imperative to know all of this stuff before serving on a jury; however, very few jurors actually do know this unbiased information.