Jury Selection

Chapter six is about the process of jury selection. The chapter first explains how juries used to be made up of neighbors and acquaintances; so it was impossible for one to be neutral or unbiased. This was true until the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 was created. This act states that federal and state courts are to assemble juries that constitute a fair cross-section of the community, meaning a fairly unbiased jury. The process of selecting such a jury has four steps: jury pool, sample, venire, and jury. The jury pool consists of all mentally competent, English-speaking, adult U.S. citizens who have not been convicted of a felony and who are living in the relevant jurisdiction. The sample is then the group of eligible people summoned to report for jury duty. Next, the venire are the people who actually show up at the court house for jury duty. Finally, the jury is the group that survives the voir dire process.
The voir dire process is the final stage in the process of becoming a jury member. The voir dire is a sort of pretrial interview, usually held in open court. During this lawyers, sometimes assisted by consultants, get their change to remove or “challenge” potential jurors. There are two types of “challenges” a lawyer has at their disposal. The first is the challenges for cause; this is where a lawyer may claim that a certain juror will be unable to render an impartial verdict because of bias or prejudice. The other challenge is peremptory challenges; this is the privilege lawyers have to dismiss potential jurors without giving a reason for removal and without approval from the judge, however, they are limited on the amount of peremptory challenges they have. As you can see, jury selection is a long tiring process.
Lawyers preparing to try a case before a jury must attempt to figure out which potential jurors will be least favorable to their side of the case. Some characteristics are easy to see, but most are not. Questions are asked during the voir dire used to discover juror’s behavior. However, not matter what the lawyers find out, they cannot possibly know in advance how a particular juror will respond to the evidence in the case about to be tried. However in 1972 the first scientific jury selection was attempted. This was a systematic application of social scientific expertise used to select people to serve on a jury. A team of social scientists worked to help attorneys defend seven war activists. They interviewed 800 residents. They then measured correlations between characteristics and attitudes relevant to the trial. No one can say if the techniques worked for sure, but the trial ended in a hung jury. Ten jurors voted to acquit and two to convict, and thus a mistrial was declared and the government chose not to retry the case.
This shows that the people who end up on juries are the ones whom lawyers believe to be helpful to their case. The people who do not are people who are summoned and who do not show up due to laziness or trying to avoid jury duty all together. People do not end up on juries if they are biased people or are not helpful to the case. People may also not be on a jury because maybe the move around too much and are not part of the resident population anymore, or maybe they have not been put on the residents list yet. Many people do not end up on a jury, but the ones who do are people who are unbiased yet helpful to a particular side of a case.

Terms: Jury Selection, Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, Jury Pool, Sample, Venire, Jury, Challenges for Cause, Peremptory Challenge, Scientific Jury Selection, Hung Jury, Jury Duty.

Chapter six was an interesting chapter. I had heard a little bit about jury selection throughout my life form parents and other members of the community. I also have heard some information in other classes throughout my education. I found a lot of things interesting in this chapter that I had not heard about before.

This chapter starts off talking about how jury selection used to be composed of the defendants neighbors, because it was thought that by doing this the jury would be able to apply their previous knowledge of the defendant to the case and make the best judgement to develop a fair verdict. I could see how this would make sense for people to have come up with, but at the same time their are a lot of problems with it. For instance, if the jury is composed of neighbors and the defendant had gotten into a fight or argument with some of their neighbors for some reason it could cause for some bias and a greater likelihood for more harsh verdicts. Luckily this is not how juries are formed anymore.

Juries in today's society are formed from a list of citizens, and 12 people are chosen to be jurors. Although 12 are selected from the list a number of them are not able to be in the jury for the trial due to a number of different reasons. The original list the judge has to choose from is a list of people over the age of 18, that speak english, are mentally competent, and have never been convicted of a felony. The judge also needs the names and addresses of the citizens. I thought it was interesting how the book went into such great detail of this list that they do not have because it would almost be impossible to update constantly. Instead voter registration used for the process of jury selection. I found it interesting how this first step of selecting a jury was also the first place of bias for selecting a jury, because of the low amount of poor people, minorities, and new 18 year olds.

The next step is that the random sample is selected and sent a summons, this group that shows up to the courthouse is called a venire. I thought it was interesting that 20% of the people that are selected do not show up to the venire. Lawyers can challenge would be jurors for cause, which means they might have bias or prejudice towards the defendant or prosecution. Peremptory challenges can also be used to dismiss potential jury members, if the judge does not dismiss them on the grounds of challenge of cause.

Some lawyers spend a lot of time and effort trying to predict how the potential jurors will respond to the case. They observe how they act during voir dire. Some lawyers even a hire a number of different people to try and get some indication of their personality and views. It is interesting how many factors can play into the decision a lawyer has on selecting who they would like to be on the jury for their case. After reading this information it made it seem crazy for the lawyers that simply accept the first group of jurors that appear. It did however, make sense that this bold move would make it appear that the lawyer firmly believes they are right and will win the case.

There are a number of general personality tendencies that are looked at during jury selection. For instance the difference between people with an internal locus of control, meaning they believe they are in control of the outcomes in their lives, are compared with people with an external locus of control, or believe that others control the outcomes of their life. Belief in a just world is a characteristic where people believe that people deserve what happens to them. This characteristic sounded a lot like believing in karma to me. Another trait is known as authoritarianism. This trait was interesting because they are strongly against anyone that violates norms and rules.

All in all I found this chapter to be quite interesting. I did not realize how many different reasons their were for people not be accepted onto a jury. I just figured that if people were selected, if they did not have an observable bias they would be selected. By reading this chapter I found out that it is more likely to get deselected from the jury than it is to serve on the jury. I also did not know that people could use the cause of jury causes undue hardship or extreme inconvenience as an excuse not to serve. It seems like anyone that does not want to take part in being on a jury can make up an excuse or likely will be deselected do to some reason the lawyer has come up with.

Terms: summons, venire, challenge for cause, peremptory challenge, internal locus of control, external locus of control, voir dire, belief in a just world, and authoritarianism.

I have never been called to serve on a jury but I know many who have and I’ve always been confused why people dread it so much! It sounds like it would be an interesting experience to me-a good excuse to miss work or class. However, it seems most people hate being “plucked” out of their daily routine to do something that they view as a long and boring process. Chapter 6 discussed the process of jury selection. Juries are meant to be representative of the community and are chosen mainly through eligibility to vote. After being chosen and called to show, jurors are asked multiple questions and eliminated through the different steps of the selection process. Those who remain at the end of the questioning process are the jury. The concept of preemptory challenges was discussed and was described as the lawyer’s ability to dismiss a juror based on whether or not they think that juror will produce an unbiased verdict. Next, chapter 6 talked about the different stereotypes about jurors and how using science to select jurors may favor either side. A discussion on trial consultants was discussed and characteristics of jurors (personality, attitudes, etc) were discussed in relation to verdicts. The chapter summed up with a discussion of defendant-juror similarity and how that may help or hurt a case and finally, with a brief overview of trial procedure.

The thing that interested me most about this chapter was how biased the entire juror selection process really is. I know the whole point of the selection process is to produce an unbiased jury who is representative of the community as a whole, but right from the beginning before even picking potential jurors, the system seems biased. The textbook even discusses this and says that African Americans, Hispanics, new 18 year olds, and people who frequently move are widely underrepresented in the pool of potential jurors. The textbook also made it sound like the lack of effort by some states (laziness!) is one reason why the list of potential, eligible jurors is biased. This information shocked me since we know that a jury is a very important part of the trial and decides the fate of the defendant.
I feel like the chapter doesn’t really go over who does end up on juries, but rather people who don’t. Obviously people who know the defendant, who are somehow involved with the legal system (police officer), and who have biased attitudes about the court system are excluded from juries. The chapter discussed the effort to include jurors of both genders, various races, and various ages.

This chapter had many ideas relevant to psychology. First, we can relate clinical psychology to the fact that mentally ill individuals are excluded from jury selection. Although people with diagnosable mental illnesses are excluded, it’s near impossible to exclude everyone with a mental illness from the list of potential jurors. This makes me wonder how often people who a history (past or recent) of mental illness end up on juries. In addition, cognitive psychology is relevant to this chapter when we think about what kinds of things jurors pay attention to. Obviously based on their past experiences and attitudes, certain jurors will choose to pay attention and recognize patterns in areas where other jurors won’t. People think differently and choose to pay attention to different things which is closely related to cognitive psych.

We can also see how social psychology is relevant to jury selection. The prosecution and the defense are both trying to persuade the jury to think one way or another. Persuasion is a huge topic within the realm of social psychology. Also, how closely a juror can relate to the defendant is relevant to social psychology because many studies have proven that we tend to be attracted to people who are similar to ourselves. In addition, the idea of stereotypes (gender, racial, age) is highly prevalent throughout the jury selection process and is another big topic within social psychology. If we take a look at social influence, we can see how easily the minority can be persuaded the majority. This is relevant to jurors because one person in the jury may be leaning towards not-guilty while the other 11 jurors are voting for a guilty verdict. Social psychologists know it would be easy to persuade this one person to joining the majority based on multiple scientific studies. Finally, the idea of jurors deliberating and trying to decide on a verdict makes me think of obedience to authority. The chapter discusses the idea of a juror who becomes the “leader” and leads discussions, potentially persuading the rest of the jury one way or another. Many jurors may side with this leader because of the obedience to authority concept discussed widely within social psychology (Milgram experiment!).

Terms: jury, jury selection, peremptory challenge, social psychology, cognitive psychology, clinical psychology, trial consultant, defendant-juror similarity, verdict

Chapter six of the “Forensic and Legal Psychology” was a very interesting chapter. What made the chapter interesting was the fact that it talked about the process of selecting juries for jury trials. The chapter starts off talking about being selected for a jury. It asks you to imagine that you have been selected for jury duty and you are going to have to sit through the trial. It also goes on to talk about what would your attitude be toward a certain case; examples of this are when it asks about rape charges, murder charges, and how you would personally feel if you had to listen and possibly deliberate on those issues. The first thing that chapter six talks about is that everyone in the United States has the right to an impartial jury due to the 6th amendment. The next thing that it talks about is the fact that the 7th amendment gives individuals the right to a trial by jury in most civil cases. The next thing that the chapter talks about is a thing called “jury selection and service act of 1968.” This act basically made it so that states and the federal government have to assemble a jury that constitutes a “FAIR” cross section of the community. The reason that I highlighted the fact that it has to be a fair cross section of the country is the fact that sometimes a cross section might not be fair. The best example of a not fair cross section is the example that is given in the book about how all white juries used to sentence African American men to harsher sentences. This is something that I learned about in one of my previous classes about how it used to be that an African American man could commit the same crime as a white man and still get a longer sentence than the white man. This is something that has always been a concern of mine when it comes to jury trials, because of the fact that it brings up the question of whether or not jury trials can ever be fair. The next thing that chapter six talks about is the actual selection process of the jury in trial cases. The process goes through four stages. Those four stages are jury pool, sample, venire, and finally jury. The jury pool is a pool of individuals were they are tested to be competent, English speaking, U.S. Citizens, and whether or not they have even been convicted of a felony. The jury pool stage is usually done using voter registration forms because of the fact that it is very difficult to keep data on people who might be moving away and dying. After selections of individuals are selected from this group it is sent into the stage that is called sample. The sample is the process where the people are actually eligible for being sent to report to jury duty. This is when you are sent a letter or summons in the mail saying come to the court house on this certain day to be questioned about possibly serving on a jury. After the sample, it goes to the venire. The venire is the process where the people who actually show up at the court house for jury duty and then are asked more specific questions where the group is slimmed down to the 12 or 13 people that are needed to serve on the jury. After the venire, it goes to the process called jury. How the prosecutor and defense attorney slim down the group is with questions as well as a thing called challenges for the cause. The challenges for the cause is a challenge that a lawyer can make to a would be juror because of a prejudice or bias that the juror might have. The can also do another challenge called a peremptory challenge that is the process that attorney can dismiss a possible juror without giving a reason for the dismissal. They also can narrow the group from the venire with things like questionnaires. The jury is the actual group that serves on trial and hears the court case and deliberates on the verdict. The next thing that the chapter talks about is the thing called cognizable groups which are the knowledge that certain possible jurors might share the same beliefs or recognized as sharing the same beliefs as the person being brought to trial. The best example of this would be the process by which lawyers used to avoid having African Americans sit on the juries of African Americans who had been charged with a crime. This is almost like a bias thing that is trying to be avoided because of the 6th amendments right to an impartial jury. The next thing that the chapter talks about is how stereotypes and how there can be a science to the selection of members who are going to serve on juries. The stereotype bias is something that we have talked before about, how the certain races can view their own race as better as the other and therefore would be more likely to sentence the individual of the opposite race to jail than not. To try and avoid this, in 1972 a couple of scientists were brought together to select a jury for the Pennsylvania seven case. This is called the scientific jury selection where they made a list of questions and traits and asked the people of the town to answer them. After they assembled the jury, 10 of them voted to let the people go and two voted to convict. So the results seem to show that there might be a way to scientifically select jurors. The next thing that the chapter talks about is a shadow jury which is a group of individuals who are selected to sit in and watch the trial and then report what they would be thinking at certain times during the case. For example, if they say that they feel that they would vote to have the person be charged guilty, the defense attorney might change his thing on a couple of things. The next thing that the chapter talks about is the different types of personality types that jurors can have. These personality types can be authoritarian as well as just general beliefs in the world. The chapters goes on to talk about how the lawyers can then go on and find out the answers to these questions through the use of questionnaires and things such as revised legal attitudes questionnaires. The final thing that the chapter talks about is the process of how a trial normally works. The trial usually goes through a five step process. These five steps are opening statements, direct examinations, cross examine, redirect, and recross. After each of these steps there are the closing arguments and then the jury is asked to leave and deliberate on the case. I personally found all the information to be very interesting. The reason that I found it interesting was the fact of how much time is taken into making sure whether or not a jury is impartial and such. This gives me hope in our legal system, however, I still have my doubts. The thing that I found most interesting was the peremptory challenges that can be used to basically throw out a possible juror without any reason. I didn’t like that idea because of the fact that it just seems a little unfair. The kinds of people who end up on juries (we hope) are people who are impartial. They are people that represent the community as well as the society as a whole. The reason that I say we hope they are impartial is because of the fact that I think that sometimes it is almost impossible for someone not to be biased toward someone of a different race just because of the fact that stereotypes are so involved in our society. People who don’t end up on juries are people that “say” that cannot be impartial because of the fact that they have stereotypes and biases that would cause them not to be impartial. This basically means that people who are racist and such cannot serve on a jury. Overall this was a very interesting chapter, and a very interesting read.
Terms: opening statements, direct examinations, cross examine, redirect, and recross, revised legal attitudes questionnaires, general beliefs in the world, authoritarian, shadow jury, scientific jury selection, cognizable groups, peremptory challenge, challenges for the cause, jury pool, sample, venire, and finally jury, jury selection and service act of 1968.

Chapter six gave a lot of information about the process of jury selection as well as the proceedings in the actual trial. In the past juries were just made of up of the defendant’s neighbors and other convenient people. However, now a days we strive to create an impartial jury for each and every trial. This is made official by the 6th amendment as well as the Jury Selection Act of 1968, which states that courts must assemble juries that represent a cross section of the community. But this can be more complicated than it seems.

Any U.S citizen, who speaks English, are mentally competent, never been convicted of a felony and are over the age of 18 can get that letter in the mail saying that you are up for jury duty. Usually a list of registered voters is used because they are convenient. But this could result in a convenience sample. Often these lists under represent poor people, minorities, recent 18 year olds and people who move frequently (such as people in the military). Just because you receive a letter does not mean that you will actually be serving on the jury at trial. When you receive a letter you are summoned to appear in a courthouse and those who appear are called the venire. This is where each juror is asked questions in order to assess their competence of the court system, biases, and over all assess their eligibility for serving on the particular cases jury. You may also be exempt due to such things as vacations and work. The number of people that are exempt due to the previous reasons are solved by having a one day or one trial rule. Meaning that they would make themselves available and are done when the trial is over. The final stage of this process is called voir dire. Attorneys and judges now have the opportunity to ask the jurors questions to select the final 12 that will serve on the jury. During this time attorneys can challenge for cause and peremptory challenge. With challenge for cause an attorney can claim that a juror should not be on the jury because they are prejudice or bias and would hurt the impartiality of the jury. With peremptory challenge an attorney can dismiss a juror without giving a reason. An attorney is only given so many peremptory challenges per case. Critics of this system say that attorneys use these challenges to stack the jury in their favor. Also an attorney’s own stereotypes and biases may come in to play. Also if they believe a juror to act a certain way they may use conformation bias to confirm this belief and then dismiss them based on wrong facts. However there are laws in place stating that an attorney may not dismiss jurors based of race, religion, or gender.

Stereotypes and science are sometimes used to select juries. Some lawyers have created short cuts in order to make the jury selection process faster. Most of these short cuts are based of stereotypes about ethnic groups and occupational groups. Such as a wealthy man will convict the defendant unless he is up for crimes dealing with money, such as selling worthless bonds. Some attorneys are better at selecting juries than others. This could lead to an impartial jury die to the fact that a skilled lawyer for picking juries is up against a not so skilled one. This could also cause impartial juries for poor people, which could be discrimination. Most likely the skilled attorneys for jury selection cost more money so a poor defendant may not be able to afford them. It was found in some studies, however, that other than a select few very skilled attorneys, most were no better than randomly selected students at picking juries. This leads me to wonder if the whole jury selection process is that necessary. Would you get a better random sample with just selecting twelve people at random?

Some attitudes and personality traits are used to determine which juror would be best for the case. Such things as locus of control, how people explain why things happen are used. You either have an internal or external locus of control. Internal means that you attribute the things that happen to you are under your control. While people with external locus of control contribute outcomes to things outside their control. Also the person’s belief in a just world and how authoritarian they are, are also looked at. Juror’s attitudes can be looked at through a series of questionnaires such as the Revised Legal Attitiudes Questionnaire as well as the Juror Bias scale.

Jurors tended to be more lenient with defendant’s that are similar to them. This can be because they are using that as a defense mechanism. They might be telling themselves that the defendant could not have done because the juror would not have done it. They do not want to believe that someone like them is capable of committing a crime. They believe the defendant is innocent in order to protect their own sense of self.

Opening statements are used at the start of the trial but cannot be considered evidence. The prosecution starts and then the defense goes, they can also differ if they think their opening statement would work at a better time. Following this witnesses are called and then they are subject to a direct examination, questions by the side that called them to the stand. Then they can go through a cross examination, questions from the opposing side. At the end of the trial the verdict is called. In order for the defendant to be considered guilty, they must be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. What I found interesting, and a little unfair, is that the prosecution got the first and the last word at trial. Due to the serial position effect, this could cause the jurors to mostly remember the things stated by the prosecution, which is not fair to the defendant.

Terms: Random sample, convenience sample, prosecution, defendant, jury, serial position effect, stereotypes, confirmation bias, locus of control, opening statement, direct examination, cross examination, revised legal attitudes questionnaire, juror bias scale, belief in a just world, authoritarian, challenge for cause, peremptory challenge,

Chapter 6: Jury Selection

I have never been called for jury duty nor have I heard many stories about people being called, so this chapter was all new to me. Every person over 18 who speaks English and has never been convicted of a felony is eligible for jury duty, this is called a jury pool. The jury pool is reduced to a sample, when those selected are asked to report for jury duty. Those who actually show up for the case are called the venire, while the group that survives the removal process, voir dire, are the final jury. One of the main things I thought was interesting is that lawyers can dismiss a juror for whatever reason they see fit (as long as the judge approves) which is called peremptory challenge. This is crucial for both sides because if a lawyer finds, for example, that one particular juror is married to a police officer or has some sort of knowledge that could potentially sway the other jurors, it is important to remover him/her from the list. Bias and prejudice are harmful to cases because they may allow for an impartial verdict. I liked how they used the example of O.J. Simpson's case to explain this further. Adding the concept of a scientific jury selection makes the process all that more complicated. Lawyers are able to hire trial consultants whose job is to simulate the actual trial. These people may spectate at the trial and then be asked questions during recess to help the lawyer gauge how he/she was doing in the case. This aspect I thought was particularly interesting because of its ability to create a fictitious case setting.

I wasn't aware that there are professionals whose main job is to asses the current jury and give feedback to the lawyers about how they might be swayed during the trial. This allows for the lawyer to emphasize certain bits of evidence that may carry more weight than say an eye witness testimony. For example, if a lawyer finds out that a wealthy man is seated on the jury, he is more likely to send a person to prison who perhaps stole money or had insider trading tips like Martha Stewart. The lawyer could try to coax a confession from the victim or concentrate on pieces of evidence that bring about those characteristics. Furthermore, if after filling out a questionnaire, the lawyer determines that the wealthy man's personality is authoritarian, he/she can utilize that information on the case. The wealthy man has a personality that reflects rigid values and he tends to be intolerant of weaknesses, allowing for more of a dominant role when the jury gets together to discuss the case. Other jurors may gravitate toward the opinions of the authoritarian figure without any regards to their own values.

terms used: jury pool, sample, venire, voir dire, jury, peremptory challenges, trial consultants, scientific jury selection, authoritarianism,

Chapter 6 talks all about jury selection. There are many steps in the jury selection process. In the past, juries were not selected to be unbiased and neutral, instead they consisted of the defendants’ friends and neighbors. Today due to the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, federal and state courts must assemble juries and constitute a “fair cross section of the community.” The people of a community should and must be involved in the jury process.

The jury pool consists of people who are 18 years or older, speak English, have no criminal record, and are mentally competent. Many states created the jury pool by finding lists of people for different things such as drivers’ licenses, tax rolls, and people receiving unemployment benefits. After people are randomly chosen from this pool, the venire, or group that shows up to the courthouse are questioned and examined, which is called the von dire process. The ones who seem to be a proper fit for the trial and have no bias or ties to anything in the trial are selected for the jury. There are challenges that occur during this process, one being challenges for cause, or in other words a lawyer discarding an individual after finding out that a potential juror has bias or prejudice that may affect their thinking in the trial. Another challenge is a peremptory challenge in which a lawyer can dismiss a potential juror for some other reason. A cognizable group is a person or group in which they cannot be removed because of religion, sex, or race, but are distinctly different than other people.

Some lawyers use ¬stereotypes in order to select the jury. They look for clues such as jewelry or expensive clothing, or see if the person has tattoos and piercings. They also may use questionnaires and ask likes or dislikes to see the persons’ views and feelings on certain issues. By using stereotypes, lawyers are able to find people that may help them get the verdict they want. Scientific Jury Selection is used to help a jury consulter or lawyer find jurors that will help them win their case, which is kind of like using stereotypes to select jurors.

Sometimes trial consultants are hired, and help set up mock juries from a group of potential jurors. It helps figure out potential loopholes and how jurors will think and act during the trial. Using this tool could help alter the overall verdict of a trial. A shadow jury is like a mock jury in which 10 to 12 people are selected by similar characteristics as the actual jury, to see possible outcomes. These are both great tools in helping a lawyer win a case.

Some characteristics and attitudes are predictors of verdicts. Multiple regressions or a technique that statistically combines a large group of variables to predict an outcome. This can be used for general personality tendencies, such as lotus of control, belief in a jut world and authoritarianism. A person’s individual attitudes about the legal system may also may an impact and should be noted as well. Many scales are used to determine this such as the Juror Bias Scale, and the Likert Scale, as well as the Revised Attitudes Questionnaire.

The defendant-leniency hypothesis predicts that jurors who are similar to the defendant will emphasize and identify with the defendant. This could be a problem and bias their opinion and feelings about the trial. The trial procedure includes opening statements, direct examination, cross examination, and closing arguments.

All in all, the jury selection process is a long and difficult one. It is however probably one of the most important stages of a trial, because the jury has nearly all the power in changing a verdict in a trial. A lot of the people that seem to end up in juries, like previously stated are those who lawyers feel will help win the trial. More stable people also seem to make jurors more than people who are not. What really surprised me was how much psychology is actually used in the jury selection process. I never knew that there was so much figuring out who would be the best fit in a jury by their personality and characteristics about them. It was very interesting to learn about the jury selection process.

Key Words: Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, von dire process, challenges for cause, peremptory challenge, cognizable group, ¬stereotypes, Scientific Jury Selection, trial consultants , mock juries shadow jury, Multiple regressions, Juror Bias Scale, the Likert Scale, Revised Attitudes Questionnaire, defendant-leniency hypothesis opening statements, direct examination, cross examination, and closing arguments.

Juries in the past used to favor people that knew the defendant; it was believed that they would better be able to judge their fate. Modern juries are now intended to be impartial and represent community values, as stated in the Sixth and Seventh Amendments. The Supreme Court and the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 ensure that there is a fair cross-section of the community present on juries. The actual process of jury selection is by deselection. Voter registration lists are the primary and most correct lists of people that jury commissioners being their jury pools with. Although it is impossible to have a complete and always accurate list of people who are over eighteen, mentally competent, speak English, and have never been convicted of a felony. From this pool of people a random sample is chosen and they are sent a jury summons to appear at a courthouse on a certain date. The people chosen to show up are the venire. Depending on the case and the size of town, the venire could vary between thirty people upwards to one hundred. Because some potential jurors show up or believe it would be a hardship the one day or one trial system has been adopted in many places. The final processes of jury selection is voir dire, when the attorneys and judge ask the potential jurors questions. During voir dire the attorneys can use two potential challenges, challenges for cause and peremptory challenges. Challenges for cause are when an attorney believes the potential juror has bias or prejudice. A peremptory challenge can be done without giving a reason and without the approval of the judge, unlike challenges for cause. Each attorney is allowed to do a limited number of these. Voir dire also allows attorneys to educate the potential jurors and have them commit to certain standards. Certain cognizable groups, based on ethnicity, religion, or gender, cannot be excluded by law because of those traits. Having unrepresentative juries damages the legitimacy of the legal system.
It can be very difficult for attorneys to determine if someone would vote in favor of their side of the case. Some lawyers go to extremes by hiring analysts and astrologers and some others decide not to participate in voir dire at all. Some handbooks that lawyers use play on the stereotypes of men and women and people of certain occupations, although some things may be a bit true they are usually exaggerated. Scientific studies of jury selection have been done to determine how well a challenge to a juror may have worked. It has been found that effective uses of peremptory challenges appeared to influence the verdicts in three of the twelve cases studied, which is not a lot. The difference between seasoned lawyers and law students doing the choosing in mock cases was also not very different of effectively remarkable. There have been attempts at doing scientific jury selections, using social scientists to consult the attorneys in their selection process. Sometimes these people consult through the entire trial process. They can even conduct things like a shadow jury, people exactly like the real jury, to help them determine how to tweak their strategies.
Persuasiveness of the evidence is the best indicator of whether a defendant will be convicted or acquitted. The evidence is seen the exact same way and at the same time to all of the jurors but they still do not come to deliberations with the same thoughts. One study used multiple regressions, combining many variables, to predict an outcome on many different types of cases. There are three general personality traits that affect how a juror interprets evidence, they are locus of control, belief in a just world, and authoritarianism. Locus of control refers to how someone explains the things that happen to them in life, misfortunes and rewards. Internal locus refers to their own doing and external locus refers to the forces outside of themselves. Belief in a just world refers to how strongly someone believes that people get what they deserve and deserve what they get. Authoritarianism refers to people who tend to identify with and submit to authority figures. A few scales have been developed to assess attitudes about juries and verdicts. They are the Revised Legal Attitudes Questionnaire, the Likert Scale, and the Juror Bias Scale. These are generally used for criminal trials, but the Civil Trial Bias Scale has been developed and used in civil trials (suing for an alleged harm, paying compensatory and/or punitive damages). The similarity-leniency hypothesis is something that can happen in civil or criminal trials, and refers to jury members feeling empathetic because they may identify with the defendants.
The end of this chapter goes over the trail procedure. Discussing how trials start with opening statements by opposing attorneys, the burdens of proof that are needed to be proven, the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, and the closing arguments. What was most surprising to me is how much a jury consultant can actually do and how they can help a lot in many cases. It also surprised an appalled me reading about the O.J. Simpson trial and how the jury was comprised. People who end up on juries are generally people who don’t know too much about anything and are not generally professionals in any sense; they are also not extreme in religion or politics unless it may help one attorneys case. People who would not end up being sensitive to an attorney’s side would be less likely to be picked, extreme people or “yuppie” people are usually not chosen because of how it is determined that they would rule.

Terms: Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, jury pool, venire, one day or one trial, voir dire, challenges for cause, peremptory challenges, cognizable, shadow jury, multiple regression, locus of control, internal locus, external locus, Revised Legal Attitudes Questionnaire, Likert Scale, Juror Bias Scale, civil trial, compensatory damages, punitive damages, Civil Trial Bias Scale, burden of proof, opening statements, cross-examination, closing arguments

Chapter six discussed the process of jury selection, the psychology behind it, and the attempt by the legal system to prevent juror bias. It also briefly discussed trial procedure.

First off, the trial begins with opening statements. While hearing the overview, I believe the jurors’ locus of control comes into play. This is a perspective held by all people, where they have either an internal or external bias. While reading this, I found it surprising because I had never thought about how this can affect a trial before. They may believe that the outcomes in life are a result of their own actions (internal), which may make them more likely to convict the defendant. On the other hand, they may view this as a result of outside forces out of their control (external). This juror bias can strongly affect the outcome of a trial.

The trial then moves to presenting evidence. Jurors must observe and decide if the defendant is guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This means that, especially in more severe cases, the jury should only convict if they are positive that the defendant is guilty. Like in the play “12 Angry Men” (which we’ll be watching later this semester!!), it was the reasonable doubt of just one juror that freed an innocent man.

Next up is direct-examination and cross-examination. During this time, a witness, the defendant, or experts may testify. The juror bias of belief in a just world comes into play here. The books uses an example of rape, and discusses different biases that jurors can have while listening to direct- and cross-examination. Benevolent sexists may think that this woman caused her own rape by dressing provocatively, etc. They are more likely to be apathetic to victims, thinking they somehow caused it. As you can see, this may have a big part in a juror’s decision.

Lastly, there are closing arguments. These don’t involve the presentation of evidence; they attempt to appeal to a juror’s emotion and persuade them. During this time, the similarity-leniency hypothesis is in effect. This says that jurors who find the defendant to be similar to them are more likely to empathize. They’ll also be less likely to convict. During closing arguments, as each side attempts to appeal to the emotion of jurors, they may feel similarity to the defendant or victim, which sways their opinion. This is not only in the courtroom; people instinctively do this on a day-to-day basis as well.

As for who does or does not end up as a juror, there are many factors. You must be 18 or older, speak English, be mentally competent, and have not been convicted of a felony. Narrowing it down further, you have to lie in the relevant location of the trial and be chosen as a sample. After showing up at the courthouse, you must fill out a questionnaire. This narrows it down even further. They also take into account many other aspects, including medical conditions, caring for children, etc. You are also weeded out by a face-to-face interview, known as voir dire, where challenges for cause and peremptory challenges come into play.

Key Terms: Opening Statement, Locus of Control (Internal and External), Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, Direct-Examination, Cross-Examination, Belief in a Just World, Closing Argument, Similarity-Leniency Hypothesis, Voir Dire, Challenges for Cause

This chapter talked about jury selection. I was really interested in reading this chapter because I have never personally gotten chosen for jury selection, and most of the people I know you have gotten asked to show up for selection have never gotten picked for the actual trial. Another reason I was so curious to learn about this, was because my sister had to go to trial for a car accident, and our attorney was very successful in picking the jury members to sit upon the hearing.
A few of the man topics discussed in this chapter were first how attorneys go about selecting who they want to be a part of the jury and how this decision process works. I learned that there is a lot more questioning that goes into deciding a jury then I initially realized. Juries are supposed to recognize a “fair cross section of the community” according the Jury Selection and Service act of 1968. Because it is supposed to represent a fair section of the community I understand the reasons for such a time consuming process for selection.
People are first group of prospective jurors is called the venire. The initial group of jurors can range from numbers of 20 to 100 depending on the importance and severity of the case being tried. The final stage in the process is called the voir dire. This is the process where attorneys and the judge ask many questions in order to find out background information of the potential jurors. It is important to ask questions in order for the attorneys to find out who will best support their side of the trial. There are 2 different ways that attorneys can throw out potential jurors who they think will not be beneficial for their side. The first is called challenge for cause. This is when the attorney wants to rule out a potential jury for the thought of potential threat that the person may be bias or prejudice to their side of the trial. The second is called a preemptory challenge. This is considered a more powerful type of challenge because no reason is necessary to throw out the potential juror. Depending of the seriousness of the charge being tried, attorneys may get more or less preemptory challenges.
In order to be a juror you must not be blind, you must also be over the age of 18 and speak English, be mentally competent and have never been convicted of a felony. Because there is no such type of list that specifies all of these requirements, usually they start with using voter registration and weed out people after they have been contacted based on the requirements above. Although those are the only necessary requirements, attorneys may want to dismiss you from the jury for a number of other reasons. Most often attorneys want to get rid of people who will most likely vote against their client. Such studies have shown that women are more punitive then men, you should never take a wealthy man unless the person is accused of violating an anti-trust law, and artist’s writers and musicians are good jurors for the civil side of cases.
Attorneys also sometime use mock juries or shadow juries in order to help their case. Mock jurors are people who are chosen who are most like the jurors who will actually be sitting in on the case. The attorney will give them a brief idea of what the trial will look like and they will use what the mock jurors say about the case to tweak their statements in order to hopefully deliver the best argument for their client as they can.
Like I mentioned earlier it all depends on the case being tried to determine what type of jurors attorneys won’t want. For instance if it is a drug case, most likely they won’t want a police officer.

Legal terms: mock jury, venire, voir dire, shadow jury, preemptory challenge, challenges for cause, Jusry Selection and Service Act of 1968

Chapter 6 gives us great information about the jury that sits in the court room. A jury must be a fair cross-section of the community that it is representing; that is what the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 states. Everyone should know the process that the courts take to figure out a jury. They begin with a large jury pool, that is anyone over 18 years of age in that given area, next they will select sample group from the pool to show up for jury duty. After the sample has been picked they will move on to what is called venire, these are the people who will actually come to the court house for jury duty. The last stage that the people have to face would be voir dire, this is the part where the “jury” is asked a bunch of random questions to make sure that they do not know the individual that is being put on trial or would give the jury any bias for the case. If everyone passes this part of the jury selection then they are put on the actual jury.

Stated in our book, if a lawyer does not like a certain juror he or she can call for a peremptory challenge, which then allows the juror to be dismissed from the jury without any question. The chapter then goes into more detail about who is usually picked to be on the jury and who is thrown away. Also it talks about the actual court proceeding and what happens. I have learned about this before at another college that I attended before UNI and none of this information is real new to me, so it has absolutely no impact on me nor is it surprising or interesting. Most people that end up on juries are people who both of the attorneys would think would help their side of the case most.

To get into more detail what we talked about at my other college was that they try to get a cross-section of people to represent the community, so you will have a lot of white older males, a few African Americans, a few females and a few others to make up the jury. People that they do not want on the jury would be a person who may know anyone in the case, cops, or anyone who knows roughly anything about the legal system that would create a juror bias for the case.

KEY TERMS: Peremptory Challenge, Jury, Juror, Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, Jury Pool, Venire, Voir Dire, Bias, Jury Duty, Cross-section,

Chapter 8 discussed jury selection. It begins by talking about how juries are assembled. Early juries were made up of the defendant’s neighbors and acquaintances simply because they thought it would give some insight into who the defendant really was and how they interacted with the people closest to them. Today, we know this is now how juries work. Modern juries are created to be impartial so that there is no bias present and so that the jury can be as representative of the community as a whole as possible. The Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 helps to understand how we can achieve an impartial jury. According to this act, federal and state courts must assemble juries that constitute a “fair cross-section of the community.” This requires a far more complicated process than people probably think. Instead of going through a lengthy process of selecting people, the process is more of a deselecting way of going about things. People are eliminated for many different reasons as the process moves along. According to the previous act, the primary source for identifying eligible jurors is through voter registration lists. This can lead to some bias, though, because these kinds of lists tend to underrepresent the poor, African Americans, Hispanics, people who move frequently, and people who recently turned 18. This kind of bias is not allowing the jury to be a good representation of the community by leaving these people out. After the jury pool has been identified, a random sample of jurors is drawn from it. The people who actually show up to the appropriate location after being summoned are called the venire. Unfortunately, a small number of people actually show up after being summoned. After the jurors have been randomly selected from the jury pool, the final stage of voir dire takes place. During this stage, attorneys and the judge ask potential jurors a series of questions in order to determine who will actually serve on the jury. This is the time when attorneys get their chance to challenge the potential jurors (challenges for cause). Attorneys may challenge potential jurors because they feel the juror will be unable to render an impartial verdict based on only evidence and law. Attorneys can also use a peremptory challenge where they are able to remove a juror from the jury without any say from the judge. However, they are only allowed a certain number of these depending on the case and the severity of the charges against the defendant. There are also a few other restraints on the attorneys in regards to their ability to remove people from the jury panel. They are unable to remove anyone from the panel based on race, religion or gender. These people who are a part of certain groups are cognizable in the sense that they are recognized as sharing a characteristic or attitude that distinguishes them from the other potential jurors. Lawyers are unable to use their peremptory challenge to remove these people as well. Lawyers preparing to try a case before a jury must attempt to figure out which potential jurors will be least favorable to their side of the case. That being said, they don’t have much to go on to make these decisions. Even though they are able to observe certain things, they still are unable to predict how a potential juror will respond to the evidence in the case and they cannot know how that juror will influence and be influenced by other jurors when they deliberate. This causes attorneys to try and find any information that they can that will give them an advantage when it comes to choosing the best possible jurors for their case. Defendant-juror similarity can sometimes influence the verdicts in a case as well. The similarity-leniency hypothesis predicts that jurors who are similar to the defendant will empathize and identify with the defendant, which would then lead them to be less likely to convict. This would be really bad for prosecuting attorneys. This hypothesis can be largely due to the idea that jurors who are similar to the defendant are going to be more likely to accept their account of the events that may have took place. The end of the chapter gives a short overview of the trial process. A trial begins with opening statements by the opposing attorney. It should be noted that these statements are not evidence. The defense usually follows the prosecution with their opening statement, but they can choose to delay their statement until they present their evidence. If this happens, it is important to remember than a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Depending on the type of case, a burden of proof, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, or preponderance of the evidence must be proven. After the opening statements, witnesses are called when direct examination and cross-examination are used. Attorneys also have the ability to redirect examine or recross examine the witnesses as well. After the evidence is presented and the witnesses have been examined, closing arguments are made. Just like opening arguments, these are not evidence.

I would say that the broken down explanation of how a jury is selected is what was most interesting to me about this chapter. I knew that the process was complicated and lengthy, but it was interesting to be able to actual read and understand how the process worked in depth. I was unaware that there were three different stages for selecting jury members. I also found the section on defendant-juror similarity to be interesting. I had never really thought about it like that, but it definitely makes sense. This is something that the prosecution would clearly want to avoid, but it would be hard to catch it in some instances. In regards to what kind of people end up on juries, the intention is to make the jury as representative of the community as possible. In order to do this, there needs to be a mixture of different kinds of people placed on the jury. Just like the chapter stated, however, this is hard to do at times. If a certain kind of list is being used to create the pool, then certain groups of people are going to be left out. This is inevitable because no list is going to equally represent every group of people. The list is meant to be unbiased, but that can be hard. Especially when the attorneys have the opportunity to pick it apart before the trial begins. That being said, the kinds of people who don’t end up on juries are the people who the attorneys feel would be unable to come up with an impartial verdict come the time to deliberate. When it comes down to it, the people who are unable to be on a jury are the people who the attorneys feel won’t benefit their side of the case.

Terms: Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, venire, voir dire, challenges for cause, peremptory challenge, cognizable, defendant-juror similarity, similarity-leniency hypothesis, opening statements, burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence, direct examination, cross-examination, redirect examine, recross examine, closing arguements

Chapter six talked about the complicated jury selection process and how jury selection influences verdicts. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a trial by an impartial jury in criminal cases. The Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 says that juries must be representative of the community. There are other stipulations of juries as well, such as being over the age of 18, being able to speak English, not being legally blind, being mentally competent, and never have been convicted of a felony. Unfortunately, not everyone has an equal chance of being selected to serve on a jury, which decreases the chance of the jury being representative of the community. People who have recently turned 18 or moved into the area may not show up on the list of people who are called for jury duty. About 20% of the people who are called for jury duty simply do not show up.

The random sample of jurors (that actually show up) that is drawn from the jury pool is called the venire. Even more of these people may be excluded from jury service because of “undue hardship or extreme inconvenience.” The next stage is called voir dire, which consists of more exclusions of the jury venire. In this stage, lawyers can use challenges for cause and peremptory challenges. Challenges for cause gives lawyers a chance to remove jurors who may not be able to be impartial in the trial. Peremptory challenges gives the lawyers a chance to dismiss a small number of jurors without any reason or approval from the judge. They will try to eliminate jurors who might be unsympathetic to their side of the case. Even though the purpose of voir dire is to create a fair and impartial jury, most of the time lawyers simply want jurors who they believe will favor their side.

There are some restraints on lawyers’ ability to dismiss jurors. They cannot dismiss jurors solely because of their race, religion, or gender. These groups are cognizable because they are recognized as sharing characteristics or attitudes that distinguish them from other potential jurors. For example, if a lawyer wants to dismiss a black juror, they must give the judge an explanation. In general, lawyers will use stereotypes to try to predict how a juror will respond to the evidence of the case. Although jury selection can influence the outcome of the case, it is typically not by much. The relationship between jury selection and verdict is quite complicated and left to interpretation. Lawyers may hire trial consultants who try to provide the lawyers with information on who the best/worst jurors might be for their side of the case. Using a scientific jury selection process may be able to predict juror’s verdicts (and thus eliminate those that will favor one side of a case) better than lawyers who use stereotypes and instinct, but not by much.

Jurors evaluate and interpret the presented evidence differently due to their personality, values, and experiences. However, the relationships between many characteristics and verdict are not strongly correlated. For example, demographic characteristics such as age, education, and income do not correlate with the verdict that a person will favor. Characteristics that do seem to be associated with jury verdicts are locus of control, belief in a just world, and authoritarianism. But even these characteristics only have influence on a juror’s decision when the evidence in favor of conviction is ambiguous or less than compelling.

The fact that demographic characteristics do not seem to be related to verdict decisions really surprised me. I thought that education would definitely have an influence, as it does with so many other things. Even gender is not strongly correlated! Some studies have found that females are slightly more likely to treat accused rapists and child molesters more harshly, but some studies show the opposite. In addition, females tend to be more sympathetic to plaintiffs alleging sexual harassment. At least in movies, it seems that lawyers base a lot of their jury selection decisions on gender. I was surprised to find that this has no evidence! One other thing I found interesting was that some lawyers may decide to skip the process of voir dire altogether. They may claim that every person is fair, thoughtful, and honest, and that the evidence presented will be clear enough to lead to the correct verdict. When in reality, this is just a strategy to get the jurors to believe that the lawyer is extremely confident in the evidence they will bring. It also makes it look like the other lawyer needs a favoring jury because he has less compelling evidence. Lawyers can be so sneaky!

People that do not end up on juries usually: have recently turned 18, move to new areas often, are involved with the legal system (police officers, married to a police officer, teach about the legal system, etc.). Although cognizable groups are not supposed to be dismissed due to stereotypes, lawyers can still find excuses for them to be dismissed. Depending on the case and the defendant, lawyers will go at lengths to dismiss any jurors that may not favor their side of the case.

Terms: jury, mentally competent, venire, voir dire, challenges for cause, peremptory challenges, cognizable, trial consultants, stereotypes, locus of control, conviction, scientific jury selection

In chapter 6 it discussed the trial process and jury bias. There are many factors that go into selecting the actual jury; many people originally selected go through the narrowing process. They first they contact you through mail, many people try to get deferred from court because they think that it is a waste of their time. After narrowing it down to whether or not a person speaks English, is 18 or older (registered voters), mentally competent, and have not been convicted of a felony. The people that meet the criteria are called venire and they head to the courthouse for more questioning and interviews.

They have a Voir Dire with the attorneys, defense and prosecution. They can questions potential jurors to see whether or not they want to put them in the final jury, they base it off who would benefit their side. Attorneys have to have a reason for excluding people and one person they can excuse for no reason at all this is called peremptory challenge. This happened in the book, “Picking Cotton” during the Voir Dire jurors were excluded for hardly a reason at all, and finally an all white jury was selected unfairly for Ronald Cotton’s case.

What most commonly leads to bias’s among jurors is their locus of control whether it be external or internal. Internal locus of control is when you believe that something happened based on your own actions. External locus of control is when they believe that outside forces caused the action to take place, leaving it out of the person’s control. Internal jurors are likely to convict the person and external jurors are likely to claim that are innocent. This can happen in the beginning of the trial with opening statements or it can happen throughout when evidence is being brought to the attention of the jurors.

In the closing statement both sides try and sway the emotion of the jury onto their side of things. If the jury is more likely to feel like the defendant they are less likely to find them to be guilty. The closing statement does not present evidence it is more of an overview, it is not very long and it is trying to win the hearts of the jury.

Whether or not the juror is bias in a rape case, the defense is likely to attack the victim and say that they somehow caused this to happen. This is most categorized in the internal locus of control and depending on how the jurors view the world, this could definitely make a difference on how they decide the case. This happened in, “Picking Cotton” as well. When Jennifer was put on the stand the defense was trying to claim that she was promiscuous and that if she was not wearing certain clothing the rape would not of happened.

Terms: trial process, jury bias, venire, Voir Dire, Peremptory challenges, jury, locus of control (internal and external), evidence, opening statements, and closing statement

This chapter talked about jury selection. I think this class shows me how much TV I actually do watch. I thought that this process was a little less tedious than it actually is. It’s a long process and there are a lot of things for every party to consider. Clearly by law they have to be an impartial jury member, therefore; the trial is unbiased and fair. The Jury selection Act of 1968 determined the process of selecting jury members. This act states that juries must have a “fair cross-section of the community.” The process of choosing jury members is kind of a choosing who will be your benefactor for the case. Any U.S citizen, who speaks English, are mentally competent, never been convicted of a felony and are over the age of 18 can get that letter in the mail saying that you are up for jury duty. However, there are certain ways people can be parted from serving as a jury member. There is a phrase “undue hardship of extreme inconvenience.” This means that if you have a mental illness, medical condition, or are responsible for taking care of a child you can be parted from having to serve as a jury member. For doctors and morticians they can be excused if it causes a hardship to the local community.

An important part of the jury selection process is the Voir Dire. This is when the attorney’s and the judge ask multiple questions to decide who they will pick to be a part of the jury. This is when lawyers can get rid of or “challenge” jurors that they don’t find suitable to be a part of the trial. There are two types of challenges that they can use. They are the challenge for cause and the peremptory challenge. Challenges for cause is when the lawyer believe that they juror is not fit to be impartial during the trial. The preemptory challenge is when the judge disagrees with lawyer on a statement made about the jury. The lawyer then needs to find different reasoning and a stronger claim. There is a limit on the number of preemptory challenge they are allowed to use, so they have to be careful.

I found interesting was reading about the internal and external locus of control. Internal locus of control is attribute the things that happen to you are under your control. External locus of control is when they contribute outcomes to things outside their control. I found it very interesting that this would be a deciding factor for some when selecting a juror. The personality traits like this and how the attribute things can determine how lenient they are with the defendant. The text talked about how people are more lenient with other like themselves.

Psychology correlates well with jury selection. The fact that personality traits are looked at by attorneys is interesting to me. When a lawyer looks into a juror he thinks will the one benefit me. I wonder if they even know they’re applying psychology so regularly to their jobs in the legal system. Like stated before, we’re more lenient to similar personality traits similar to ours. The only people who will know if the juror is similar to the defendant would by the attorneys. Using personality traits in jury selection is now so evident to me, I can’t believe I never thought of this before now.

Terms: jury, impartial jury, jury selection act, fair cross-section of the community, mentally competent, felony, undue hardship of extreme inconvenience, mental illness, Voir Dire, challenge for cause, preemptory challenge, internal and external locus of control.

A short overview of chapter 6: This chapter focus on many aspects of a normal criminal trial, including jury selection, defendant and plaintiff roles, the normal court proceedings, etc. Jury selection is a long and sometimes complex process. It is the job of the prosecution and defense attorney to weed out potential jurors that they do not see fit to show verdict on that specific trial. The strategies and reasoning behind some of the selection process is explained in chapter 6. Variables such as personal bias, signs of discrimination or racism, incompetence of the criminal trial process can all be valid reasons to dismiss potential jurors in the Voir Dire stage of the trail. A scientific and psychological technique can also be used to help select a jury for a trail. The complex process of selecting a jury can have a huge impact on the verdict of that trial; of course it is in the best interest of the prosecution and defense to select the jurors they see more favorable of there needed verdict.
I was selected for jury duty the same year I turned 18. However I was one of the first ones randomly selected to be exempted from the jury, this was even before the Voir Dire process. At the time I was excited to be free to go but looking back, the experience of being a selected juror would have been very rewarding. The most interesting thing I found from reading this chapter was the immense amount of detail and variables that go into considering on individual for being a potential juror. To imagine how many jurors a prosecution or defense must select in one years time; the seems overwhelming yet very important.
In a murder case I witnessed at trail last semester the defense's main question or conquest was to see what possible jurors could provide the correct definition for the prosecutions job to show “burden of proof”. Burden of proof is also discussed in chapter 6; it refers to the necessity of the prosecution to provide accurate evidence need to convict the defendant. How jurors interpret this burden is very important. In the instance of the murder trail I watched, it was the defense's only possibility for a not guilty verdict because the defendant was obviously guilty of committing the murder. Burden of proof is simply another variable that can used in helping select the jury.
As described in the chapter and from my own personal experiences in the court room, there are certain types of individuals who are selected for jurors and other types of people who are not. During the Voir Dire process the possible jurors will be asked questions by both attorneys These questions are meant to exploit and bring out both positive and negative beliefs of individuals, any remarks of racism, and attitudes about the legal system. One term used in chapter 6 is Locus of Control. This phrase refers to a persons belief of who or what factors control life. Internal locus of control states that the individual believe his or her own actions (negative and positive) influence the outcome of events. External locus of control states that only the majority of the events in ones life are produced by a higher power or factors outside of ones control. Both of these locus of control beliefs can be used to the advantage of both the prosecution and defense. We can all think of criminal trial where jurors of either belief can be favorable to either the prosecution or defense; given the circumstances of that trail of course.
The job of selecting a accurate jury for a trail is a complex and often repetitive process. The amount of conditions and variables that go into selecting that proper jurors is amazing. Some traits of certain individual's personality or attitudes can play a positive or negative role in their chances of being selected for a jury. Some individuals are simply wanted on a jury and some are not; given the psychology of that person and the circumstances of that trail. At any rate jury selection is a critical part of the court's function and criminal justice system as a whole.

Key Terms: psychology, criminal justice system, prosecution, defense, defendant, attorney, criminal trail, locus of control, Voir Dire, jury, jurors, burden of proof.

Chapter 6 of our textbook was all about jury selection. I have actually never been called to jury duty (knock on wood) so I didn't know very much about it our the selection process. This chapter said that juries used to be made up of neighbors and acquaintances until the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 was enacted. This act required federal and state courts to assemble juries made up of a fair cross-section of the the community so as to eliminate bias and create a neutral jury of our peers.

The selection process for juries occurs in four steps. The first step is the jury pool, which includes all mentally competent, English speaking, adult U.S. citizens living in the relevant jurisdiction who have not been prior convicted of a felony. The second step is the sample. The sample includes all eligible people selected, or summoned, for jury duty. The third step is called the venire, which consists of those who actually show up at the courthouse. The fourth step is the actual jury, or the group that survives the voir dire process.

The voir dire process is the final stage to become a jury member. This is sort of a pretrial interview in which lawyers, sometimes aided by trial consultants, remove or "challenge" potential jurors. There are two types of "challenges" that a lawyer can use to remove jurors. The first is called challenges for a cause. In this challenge, lawyers claim that the juror is unable to give an impartial, or unbiased, verdict due to their biases or prejudices. The second challenge is called peremptory challenges. This challenge gives lawyers the privilege to dismiss potential jurors without a reason or judge approval. However, lawyers have a limited amount of these challenges. Lawyers will want to remove jurors that the deem as least favorable to their side. They often use the voir dire process to take a closer look at the jurors beliefs and behaviors.

In 1972, the first scientific jury selection was put into action. Here, systematic application of social scientific expertise was used to select a jury. Social scientists measure correlations between characteristics and attitudes relevant to the trial. However, the end result was a hung jury, or one that couldn't agree, and was deemed a mistrial. This information was most surprising to me because I feel that you can't really know for certain how a person will react to the trial and evidence, so trying to figure it out that scientifically in depth seems a little strange to me.

As I said earlier, lawyers want to have members of the jury that will support their side. However, they do not want unhelpful or biased members, often biased towards the other side, or those who have unfavorable opinions. People who have been moving or are not in the locational jurisdiction will also not be chosen. Some beliefs that might potential jurors might have will also cause them to not be chosen. Whether a person has an internal locust of control, meaning they think things are under their control, or an external locust of control, meaning they think things are out of their control, will effect their chances. A person's belief in a just world, or belief that people deserve what they get, as well as an authoritarianism viewpoint, meaning they strongly oppose those violating the norms or rules of society, can also effect their chances. Another theory pertaining to jury selection is the similarity leniency hypothesis. This hypothesis states that jurors are often more lenient towards defendants they view as similar to themselves. All of these qualities and beliefs can affect whether or not a person is chosen for jury duty.

Terms: Jury Selection, Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, Jury Pool, Sample, Venire, Jury, Voir Dire, Trial Consultant, Challenges for a Cause, Peremptory Challenges, Scientific Jury Selection, Hung Jury, Internal Locust of Control, External Locust of Control, Just World Belief, Authoritarianism, Similarity-Leniency Hypothesis

In the beginning of the chapter we, the audience, were asked to imagine that we have been selected as a juror. This chapter was about describing the process of jury selection and how jury selection is important in a trial, because it can have influence on the final verdict. The chapter then talks about how jury pools are assembled. Because of the sixth and seventh amendments, a jury should be an impartial group that represents community values. To make sure we achieve what the amendments are stating, a Jury Selection and Jury Act were created in 1968. This act states that the federal and state courts must assemble juries that constitute a “fair cross section” of community. An ideal way to assemble these jurors would be to have all adults register for jury duty mandatorily. This idea was given but the problem with this is that the list would have to be updated frequently so in today’s world, they just use voter’s registration to get the name of people. After a jury pool a group of people will be randomly selected from the pool and this sample of select people now become potential jurors. These potential jurors will be asked to meet at a specific court house, at a specific time and day. Everyone who shows up to the court house, not everyone who is asked shows up, is venire, the group of prospective juror that show up. The venire are then asked to indicate on a questionnaire to see if they fall into a category that may legally dismiss them from jury duty. Courts look for people who speak English, who have a clean criminal record, people who are blind, police officers or other reason that are later on discussed. The final stage of the process of jury selection is known as voir dire. Voir dire, is like a pretrial interview, attorneys, for the prosecution and the defense, and judge ask the potential jurors a series of questions trying to determine who will sure of the jury for the specific trial. During vior dire lawyers get their chance to remove or “challenge” a juror. Lawyers have two different ways they can challenge a juror, the challenge for cause and peremptory challenge. These challenges were the most interesting to learn about because it was something new I did not know. I knew that people were exempt from being on a jury if they had more important things to do, or if they were racist or biased. I also knew that jurors were asked to be removed from a jury selection but I did not know how attorneys did that. Lawyers challenge a would-be juror for cause, meaning they try to find if any juror will have a bias opinion or be prejudice during the trial when it comes to the verdict. The book uses the example, if a person was on trial for a drug crime, the defense would not want someone like a retired police officer on the jury. The retired police officer might have a bias opinion or would already decide the guy was guilty before the trial even started. The judge has the ultimate decision whether or not to dismiss the potential juror for cause in the challenge for cause. If the judge does not or refuses to dismiss the potential jurors, the lawyer then can decide whether or not to use peremptory challenge. This challenge is a higher challenge than the challenge of cause. If a lawyer called for this challenge he/she could dismiss a juror without cause and also without the approval of the judge. There is however a limit to how many peremptory challenges a lawyer gets, the number of peremptory challenges depends on the severity of the case. When I read this I thought it was an interesting concept, that means that they attorney’s had to be smart and careful when they used their peremptory challenges since they only get a selected number. While being questioned during the vior dire, attorneys use several characteristics of the potential juror to try to attempt to figure out which potential jurors will be least favorable to their side. Attorneys also use stereotypes and scientific ways to determine how a juror will influence or be influenced during the trial. The chapter then goes on to describe attitudes of jurors. The book list several personality tendencies, of the ones listed this includes, internal locus of control, people tend to see their outcomes in life as due to their own ability and effort. External locus of control, people tend to see their outcome as due to forces outside their control. The chapter finishes with an overview of trial procedures, the trial happens after the whole jury selection procedure.

Terms: Jury, Jury selection, Verdict, Trial, Jury Selection and Service Act, Jury pool, Venire, Voir Dire, Challenge of Cause, Peremptory Challenge, Prosecution, Defense, Internal and External Locus of Control

Needless to say this chapter was over the process of jury selection. Some background is given about how juries were previously selected. Juries used to be complied of people that knew the defendant for the simple reason that they knew the person well. Problems to this theory is the extreme bias that is unavoidable in every situation, whether it be a positive or negative bias. Now there are rules set in place to keep the defendants rights upheld by the Sixth Amendment. This Amendment guarantees the right to trial with an impartial jury. This being said, jurors must be above the age of 18, mentally competent, have the ability to speak english, and have never committed a felony. The group of people who have these qualifications are all part of the jury pool.
The actual process of selecting the jurors is an extremely long drawn out process. The majority of the people who serve on juries are pulled off of the voter’s registration list. This knocks out two of the criteria that I listed above, the person is the legal age of 18 or older and has never been convicted of a felony. When you receive a summons you have to report to the courtroom where both the prosecutor and defense attorney will go through and examination, called Voir Dire. If either of the attorneys feel if you are biased or unfit to sit this trial they can object they can ask that you be excused without any explanation, peremptory challenge. Once you make it through this process you will be called in to sit for trial.
When the lawyers are cross-examining the jurors they try to identify the juror’s locus of control. This is important because the beliefs based on whether they have an internal or external locus of control can greatly affect their decision making. For example, the prosecuting attorney would prefer a juror with an internal locus of control because they believe that their actions, as an individual, directly influence events. This puts a greater responsibility on the defendant because they control what happens in life. Now, a D.A. would prefer someone who has an external locus of control. Those who have this belief tend to think that the majority of events in life are controlled by a higher power. This takes the guilt off of the defendant’s shoulders and more onto the ‘higher power’.
Research actually shows that there is some discrimination when selecting jurors. The research backs the claims that the poor, women, those with lower education, and minorities are less likely to be chosen to sit during a trial. Claims that there was an error or an unfair jury is one of the top reasons for an appeal to be filed. The Service Act of 1968 required federal and state courts to put together juries that covered a wide section of the community to help eliminate biases and lead to a fair trial.
After reading through this chapter I was most surprised with the information that the attorneys had a play in selecting the jurors. I always thought that was solely up to the judge. In a way, I feel like this gives the attorneys more of an opportunity to feel out the jurors and tailor how they present the case to the juror’s beliefs. Also, some of the lengths that the lawyers go to in determining what type of juror a person really is. They have been known to hire handwriting specialists, psychologists, and even astrologers. This just baffles me.

Terms: handwriting specialists, psychologists, Judge, Federal and State Courts, Service Act of 1968, Discrimination, External and Internal Locus of Control, Cross-examination, Peremptory Challenge, Defense Attorney, Trial, Prosecutor, Courtroom, Summons, Courtroom, Felony, Jury Pool, Sixth Amendment, Defendant, & Juries.