Trial & Juries

The jury is one of the most influential pieces of the criminal justice system, encompassing due process and the right to trial by jury. However, as we have continually looked and established throughout the semester the criminal proceedings through use of expert testimony, debates and counter-debates between the defense and prosecutor and even the way in which the jury is selected through the voir dire process negatively influences the individual juror and eventually the jury as a whole.
A known fact then is that judges and juries alike are indeed biased. The attempt then must be made to do whatever possible in attempt to avoid possible biases and avoid negative influence which may change the jury’s decision. Such processes influence a change of venue by the judge when the media may have negatively influenced a case, pretrial instruction, and again instruction by the judge before they go into the deliberation process after closing statements on both sides have been made.
A question then arises about just how individual jurors make their decisions? The book describes it in two ways one as a mathematical continuum or sorts called “mathematical models” were a juror simply weighs the evidence for or against “guilty” or “not guilty” and changes his/her impressions as the case continues. However, bias as just stated negatively may influence this decision making process as that expert witness testimony and the weight jurors put on experts credibility negatively influence how persuaded they can become. Most interestingly I thought was the second explanation that while a trial continues individual jurors use a “story model” to evaluate the case, or put simple they try to come up with scenarios that could explain how and why things have occurred in correlation with the presented evidence. (This however is not lacking in bias either.)
The second and probably most interesting question then is if every individual juror has come up with a different explanation of the case, has been persuaded differently by expert testimony, and has different predispositions to a certain verdict in a specific case how do views and stories change when they all come together? This question is somewhat as the book stated; unknown as that it’s illegal to evaluate, and study real juries during a case, so research is lacking in this area of question.
The judge in the case in turn is also not avoidant of all bias. Pretrial motions and decisions to allow or not allow evidence into a case may predispose the judge to certain views of the case. The judge can however, take steps to help secure negative influences on the jury however by not allowing inadmissible evidence in, and to ensure expert testimony is solid. However, pretending as a juror never to have heard evidence that the judge ruled was sustained becomes nearly impossible.
The deliberation process then goes underway a foreperson is elected in the jury, or an individual to count the votes and read verdict to the courtroom and so forth is selected. I found it interesting that during deliberation that the way and who makes up a particular jury could influence a verdict. For example taking a vote right away, rather than evaluating evidence first may lead to a quicker and incorrect majority. That is to say those juries who wait to take a vote debate longer, and come to a more uniform and solid consensus. However, I found it interesting that due to the very large expectations we have on juries that often times they don’t fully understand the law, cases can become complicated, and reaching a unanimous decision can become impossible.
It’s clear then that verdict driven juries are somewhat worse not in verdict, but in the organization of how the jury makes decisions as compared to a evidence driven style of selecting a verdict. The question then remains if the jury in different cases can perform the same duty in very different organizational ways is there something in terms of reform that can be done to make the process more uniform and consistent?
In my opinion the jury style and the United States legal process although biased is the most fair and the most influential when determining a “just” sentence and fostering a belief of innocent until proven guilty. Although there is a fairly large amount of bias, this is the way it should be in cases in order to preserve the nature of debates between the prosecuting and defense side, and to keep judges on their toes as it were when acting as a mediator between prosecutor and defense.
I think juries should remain as they are and not to reorganize or reform them in any way. Further, talk about allowing scientific research into how juries work rather than relying on mock juries I think is wrong. As we have witnessed, jurors have very large expectations. Ruling on law they may not be fully understanding of, coming to a unanimous verdict, avoiding hung juries, and so forth. Further research into how they could work better or how the process could be changed to become more uniform I think would foster further bias and problems. For example, if research into jurors was allowed the prosecution and defense would have more firepower in how and who to call as expert witnesses, how and what to do to further negatively influence the ruling, and the controversial peremptory challenges would further be abused to select what each side would view as a jury which would lead to their own desired verdict. In conclusion although biased I say if it’s not broken don’t fix it, live and let live and even though in some cases juries will have difficulty in a broader sense the process has and will continue to work wonders.

Terms: due process, trial by jury, expert testimony, voir dire, change in venue, pretrial instruction, mathematical models, story model, pretrial motions, inadmissible evidence, foreperson, peremptory challenge.

To further our understanding of juries gathered from the reading last week, this week’s reading is also about juries and the trial process. This chapter move past jury selection to discuss how juries function in the courtroom when the trial takes place. This is really crucial information when you consider the possible ways to reform the process.
Right off the bat, I was learning things I had never considered about the jury process and how decisions are made by the group. The chapter pinpointed two models often used in deliberation. The first is called the mathematical model, which refers to a system in which jurors use the weight of each piece of evidence to create a mental meter to measure of guilt or innocence. The second is referred to as the story model. In this model, jurors recreate what they think took place based on the evidence presented. I had never really thought about the idea of putting a name to the way jurors reach a verdict, but in the social sciences, everything has a name.
Another important concept discussed in this chapter is the influence of biasing information. This can refer to evidence, jurors’ background, the defendant’s personality or background, and pretrial publicity. The way the media portrays the crime, victim, and defendant can have a drastic effect on the perception the jury will have of the trial before it even begins. The media might not even be present information that will be relevant or admissible in the trial, but the jurors will have been subjected to it regardless. To counter this, some trials are moved to other counties that have not been as exposed to the media representation of information. The physical characteristics of the defendant can also have a biasing effect. This ranges from physical attractiveness to age to race. Jurors also look at moral characteristics of the defendant and victim. Large discrepancies in moral character produce the biggest results.
The most interesting aspect of biasing information, in my eyes, comes in the form of inadmissible evidence, that is, information that is prejudicial and not allowed to be part of the record of the trial or considered in the jurors decision. When such evidence comes up in court, the judge asks the jury to disregard this particular information and not let it sway their verdict. While this makes sense legally, how effective is it to tell someone to not pay attention to something he or she has already heard? Even if it is deemed inadmissible, the jurors have already been exposed to the information and it is likely to alter their perception in some way. Researchers have identified two explanations for this; ironic process and reactance theory. The ironic process refers to the idea that when we are told not to think about something we do the opposite. This influence is exaggerated when we are under pressure. The reactance theory explains our fight to keep our freedom to think about what we want.
During the actual decision-making process, the jury does not always reach a decision easily. Jurors are influenced to change their minds to match the other by information influence, a strong argument, or normative influence, pressure to conform to the rest of the group. Unanimous decisions are needed for all capital murder trials, in 44 states for felonies, and in 26 states for misdemeanor cases. If unanimity is needed and the jury is hung, the presiding judge can make a dynamite charge, meaning that he or she asks to jury to reconsider all of the arguments made and their views.
It is always interesting to learn more about legal aspects I have not put much thought into previously. I am considerably more speculative about the use of juries than I was before this semester. My Criminal Justice Systems professor says that the four scariest words in the English are “trial by a jury.” After learning about all the ways juries can be biased or influenced, I can see where he is coming from. He told us that judges convict defendants in 88% of bench trials, while juries convict about 80% of the time. I might try my luck with that extra 8% and choose a bench trial if I am ever on trial.

Terms: trial, jury, judge, defendant, ironic process, reactance theory, inadmissible evidence, pretrial publicity, mathematical model, story model, bias, perception, informational influence, normative influence, unanimity, hung juries,

“A jury is composed of twelve men of average ignorance.” - Herbert Spencer

Summarize chapter 13 - Juries and Judges as Decision Makers

There are five components:

The first section covers the process of Jury Decision-Making through the use of mathematical models, involving the jury to act like a scale and eventually render a “guilty” or “not guilty” verdict and the story model, which is defined as a casual chain of events. Interestingly enough according to the story model jurors make up their stories while they hear the evidence during a trial. Also included in the section is the impact of the evidence and how it affects the juror’s decision. The second part of the chapter covers the effects of biasing information and how the legal system expects way too much from jurors especially when it comes to the prejudices and preconceptions. The Pretrial publicity which serves as a source for bias is referred to in this section as well as the defendant’s characteristics. The wealth, status socially, and gender of defendants does not seem to influence verdicts in any normal way. The inadmissible evidence, sustain or overrule, and ironic processes are just a few terms that are covered in this section. The 3rd component of chapter 13 involves the group dynamics of jury deliberations and how most of the research has to do with jurors rather than juries, persons instead of the group. One aspect covered in the section was the stronger the juror, the more power of the majority. Meaning stronger jurors do in fact sway weaker ones. Then there is the different stages in the deliberation process. There is the orientation phase when a foreperson is selected. There are two styles that are talked about which are verdict-driven style and evidence-driven style. The Judges compared to juries is how the chapter concludes which if juries were to be eliminated or used much less often, well then judges would in fact take their place. Right now that is currently the choice, trial by jury or trial by judge, meaning that is the alternative. There was an agreement between juries and judges as part of a classic study of the American Jury that was obtained from more than 500 judges about the verdicts they would have reached in cases that were already decided on by juries. The data was between 74% criminal and 78% civil in favor of agreement between the two. In conclusion to the summary jurors do in fact have a very difficult job and do fall under very unusual circumstances. They have to take their responsibility seriously and although trial by jury is still an imperfect system it is however the best one available.

What information was most surprising or interesting to you?

I found the section about jury nullification most surprising and interesting. I did not know that juries did not have to justify or explain the reasoning behind their verdict. And I definitely did not know anything about them being able to “nullify” the law. I was astonished to find out they juries may base their verdicts on reasoning that ignores, disregards, or goes beyond the law. I still do not quite understand how the moral conscience of a community could be any different than what the law prescribes but thats an option for the jury.

How does an individual juror make a decision?

During the first phase – a foreperson is selected and they discuss procedures. Some juries go right into it and take a vote to see where they stand. Some juries go into a verdict-driven style of deliberation and other go through an evidence-driven style process.

How is that the same and different when jurors get together and have to come to a unanimous verdict?

It pretty much ends in a hung trial or a decision that is called unavailable to reach a verdict. It's the same thing even though it may be for different reasons.

Do you have faith in the U.S. jury system? Why or why not?

Absolutely, I have to it’s we have right now. When I look at other countries I have to be grateful to be a US citizen and have the rights that I have. Even if I am convicted of a crime there are ways and means to appeal and even after years can someone be freed from jail if evidence comes forward. Our justice system and jury system may not be perfect and flawed but truly it is one of the best system out there and I am grateful to be a U.S. citizen who get to vote, too.

Terms: Jury, juries, mathematical models, guilty, not guilty, verdict, story model, jurors, evidence, trial, legal system, prejudice, pretrial, defendant’s sustain, jail, crime, overrule, jury system, inadmissible evidence, hung jury, cases, criminal, civil, system, jury nullification, evidence-driven style, verdict-driven style, research, deliberations, ironic processes, foreperson, rights, and justice system.

Chapter 13 talks about jury biases and the psychology behind jury deliberations. It was interesting to read about, because, to me, juries are the most important part of the trial. If you fail to convince them, then your client will lose. Therefore, it’s not surprising how much time and research is put into jury selection and the study of how they deliberate.

First, I wanted to talk about the biggest things that affect an individual juror’s decision and the biases behind these. The book discusses reactance theory, which I found pretty interesting. This theory discusses our subconscious need to motivate our freedom. The book gives an example of inadmissible evidence. The theory is that, when ordered by a judge to disregard certain evidence, jurors may actually put a bigger emphasis on it. Interesting! It makes sense in a way though, because it’s very difficult for someone to just “disregard” something vital that they just heard. I know if I was a juror, I’d find it difficult to ignore inadmissible evidence.

Another difficulty with juror bias is the pretrial publicity. We can see this in the documentary we’re watching in class right now. I’m sure viewers were making up their own minds about Peterson’s guilt while watching as evidence was released to the news. Some were probably adamant that Peterson was guilty or not guilty, without even seeing the real evidence from both sides in the case. Going further, the book discusses change of venue, which seems to be the most effective cure for jurors exposed to pretrial publicity. By moving the proceedings to outside of Durham, the jurors would not be exposed to all of the media covering Peterson, thus solving that problem.

This mindset changes when jurors are sent to deliberate. The group setting has a different effect on juror thinking. Strong jurors are key, because they have a larger influence on the others. They may also kind of “take the lead,” which we’ll see once we watch 12 Angry Men. I was a part of this play in high school and I absolutely love it! Going further, individual juror thinking differs from a group because of normative influence. This is the phenomenon where jurors may have an opinion in their head, but may vote a different way because of peer pressure. To me, this seems like it directly correlates with strong jurors. Their opinion or strong personality may cause more submissive jurors to succumb to normative influence. It’s interesting to apply this stuff to things like 12 Angry Men - if that one strong juror would have given in to normative influence, an innocent man would have been killed! Interesting to think about.

Another aspect the book discusses that differentiates individual jurors and groups is the stage of open conflict. This stage is where different opinions and bias are revealed among jurors and it may cause disputes (once again, this is shown in 12 Angry Men). I found it surprising that during this phase, some jurors may attack the character of other jurors that don’t agree with them!

Lastly, I believe I do have faith in the jury system. Thinking of myself as a juror, I know that I would keep an open mind and carefully consider all evidence. I hope all jurors are like this, instead of just trying to rush a verdict so they can get back to their daily lives. Plus, reading about the leniency bias also helped convince me because it shows that jurors may understand the “beyond a reasonable doubt” principle and therefore, not just jump into a guilty verdict. No justice system can be perfect, but I feel like our jury system is very fair.

Key Terms: Reactance Theory, Inadmissible Evidence, Pretrial Publicity, Change of Venue, Strong Juror, Normative Influence, Open Conflict

Throughout chapter thirteen the aspects of juries and decision-making are explained and discussed. One of the first things that was being discussed in this chapter was the impact of evidence on the jury and the verdict of guilty or not guilty. Luckily research has found that verdict decisions are based primarily off of evidence that is relevant. The second aspect that was discussed was that of biasing information, which may come in many forms. The first form that is discussed is that of pretrial publicity being a form of bias. In the media there tends to be more of proprosecution coverage of the events. To combat this the most effective thing to do is use a change of venue, which means moving the trial to a community that has not been exposed to biasing information based off of media. The next form of bias that was discussed was based off of the defendant’s characteristics. The jury will treat an attractive defendant more leniently than ugly defendants. The jurors also take the defendants moral character into account by comparing said individual to the victim of the crime. One tricky aspect of being on jury is the need to ignore inadmissible evidence because one cannot just forget what has been heard. Studies have shown that a judge telling the jury to forget a piece of evidence that was just presented to them may in fact make the jurors give extra weight to said statement. A reason for this might be something called ironic processes, which means when we try not to think about a piece of information it tends to dominate our thoughts. Another explanation of this is called the reactance theory, which means that individuals are motivated to keep their freedom. So being told by a judge to disregard certain information may make the jurors feel as though their freedom is threatened. When talking about the dynamics of the group of jurors there are some individuals who are labeled as strong jurors. These are the individuals who have a higher education than the other jurors and seem as though they have a hefty influence on the deliberation process. Deeper research on this has shown that these types of jurors tend to be incredibly rare. The next thing discussed is the deliberation process; there are six parts of said process. The first is called orientation; during this individuals that are in the juries elect a foreperson, discuss the procedures, and are open to raise issues. The second step is called verdict-driven style; this is when jurors sort the evidence into two categories, which are supporting conviction or acquittal. The next is called evidence driven style, in which the vote is held off until there has been careful discussion of evidence and events. The next is open conflict; this is when coalitions may form and difference of opinions come forward. Then there is informational influence; this is when other jurors may change their opinion based off of a compelling argument a fellow juror may have made. The next is normative influence; this is when a juror gives into peer pressure and changes their vote. The last is called reconciliation; this is the last phase and during it an attempt to make everyone feel satisfied with the verdict is made.

Terms: juries, verdict, proprosecution, bias, change of venue, inadmissible evidence, ironic processes, deliberation, strong jurors, orientation, verdict-driven, open conflict, informational influence, normative influence, reconciliation

There are two ways in which a juror comes to their opinion of guilty or not guilty. One process is the mathematical models. In this model each piece of evidence acts like a weight that either tips the scale towards guilty or not guilty. The other process is the story model. In this process jurors try to fit the pieces of evidence into a causal story that makes sense. The strength and the relevance of the evidence is the best predictor of the verdict that the jury will reach. Lack of clear evidence will cause the jury to resort to their prior beliefs, experiences, or even prejudices to come to a decision. I thought that this was somewhat scary because I know I would not want my fate to be decided on a person’s opinion that they had already developed before coming into
the court room.

One problem that jurors face is pretrial publicity. This is the information that the jurors witness about the case before the trial has taken place. It was found that people that were exposed to negative pretrial publicity were more likely to find the defendant guilty than the control that were not exposed to the negative publicity. This could lead to a biased trial because the jurors might rely on their already formed opinions, based on the media not necessarily evidence, than the evidence that they are exposed to in trial. This means that the defendant may be seen as guilty just due to how they are portrayed in the media. A solution to this problem is a change in venue, moving the trial to a different community where people have not been exposed to the pretrial publicity.

In admissible evidence may come into play when dealing with a court case. This is evidence or statements that the jury is told to disregard. This is determined by the opposing attorney calling for an objection and the judge then decides to sustain it or overrule the objection. If it is sustained than the jury is supposed to not use that information when coming to their decision. However, it is found that jurors find it hard to just forget that information due to ironic processes and reactance theory. Impeachment evidence may also arise; this is evidence that is used to damage the credibility of a witness. This evidence may have nothing to do with the case but it is still used.

A foreperson is the leader of the jury and is usually considered a strong juror. They are the ones that make sure that everyone gets a turn to speak and call for votes. This can cause the problem that they are more focused on their duties than the case at hand. There are phases in the deliberation process of a jury. First is the orientation, where the foreperson is elected and procedures and general issues are discussed. Then they go into the deliberation where they can choose two styles. One being the verdict-driven style where they are more focused on voting and sorting the evidence into conviction and acquittal. The other is the evidence driven style. This is where they focus most of their time discussing the evidence before taking the initial vote. The latter is thought to be beneficial for everyone involved. During this open conflict stage jurors can be swayed due to informational influence or through normative influence, which is just giving into peer pressure. The last stage is the reconciliation stage. This is where the jurors attempt to mend hurt feelings and make sure everyone is okay with the verdict they decided on.

Does size matter? Is has been found that larger juries deliberate longer, recall more evidence, and are more representative of the population. They also produce more consistent verdicts. As well as have a greater range of opinion and expertise. There can also be two ways to reach a conviction. Either a majority or unanimous, unanimous is needed for capital murder cases. In the majority based decisions people felt more intimidating, giving into normative influence, and were less certain about their verdicts. The down side to unanimous juries is that they are more likely to declare themselves hung (not being able to reach a decision), a judge can overturn this by issuing a dynamite charge, and this leads to a mistrial.

I found it interesting that juries have the right to nullify the law. Juries can determine a person innocent based on morals even if by law they are considered guilty. This does not seem fair to me because than different juried might reach different convictions based on the jury dynamics.

Some people think that judges would be able to do a better job than juries. However, research suggests that this is not the case. Judges are just one person so discussion does not take place in order to reach a decision. Judges, like everyone else, are biased. But they do not have 11 other people to balance them out. Their biases are not challenged by other people so someone could be convicted based on a judged unconscious biases.

I have faith in the U.S. jury system but I do think that there are ways that it can be improved. For example I am in agreement that they should be able to take notes as well as talk about the evidence throughout the trial to clear up confusion. I also think they should be able to ask questions during trial to make sure that all the evidence is understood.

Terms: mathematical model, story model. pretrial publicity, change in venue, bias, personal experience, prejudice, jury, judge, informational influence, normative influence, capital case, orientation, verdict-driven style, evidence-driven style, foreperson, strong juror, open conflict, reconciliation, objection, overrule, sustain, ironic process, reactance theory, impeachment evidence, change of venue, pretrial publicity

Chapter thirteen goes in depth in discussing the way juries and judges make their decisions during trials. Mathematical models assume that jurors have a mental meter in their minds to determine the guilt or innocence of a person and that evidence presented at trial shifts the mental meter one way or another. The alternative to the mathematical model is the story model, which assumes that jurors create a story line to make sense of all the evidence that is presented to them. The story model holds that jurors are informed by past experiences and preexisting knowledge of similar situations that have happened, like when determining if a murder is self-defense or premeditated. It also holds that jurors pick a verdict (when given choices and instructions from the judge) that best fits the story they have constructed in their heads. Evidence presented at the trial is the best indicator of the verdict; it is the thing that is most relied upon by jurors when reaching a decision. As indicated by the book, this is a good thing. It is necessary and correct for verdicts to be based upon evidence that is presented at trial. Other things including, severity of the charge, pretrial publicity, and complexity of trial, do factor into juror decisions. Those indicators affecting a verdict follow the liberation hypothesis, which follows that the strength of the evidence determines jury verdicts because it is usually the most compelling.
There are many different ways that jurors bias information, even if they do not mean to. The first source of prejudicial information may come from pretrial publicity. If the case is high profile it is likely that there is coverage of the case on TV, the internet, and in newspapers. Pretrial publicity often contains information that is not admissible evidence during trial and people who are more exposed to this publicity are more likely to find a defendant to be guilty. One way that pretrial publicity bias could be defeated is by moving the venue of the trial to a community that has not been exposed. Another bias that affects jurors is the defendant’s characteristics, although it is not usually in any substantial way. The wealth, social status, and gender is not an influential factor and attractiveness is not usually either, unless it is a major factor in the case. Something that does affect the jurors is the defendant’s moral character, particularly in relation to the victim’s character. Jurors also tend to hold corporations more accountable for things than individuals. A third thing that may cause juror bias is inadmissible evidence, which may be prejudicial. Inadmissible evidence may come from attorneys or witnesses, in one major way during trial when one attorney yells out “objection.” A judge can sustain or overrule the objection, sustaining it will mean they will tell the jury to disregard whatever was said during trial. But, as some attorneys say, you can’t un-ring a bell, which means the jury may not truly be able to forget about some information that they heard. In many cases this may be true. To explain this there are two different theories. The ironic process explains this as when someone is making an effort not to think about something, it ends up dominating their thoughts instead. Another way is the reactance theory, which explains that people are motivated to maintain their freedoms. A person may perceive the judge’s admonition as a threat to juror freedom. And another way to explain this is that jurors tend to use broad commonsense notions, believing that all information will help them reach a decision. A related issue with juror prejudice includes impeachment evidence, which is used to discredit a witness. Instead of understanding what the defense attorney may be doing by using impeachment evidence they use it to make broader conclusions about the trial or the defendant. A final thing that gives jurors bias is complex evidence. Complex evidence is usually presented at trials by expert witnesses, who have specialized knowledge in a certain area. Experts are usually judged by the jurors depending on the complexity of the issue and the expert’s credentials. If an expert is effectively cross-examined or if their testimony is contradicted by another expert’s then the testimony is weakened.
It is almost impossible to determine how juries work together to form a unanimous opinion, tape recordings and observations of jury deliberations are now banned. The only way to get information on jury deliberation is to study mock juries or interview juror members after their jury duty is over. Attorneys try to figure out the jury dynamic during voir dire and get to know each member of their jury, during this they usually talk about and figure out who the strong jurors are. Strong jurors are people that are likely to have a disproportionate influence on the deliberation process. The people that are often considered strong jurors are usually articulate, well-educated, and have high occupational status. These jurors can be quite influential but usually majority prevails. In a study of 215 juries with a clear majority 209 of them reached the verdict that the majority initially favored. There is usually a foreperson chosen within the first five minutes of the beginning of deliberation and it is usually someone who speaks first or is an extrovert, though they have little special influence on the jury’s decisions. When there are split juries in criminal cases a leniency bias can sometimes be created, this happens when the members who favor acquittal create more reasonable doubt for the members who favored guilty and can sometimes change their minds.
The dynamics of juries differs depending on the type of case being decided and the people that are on the jury together. From observing mock juries and interviewing previous jurors it has been concluded that there are usually three stages of the deliberation process. The first phase is orientation; the jurors select a foreperson, discuss the procedures, and raise general issues they may have. The verdict-driven style of deliberation encourages jurors to put the evidence they saw at trial into two categories, supporting conviction or supporting acquittal. Some juries use an evidence-driven style, where they postpone voting until all systematic discussion of the evidence is done. The second phase of deliberation is open conflict, in which differences in opinion become apparent and may be discussed. During this phase there can be coalitions formed and opinions given, sometimes jurors are swayed by informational influence, when they change their opinion because some jurors gave compelling arguments. Sometimes there is a normative influence, in which jurors will change their vote because of peer pressure but will not actually change their personal view. The final phase of deliberation is reconciliation, in which members of the jury may try to make everyone feel satisfied with the verdict they have reached. According to the book about 70-75 percent of deliberation time is used discussing evidence while 20 percent of the time is used discussing the law and the judge’s instructions.
The size of the jury can also affect the dynamics of the group. The United States has long since adopted the English 12-person juries but when a smaller number was used, in two instances, the US Supreme Court ruled that six is the minimum number of jurors that can be on a jury. According to the textbook the Supreme Court decided in opposite to the evidence they were citing during the trials and that bigger juries are different than small juries. Big juries tend to recall evidence better, deliberate longer, and generate more arguments to discuss. It is also found that verdicts decided by larger juries are more likely to match the opinions of the community. There are also two different decision rules given to the jury, that they must be unanimous or if majority rules. Unanimity is always required in capital murder trials, forty-four states require it in criminal felony trials, and twenty-six states require it in misdemeanor trials. A flaw in the majority-rules cases are that deliberation tends to stop once a majority is clear and the process of the jury can be dramatically altered when only trying to reach a majority instead of unanimity. One reason that majority-rules verdicts are favored by jurist and politicians is that there are less hung juries, or juries that cannot reach a unanimous verdict. Although, the overall rate of hung juries is quite low at 6.2 percent nationally. Hung juries often happen when the differing in opinions is reasonable and understandable, which makes it harder to resolve. Sometimes when a hung jury occurs the judge will use the option of dynamite charge, which is used in effort to break the deadlock and make the jury come to a decision instead of declaring a mistrial. Juries also have the ability to nullify the law. Jury nullification means that they base their verdicts on reasoning that ignores, disregards, or goes beyond the law. This is permitted because the jury is supposed to represent the moral conscience of the community at large.
There has always been criticism of juries and a call for some reforms. One way is to simplify instructions that the jury is given. The judge gives the jury instructions about the verdict categories and the standard of proof. The instructions usually have a lot of legal terminology and legal concepts, which can be vague or can confuse the jurors. Rewriting the instructions can improve clarity as well as preinstructions, which would be read to jurors before the trial even begins. Predeliberation can also be used although the effects of the rule are not all positive and can lead to longer discussions.
Judges are largely thought to be impartial during trials although there is no absolute data concluding that they hold no biases. Some research has found that judges may not even be aware of their own decision-making processes. Judges, like jurors, can be biased. Judges has prejudices and life experiences and values that can affect how they perceive a trial or a defendant. Judges can be removed from a case but it rarely happens. In a study on agreement between juries and judges, it is found that when they disagree the jury tends to be more lenient. In some studies it is found that judges are even more likely to convict than a jury of many people is. Juries may be more favorable than just having judges make decisions because there is more room for other opinions and leniency to unpopular decisions. Juries can also use community standards in their decisions and are considered everyday people and are not in the legal system, like a judge is, and therefore do not represent the legal system as a whole.

Terms: mathematical models, story model, liberation hypothesis, bias, pretrial publicity, change of venue, inadmissible evidence, sustain, overrule, ironic process, reactance theory, impeachment evidence, expert witness, strong jurors, leniency bias, deliberation process, orientation, verdict-driven style, evidence-driven style, informational influence, normative influence, hung juries, dynamite charge, jury nullification, preinstructions, predeliberation,

In chapter 13 we discussed juries and judges and their role in a trial. Its interesting to see how jurors come together during a trial and to look at the psychological aspects of a jury deliberation. You have 12 different people people who have probably never met each other in their life nor will they ever see each other again and yet what they decide is so important to our society as a whole. Its interesting to see how these people interact with each other during the trial though.
One of the first things talked about is the impact of evidence on a jurors mind. To a juror evidence is probably the most crucial part of a trial as it gives them the proof or reasoning that they need to make a decision about wether someone is guilty or not or is liable or not. For the most part evidence is very swaying one way or the other to jurors. However, if a jury is not convinced by the evidence or if not a enough evidence was brought into the trial then the jury will fall back on other means of thinking things out. So they will switch back to biases, prior beliefs etc. Im guessing they do this because if you cant use the evidence to base a decision on then you might as well go with your gut feeling on something which is influenced by the way we were raised.
Speaking of biases there are lots of things that can happen to a jury that will allow them to create biases for trials. One being pretrial publicity. We have looked a lot at this concept in class because of the movie staircase we are watching. They show that a lot of pretrial publicity happens even going so far as to almost outright accuse mike Peterson of murder on the air. If you are a juror and you see this then you are going to think that he is guilty from the get go. Other famous trials that got a lot of publicity is pretty much any serial killer(ted bundy, Hinkley, etc) but even famous cases such as o.j simpson. I actually think that this is one of the most unfair things that happen in todays society and that even though we have the 1st amendment people shouldn’t be allowed to talk about trials before it happens because that strips the accused of their right to a unbiased and fair trial. The book talks about a way to get around this being a change of venue, meaning you change the case to somewhere that hasn’t been exposed to pretrial publicity. I think they should have done this in the case of Mike petersons trial.
Interstingly the wealth,social status, and gender of defendants don’t make too much of a difference in a jurors mind. However, it does to a point depending on the trial. One could argue that a male that had been raped would probably be a lot different outcomes then a female who had been raped just from the bias in that area overall. Also if the moral charcter of the defendant is different than the victim that makes a different. So the book uses the example of a drug dealer on drug dealer assault vs. a drug dealer vs. doctor. The drug on drug dealer would be treated less harshly than the latter. I really don’t like this either because that means that people almost look at a social status or moral status as meaning that person is more important therefore should be treated more harshly. By law assault is assault no matter who it is against but if its someone famous the person will be convicted more easily and receive a harsher punishment because of it.
Another bias is inadmissible evidence. Not a bias towards a person per se, but if someone gets said in court and the judge declares it be stricken from the record it makes no difference because the jury has already heard it and is more than likely going to use it in their considerations. Psychologically this is interesting because of a few theories. One being the ironic process theory. Meaning that if you try not to think about something usually it is the one thing you can think about. Another one being the reactance theory. This is basically saying that jurors don’t like to be told too much what to do or what they can think about so they just ignore the judge.
Now the actual jury selection, voir dire, we have already discussed, however, I want to mention that lawyers will try to pick out strong jurors who will likely be able to be a key juror to their case and will be good at swaying the others to their opinion. Later in the movie 12 angry men that we have to talk about an example of this is shown by the 1 guy who believes he is innocent and sways the other 11 to not guilty. Now this actually doesn’t happen very often in real life as most of the time majority wins. A statistic showed that out of 215 juries 209 was the verdict that the majority wanted. This can be just accredited to peer pressure foremost among different things.
The steps of the deliberation process begin with orientation. They will pick out a foreperson, talk about guidelines, and basically discuss how they want to go about the discussion. The second Stage is open conflict. This is where the arguing commences as they look at evidence and the different opinions of everyone is heard. Now sometimes a juror will make informational influence which is creating a good argument in regards to their opinion. But most of the time they fall to normative influence i.e. peer pressure. The reason for that is because 1 vs 11 is scary in terms of a group. The third stage is reconciliation. This is where people try to apologise for anything they may have said that was hurtful or mean during the second phase. Hung juries don’t ever reach this stage.
Im going to briefly talk about the size of a jury and its importance. Initially juries always had 12 people in it. However due to various reasons some people thought you could get away with 6. However studies will show that this is not a good option as it shortens the time of deliberations and makes the overall verdicts not as accurate and a bit rushed. The reasoning behind that is because 12 people will take longer to talk their opinions out and the more you talk about the evidence and trial the more things come out and the better your decision will be.
One big part to juries is simplifying instructions. Judges and lawyers will try to make the jury understand the legal lingo as much as possible, without swaying their opinion in the case. Which is fairly hard to do. The legal way most instructions are written so precisely that the instructions are quite confusing to most people. So it needs to be said in lamence terms. However that is difficult because its easy to relate the instructions to something to do with the case. But it is shown that if the judge can find away to simplify things its overall better for the trial and outcome. Also giving certain instructions before the trial will make a large difference in the rate of convictions compared to if they give the instructions right before deliberation.
Lastly of the things im going to discuss is if judges are better judges of verdicts than are the juries. It is shown that for the most part (75%) of the verdicts that would be given by either the judge or jury coincide with each other with judges more likely to convict a bit more often than juries. There are many different reasons for this as a judge will likely be swayed a bit by multiple cases they have heard in their life vs. a juror who doesn’t want to see someone go to jail by their decision.
I tried to be brief as possible in this but still managed to write a lot. There is a huge amount of behavioral and cognitive psychology that goes into the processes and makeup of a jury. Lots of different opinions, upbringings, and people get together to discuss their views on certain pieces of evidence given in a trial. Peoples opinions can make a huge different just depending on the kind of crime, or how they feel that day to lots of other things. I don’t particurarly like the way we have our legal system set up at the moment. I feel that there are a lot of unfair biases that can get carried into a trial that affects many people. Not that I can find a better way to do it, but I feel that having 12 people or a judge be in charge of someones life especially if they didn’t do it is not completely fair. I can safely say that I would not really like to be on a jury because I don’t want the responsibility of being in control of someone elses life.

Chapter 13 talks all about juries and judges and their decision making. One way that the decision making process is made by jurors is through the use of mathematical models. Jurors use a mental scale that moves toward either mental or not guilty. Pieces of evidence are used as makers or weights, and lean their decision one way or the other. The story model is an alternative to the mathematical model, and is when the jurors construct their own version of the story and then decide whether or not that person is guilty or not. Evidence is important, because jurors make up their decision based on it. The liberation hypothesis is when the juror takes all of the evidence and judging by the strength and type evidence, they decide whether the person is guilty or not.

Biased information can be problematic during a trial. Pretrial publicity, or for instance when the media get involved in the case and has radio, tv, or newspaper reports on a trial, it can alter the way the juror thinks. This happens in big trials rather than smaller ones. A change of venue is when a trial is postponed to try and avoid this type of bias. Defendant characteristics are characteristics of a defendant that may alter the way a juror view them. Race is a big factor, for instance a black person is more likely to be convicted than a white one. Other characteristics such as attractiveness, wealth and status may also make a difference. Admissible evidence is other information that comes from witnesses or attorneys. This is the most difficult bias to try and avoid in a trial. This evidence however is what is most controlled by each attorney, and can easily change the way the juror feels in a trial. Complex evidence is when a juror does not funny understand the evidence because it too complex. Expert witnesses can often help clear up the confusion.

Lawyers often try to get strong jurors, or people who are more educated and who would have a disproportionate influence on the deliberation process. By selecting people like these they are hopefully able to get a group that will help them win the case better. Lawyers often use different styles and tactics during trial when arguing to try and influence the jurors. Some of these include the verdict driven style, evidence-driven style, and use an informative influence or normative influence.

Juries make different court decisions. Many times, hung juries can be problematic, because not all people on the jury have come to a unanimous decision. Judges sometimes use a dynamic charge, which forces the jury to come to a decision. Jury nullification is what allows the jury to not share why they chose a decision, or have an explanation. Many reforms have been created around juries, to make them move more smoothly and help jurors. Some of this includes giving better instruction to jurors, and allowing discussion during trial. Judges and jurors both are different ways to get a verdict. However, almost ¾ of all cases in court, both jury and judge agrees on. I think both are important in the court system, and help get the best decision made. Even though mistakes can still be made, it is the best technique we can have.

Key Words: mathematical models, story model liberation hypothesis, Biased information , pretrial publicity, A change of venue, Defendant characteristics, admissible evidence, complex evidence, expert witnesses, strong jurors, verdict driven style, evidence-driven style, informative influence, normative influence, hung juries dynamic charge, jury nullification

We can view a trial as a decision-making device. The people who make the decisions in a trial are the judge, and the jury selected to serve the particular case. Both of these groups of people have to abide by strict rules when serving in the court of law, which helps ensure a fair trial. One way to help describe the process that jurors go through when making a decisions is by using mathematical models. This model basically assumes that jurors use a mental meter to determine whether someone is guilty or not guilty. The story model states that jurors create stories to make sense of evidence. They come up with these stories while hearing the evidence at trial. Decisions should be made primarily based on what the evidence shows, but that doesn’t mean that evidence is the only factor at play. The liberation hypothesis states that jury verdicts are determined by the strength of the evidence.

There are other means that isn’t evidence that can help sway jury decisions such as biasing information. An example of pretrial publicity could be TV coverage, web site information, or even newspapers releasing information before the trial begins. One way to help the effects and problems created by pretrial publicity, you could postpone the trial, or have a change of venue. A defendant’s characteristics haven’t been known to influence jury’s verdicts, and neither does the physical attractiveness. Instead of taking outside characteristics of a defendant into question, juries take the moral character into account by comparing their own character to that of the defendant. Jurors are told to ignore all inadmissible evidence, which is information that might be prejudicial. The judge has the ability to sustain or overrule an objection by an attorney about a question made. Attorneys can use ironic processes to their advantage when presenting information to the jury. Ironic processes take place when you try not to think about something, but it ends up being at the front of your thoughts. Sometimes, there is certain evidence that is to complex and confusing for jurors to understand. This is when expert witnesses are called upon to testify based on the training they have received, to help the jury understand the information at hand.

When lawyers are trying to figure out the group dynamics of a jury, they label some jurors as strong jurors. These type of jurors are known to have a certain influence on the whole process. There are many stages in the deliberation process. The first phase is the orientation, in which juries elect a foreperson, discuss procedures, and raise general issues. The second phase is called open conflict, in which differences in opinion among members of the jury show and bonds may form between members of the group. Some jurors can be swayed through informational influence. They will change their opinions because other jurors made a good argument, or they may just change their views due to normative influence, which is group pressure. The final stage is called reconciliation, where the jury attempts to make everyone feel satisfied with the verdict. American law adopted having a twelve-person jury. There are a lot of theories as to why it is a twelve-person jury, such as Jesus had twelve apostles, there are twelve inches in a foot, twelve makes a dozen, but it had been this way until the mid 1900’s during Williams v. Florida. Six-person juries not became the constitutional minimum. When a jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict, it is know as a hung jury. Sometimes, a jury may pass a note to the judge saying that they still can’t come to a unanimous decision after many days, and are deadlocked. If the judge wishes to accept, then a mistrial is declared. A way around this is called the dynamite charge. The judge has the jury reexamine their views because a decision is needed. Data has been drawn from judges about the verdicts they have reached in cases decided by juries. It has been found that judges and juries agree on almost 74% of criminal cases, and 78% or civil cases.

The most interesting information I found while reading this chapter was the last data I wrote about. I didn’t know that judges and juries agreed on almost 74% and 78% of all cases. This means that the system is working, because jurors have a difficult job given the circumstances. They have to follow rules that they are probably unaware of, and are given a huge responsibility. Jurors are supposed to deliver a fair verdict and show up with no biases. The culture and setting of courts make it hard for jurors to do their job perfectly because there are many factors that may affect the decision of a single juror. An individual juror makes a decision by putting all others opinions aside, and following their own intuition. Jurors are exposed to all sorts of bias information such as pretrial information on the TV. Individual jurors and groups of jurors are different in the sense of the stage of open conflict. They all form their own opinions and some even try to persuade others to take their side of the argument. We have seen jurors make special bonds with other jurors because they are on the same side, and some even deliberately attack a specific juror because they are on the opposite side. I would like to believe that I have total faith in the U.S. jury system because the jury is made up of my peers and those who are exactly like me. If I were ever selected to a jury, I would make sure that I put all effort into making a decision that I am confident in, because if I were in the defendant’s shoes, I would want members on the jury who make confident decisions that are made without bias.

Key Terms: mathematical models, story model, liberation evidence, pretrial publicity, change of venue, inadmissible evidence, sustain, overrule, ironic processes, strong jurors, orientation, open conflict, informational influence, normative influence, hung jury, dynamite charge

A brief overview of Chapter 13: The variables that effect decision making in the court room are endless. From single jurors, to collective juries and the judge; all are effected by many different variables during a trial. Chapter 13 helps to categorizes and explain some of the basic processes that effect decision making. The main focus of the chapter is on single jurors and what evidence, testimony, bias, etc effects there ability to make and accurate decision. Other small portions of chapter 13 also focus on the judge and collectives juries ability to make decisions. Why is the single juror take most of the attention in this chapter? As stated on page 279, the majority of our evidence and research on decision making is only taken from observation/studies involving jurors. This is largely due to to the limitations and legal rights the judge and collective juries have when making a decision to convict or acquit; legal privacy is very important when considering juries for research.
I found the research on group dynamics in the court room to be most interesting in this chapter. It is simple and common sense to understand everyone has his or her own bias and prejudice, but when considering what variables effect the collective group when making an important decision is very complex. The group process is very complex in the court room, especially in a criminal trial. The research has found on an average jury of 12, many different outcomes can be the result of one or more individual's actions. In the deliberation room if the vote is 50/50, the verdict can go either way. However, if the vote is 7 not guilty and 5 guilty; it is much easier to persuade those 5 to changing to not guilty. Compared to the exact opposite, it is much more difficult to change an individual from not guilty to guilty. As described in the text the main reason for this persuasion link is because it is much easier to establish doubt in a case than it is to completely eliminate it. I found this link between persuasion and doubt in a group to be most interesting.
The process of actually making the decision is just as complex. The individual juror comes to a decision based on a few things. A mathematical model allows jurors to weight the positives and negatives of the story, defendant, prosecution and defense. All of the variables add up to form a guilty or not guilty decision. The juror can also make a decision based on a story model. This model allows jurors to put together a story of what events took place leading up to the criminal event. This story is told by the prosecution, defense, evidence, etc. When everything is on the table the juror can piece the story together and helping develop a decision. The story model can often be best seen in deciding pre-meditation, intent and self-defense in a criminal case. The jurors process of creating a decision is very different than the collective juries stages of deliberation. This is often a three stage process of deliberation. The first being orientation, where jurors select a foreperson, discuss procedure and general questions. The second stage of deliberation is open conflict. This stage allows the group to argue discuss main points of the trial. They will also discuss evidence and normally take their first vote as a collective. Hung juries will not make it to the third stage. The third stage is described as reconciliation. This stage basically allows jurors to make sure they are comfortable with their verdict and smooth any other issues. Unanimous verdicts must be completed in stage three.
I do have faith in our system of justice here in America. After all it has been in operation long before my time. I will not argue that the courts are perfect and don't any sort of improvement. However, when taking into consideration the size and magnitude of the American justice system; it's hard to imagine perfection. The court system in America does what it was intended to do. It was never intended for perfection. The ability to provide justice where justice is due is the mission, and it has worked for decades. When looking at the complexity and magnitude of the justice system as a whole-- I am satisfied with it's performance.

Key Terms: Psychology, prosecution, defense, justice system, jurors, juries, evidence, hung jury, open conflict, reconciliation, orientation, story model, mathematical model, deliberation process, foreperson, verdict, guilty, not guilty, criminal trial, collective juries, persuasion and doubt, legal limitations.

Chapter 13 begins with explaining what goes on in the minds of jurors when making their decision. There is both a mathematical model, in which evidence makes them think the defendant is more or less guilty, and the story model, in which the juror conjures up what they believe to be the real story by putting the evidence and testimony together piece by piece. Evidence plays a big part in both personal juror decisions and the jury decision as a whole. Which ever side, the prosecution or defense, has the most promising evidence, they are most likely in better luck. This makes sense to me though, as the jury has something concrete to use that is more easily understandable.
The chapter then switches to discuss biasing information that can affect jurors. One, which again is not surprising, is pretrial publicity. The biggest and most recent example that comes to mind is the Casey Anthony trial. I always wondered how the jury pushed the huge amount of negativity towards this case out of their minds. The chapter explains that it really depends on when the jurors view the publicity as to whether or not it affects their verdicts stronger. If they viewed it a few months before the trial and not again during the trial, then usually it wouldn't impact the verdict as much. Sometimes judges even advise the jury to not view any types of publicity for high profile cases. Two other biasing factors are defendant characteristics, in which the jurors may see whether they are of high social status, attractive, wealthy, etc, and also complex evidence, which can often be misinterpreted because of being difficult to understand. The last bit of biasing information is due to inadmissible evidence, which is something I found really interesting. I have always heard on shows like Law and Order: OBJECTION! The judge can either allow the question being asked by overruling, or sustain the question, and basically tell the jury to throw that out of their minds. How hard would that be? Although they are suppose to disregard a certain comment or statement, it is only human nature that deep down it would impact their decisions a little bit.
The next section is about how the jurors come together as a group. There are certain "strong jurors" that even certain lawyers try to detect from the beginning. These jurors have characteristics of a leader. I learned that the jury also chooses one person to act as the foreperson, who takes notes during deliberation, monitors how long everyone is getting to speak during deliberation, and talks to the judge for the group when needed. There are 3 stages of deliberation: Orientation, where the jury gets everything set up, open conflict, where they debate the verdict and make opinions heard, and lastly, reconciliation, when the trial is over and they try to leave on a good note. Again, strengthening the argument of how valuable evidence is, jurors spend about 70-75% of the time talking about the evidence and only about 20% talking about laws, according to the textbook. The size of the jury is usually 12, and it was very surprising that some trials have used only 6. However, the juries with 12 seemed to work out a lot better because they were more diverse, therefore, there were more opinions that had to be deliberated. Juries usually must come to a unanimous rule in cases of capital murder, mostly in criminal felony trials, but only half of the states require it in misdemeanors. Some cases allow for majority rule, such as 9-3, but after reading more about this I do not agree with it at all. I don't feel as though everyone is heard and it is simply a rush to get to the majority, as stated in the textbook. Jury nullification was another eye opener for me. It is basically an unspoken right giving power and trust to the jurors to disregard the law in certain cases, an example given was euthanasia, if the act was of moral upstanding. Another example that comes to mind is from the book A Time to Kill, in which a man killed the two men who raped his daughter and was put on trial only to be let off.
The last topics discussed were certain accommodations to jurors during trial, and how judges and juries compare. It is proven beneficial to simplify legal jargon and the questions being asked to the jurors. It gives them an outline of instructions of what they are there for. I feel this is the best thing to do, as not everyone is educated, and aside from that, the more jurors understand what is going on and the laws in place, the better and more educated their decisions will be. There has also been some deliberation as to whether or not jurors should be able to discuss the trial while it is still taking place or whether they should keep quiet until it is over and time to make a decision. There are upsides and downsides to both. If the jurors are able to discuss amongst themselves about the trial while it is taking place, they can converse about any confusion over what is taking place, and better remember the evidence and testimonies. The downside is that during these mid trial discussions, not everyone may be present, and this is not fair or ethical to all opinions. The last bit of the chapter discussed whether or not it would be better to trade out juries for a panel of judges. Some studies showed that people would rather this be the case, while others preferred how it stands with a jury of the people. No matter who sits on a jury, there will always be biases. I personally believe that it is most ethical and constitutional the way the juries are comprised right now. One last statistic from the textbook that I found interesting was that judges and juries agree on 74% of criminal cases and 78% of civil cases in relation to verdicts.
In conclusion, I found this chapter very educational, as I have never had to report to jury duty and have always wondered what takes place. Although it is difficult at times, I do have faith in the justice system, and I think our juries are as well thought out and unbiased as possible. As I stated before, no matter who sits on a jury, there are always going to be opinions and biases, it is human nature. But it is the jury's duty to listen to these opinions and come to a conclusion based on the facts, evidence and laws, and not on their predispositions.
Terms: jurors, mathematical model, evidence, defendant, guilty, story model, testimony, prosecution, defense, biasing information, pretrial publicity, Casey Anthony trial, high profile cases, defendant characteristics, complex evidence, objection, overruling, sustain, strong juror, foreperson, deliberation, orientation, open conflict, reconciliation, unanimous rule, majority rule, A Time to Kill, legal jargon, instructions, laws, civil cases, criminal cases, verdicts

Chapter thirteen of this text book is about juries and judges and the role they play in the decision making process. Juries usually have either one decision to make, and it’s between guilty or not guilty. Juries are suppose to rely on evidence presented at trial to reach a verdict decision. This leads to the idea of liberation hypothesis which proposes that, in most trials, jury verdicts are determined by the strength of the evidence because evidence for conviction or acquittal is usually compelling. Before jurors are selected for the case they may hear a lot about it. Especially if it being portrayed by the media.. and they may hear false information that could contaminate their memory/decision making. The source of this possible prejudicial information is pretrial publicity. Which again, is where the media gets a hold of information and puts it out to the public. They get most of this information from the police department and district attorneys office. The reports typically tend to be focused on the details of the crime, the investigation, effects of the crime on victims of their families… it also contains information that is not admissible as evidence during trial. Several studies show that people exposed to more news coverage of the crime are significantly more likely to presume that the defendant is guilty. When I was called in for jury duty, we had to watch a video before hearing about the case and it said to in with a fresh slate and leave everything you have heard about the case before outside of the court room. One thing that I found really surprising while reading about this section was that if publicity was highly impacted before the trial then there can be a change of venue, which means moving the trial to a community that has not been exposed to pretrial publicity and its biasing effects. A persons whole life are in the hands of jurors. They make the decision of their fate, that is the reason why they should be very well of the case and both sides of it, so I completely agree that moving the case to a different area may be the best idea to have a fair trial.
An individual juror makes the decision of guilty or not guilty after hearing the case and taking into consideration all that they have heard. There may also be a few strong jurors in the group, which are jurors who seem likely to have a disproportionate influence on the deliberation process. These jurors are well educated and articulate. The book referenced to the film 12 angry men about a strong juror who persuaded 11 other jurors to change their mistaken guilty votes. They also decide by hearing testimony’s from expert witnesses, defendants, etc. During the process of deciding there could be conflict. Open conflict, is differences in opinion among members of the jury become apparent and coalitions may form between members of the group. I am glad that jurors take there job seriously. I do have faith in the US system… especially if they judges and jurors can put bias aside to make a fairer outcome.
Psychological terms- change of venue, pretrial publicity, liberation hypothesis, biasing information, memory contamination, inadmissible evidence, strong juror, open conflict

This chapter talks about the different ways that judges and juries make rulings. One of these methods is evident when using mathematical models; these are a type of scale system in which the juror or judge leans more toward guilty or not guilty. The story model is an alternative to the mathematical model. In this model the jurors focus more on the evidence and the psychological responses to the information provided. Evidence is obviously needed whenever there is a trial going on, the amount of evidence and the quality of the evidence will highly affect the outcome of a trial. The liberation hypothesis is the proposal that the outcome of trials is determined by the strength of the evidence.
Another concern arises when focusing on bias, pretrial publicity allows for bias in the jury, this is why so much investigation needs to happen before the jury is selected in order for the trial to be fair, and the juror is unbiased. Sometimes when a community has been exposed to details of the crime a change of venue will occur, which means the trial is moved to an area or community that has not had the same exposure to the case. In some cases there will be evidence that is inadmissible, jurors are told to ignore this evidence as well as any pretrial publicity. As much as they say they do there is always a chance that they keep it in the back of their minds. When an attorney calls objection on an inadmissible piece of evidence that judge either calls to sustain or overrule the objection, if the objection is sustained then the jury is told to disregard what was just spoken, if the judge says overruled, then the objection has been denied and the evidence is deemed admissible. Many attorneys will use this to their advantage, however, because even once something has been taken off the record the jury still had heard the point and it is difficult to see past it. This is an example of ironic processes, when we make a conscious effort to take something out of our brains it becomes all we think about. Another way to consider this is by the reactance theory, this says that jurors may go against the judge by giving the inadmissible more evidence than they would have originally, strictly because they feel it gives them their own free will. This could be lightly compared to reverse psychology.
Impeachment evidence is evidence that is meant to harm the credibility of a witness, this could be proving that they have lied, or been a type of hypocrite. Anything that will make the jury questions the reliability of the witness. Expert witnesses are also brought in, in order to establish more credibility. This could be a psychologist determining insanity, or a DNA expert as well as any other specialist that has no specific connection to the crime other than their line of work.

Key terms: Mathematical model, story model, evidence, liberation hypothesis, pretrial publicity, change of venue, inadmissible evidence, objection, sustained, overruled, admissible, ironic processes, reactance theory, reverse psychology, free will, impeachment evidence, expert witness

Chapter 13 begins by discussing the process that makes up jury decision-making. The chapter refers to the mathematical model as a useful way of describing the decision-making process of jurors. In this model, jurors are assumed to use a sort of mental meter that moves toward either a guilty or not guilty verdict based on the weight of the evidence. Over the course of the trial, jurors continually update their judgments although a particular piece of evidence may be so heavily weighted that the meter becomes frozen and further evidence does little to shift the juror’s overall judgment. The alternative to the mathematical model is the story model. This model emphasizes the creation of stories by the jury to make sense of evidence that is presented at the trial. The jurors construct their stories while hearing the evidence at trial followed by learning about possible verdicts and selecting the verdict that they feel best fits with the story they have constructed to make sense of the evidence.
The largest predictor of whether the defendant was found guilty or not guilty is the strength of the evidence relevant to the charge. This brought up the discussion of the liberation hypothesis. This process determines that in most trials, jury verdicts are determined by the strength of the evidence simply because the evidence needed for a conviction or acquittal is usually undeniable.
Something else that is really important and popular when talking about juries and their decision-making is the effects of biasing information. One major source of bias that the chapter discussed is pretrial publicity. This is something that is especially biasing in high profile cases where there is likely to be large amounts of coverage by the media (TV, websites, newspapers) before the actual trial even begins. This is going to put images and information into the jurors heads before they are even able to see any evidence or hear any statements from attorneys. That is not good.
The chapter also talks about the defendant’s characteristics and the effects that they may have on the jury during the trial. Three characteristics that don’t seem to have much effect on the jury are wealth, social status and gender. One that seems to have an influence some of the time is the attractiveness of the defendant. In certain situations, this will not make a difference. But if the crime was committed because the defendant was using their attractiveness to commit the crime itself, then the jury will use this characteristic and return with a harsher sentence a lot of the time.
Something that I have seen many times before in the cases that I have gotten to observe over the last four years is inadmissible evidence and the worry that this causes attorneys. This kind of evidence can come from many different people throughout a trial and the judge will either sustain or overrule an objection by an attorney when they feel evidence should be deemed inadmissible. This can be a worry for attorney simply because we all know that once you hear something, it is hard to forget it and not take it into account when making decisions. The jury may even be using inadmissible evidence without knowing it or meaning to do so because their brains are already on information overload. This can be defined as ironic processes.
The stages in the deliberation process are of great importance for understanding what goes on behind the closed doors or a deliberation. The first phase is identified as orientation. During the phase the jurors elect a foreperson, discuss procedures and raise general issues. The second phase is called open conflict. It gets this name because differences in opinion among members of the jury become apparent and coalitions may form between members of the group. The final phase is the reconciliation phase. This phase is reached as they work toward a common understanding and agreement and when the jurors attempt to soothe hurt feelings and make every feel satisfied with the verdict.
The jury system also revolves heavily around the decision rule requiring a unanimous verdict. This is the chosen jury type for obvious reasons (such as allowing for a more solid decision considering more people have to agree upon it), but many people argue that it may not be the best choice because of the number of hung juries that result from unanimous verdicts. People believe that the number of hung juries would decrease if nonunanimous juries were used.
I found the discussion about the deliberation process to be very interesting. Many people who have never been a part of a jury undoubtedly wonder what goes on during a deliberation and how a jury comes to a decision. This discussion allowed for the reader to get an inside look at how the jury makes decisions. We know that the process has to be structured in order to get proper results, but it’s interesting knowing the exact process. I also found the discussion about the unanimous verdict to be interesting. It makes sense that unanimous verdicts would cause hung juries more often that nonunanimous verdicts, but I enjoyed reading into more detail about it and why these things happen.
Individual jurors make their own decisions as the trial is progressing. They are allowed to make their own notes and think their own thoughts while the trial is going on, but once they enter the deliberation room it is time for some group work. When jurors have to come together to get a unanimous verdict, their opinions and thoughts are subject to change because every single juror has to agree when the deliberation comes to an end. When the deliberation is happening, this is a good time for every juror to make their thoughts known in order to convince other jurors that their thoughts and opinions are correct. It is also not bad to be open to others thoughts and opinions as well. You may realize after hearing other jurors thoughts that you were a little off on some aspects of the case and this may change your entire view.
I would say that overall, I have faith in the jury system here in the United States but it has started to fade in recent years. I definitely feel that the juries in this country are trying their best almost 100% of the time to come back with the verdict that they feel is right, but they seem to get lost and mixed up in the craziness, especially in high-profile cases. It’s really hard for me to sit here and judge, though, simply because I have never been in their shoes. It is undoubtedly a lot harder than it seems. The reason I feel my faith is starting to fade is because we have had a lot of high-profile cases in this country in the last 10-15 years and some of the verdicts that have been brought back are absolutely baffling to me (and a lot of other people as well). It kind of makes me nervous for future trials, but I do put my trust in the juries every time that they will do the right thing and take every bit of evidence into account to come back with the best and most fair verdict that they can.

Terms: mathematical model, story model, liberation hypothesis, pretrial publicity, inadmissible evidence, sustain, overrule, ironic processes, orientation, open conflict, reconciliation, hung juries

This chapter goes through how juries make decisions, what trial aspects affect a jury most, and discusses the difference between judge’s decisions and jury decisions. The most interesting thing to me was the discussion over jury group dynamics. I think that a psychology plays a huge role in the idea of strong jurors and how they may single handedly influence a jury’s verdict. If we look at the traits of a strong juror, someone who holds a high place in society, perhaps a CEO or a doctor, they have a certain authority over the rest of the jury. Because humans are social by nature the other jury members would most likely want to identify with the most powerful or the strong juror. The other thing mentioned in this section is the idea of the initial majority and how often the verdict will follow suit. To me this statistic seemed ridiculously high, however when I considered the ideas of peer pressure and the need to conform within society, it made a lot of sense. Especially because often when people are outnumbered they tend to second guess their decisions and assume that the others must be right. Interestingly enough, in the case of a split or nearly split jury the verdict usually comes out to be a not guilty based on the principle of the leniency bias.
The jury deliberation process is also really interesting, because it not only looks at the way in which people approach the problem, but also the different potential outcomes based upon the initial approach. For example, during entation or the very beginning of the deliberations, often a clear deliberation style emerges. The two main styles are verdict-driven where the jurors take a vote first then proceed to discussing the evidence and facts of the case, and evidence-driven where the jury first examines the evidence then later takes a vote after all the perspectives on the evidence have been heard. These two styles tend to differ in how the deliberation will continue. It’s found that evidence-driven deliberation will lead to more in depth discussions about the evidence and facts, and people tend to stay more open minded and consider all the options before making a decision. Other the other hand verdict-driven deliberation style often leads to harsh discussions where each side is defending his or her stance, and very little time is spent looking at and considering the evidence of the case. People are often time far less open minded about anything once they have made a definite decision, and due to this fact, and the social climate within a jury deliberation room, it makes sense that verdict driven deliberation would result in a more hostile and environment, and may even be more subjective to the power of the majority rule or the strong juror.
Do I have faith in the legal system in America? No. Do I have any ideas on how to make it any better? No. Naturally there is going to be some amount of discrepancy is assembling a jury because it’s an uncontrolled sample, and the lawyers have to do their best during the voir dire process to find those who will be competent and willing to take on the burden of making a decision about a stranger’s life. The psychological ramifications of forcing a person into deciding the fate of another, is something that I belief hasn’t been explored enough when it come to jury psychology. There has been a lot of research done, probably funded by lawyers and law firms, to discover how juries deliberate, and what the likely verdict will be based upon personality traits, however these jurors need to be able to cope with the decision of sentencing a person to death, or to life in prison without any psychological damage. Unfortunately, because the jury pool has to be a sample of that particular area where the case is being tried, I don’t think these people are screened out nearly often enough, and I don’t believe that they are provided the help they may require.

Terms: juries, judge’s decisions, jury decisions, psychology, strong jurors, verdict, social by nature, initial majority, split or nearly split jury, not guilty, leniency bias, entation, deliberation style, verdict-driven, evidence-driven, social climate, majority rule, voir dir

Chapter 13 talks about how jurors use information presented to them, at the time of a trial, to make a significant decision individually and as a jury. The chapter then discusses about how an individual juror make their decision. The book describes two ways a juror can make a decision. One way is mathematical models, the use of mathematical equations to describe the relationship between variables and to predict outcomes. Basically this means, in a court room, in order to decide if a verdict for the person on trial, the juror takes into account all evidence and arguments and bases his or her decision off of that. Imagine a scale, and every time the juror hears important evidence, that evidence with go on one side of the scale, guilty or not guilty. The jurors scale can be tipped either way or change frequently as the case continues. The other way an individual juror makes a decision is by story models. According to the definition in the book, a story models is a psychological theory on how jurors decide cases, this poses that juror create stories to explain evidence as a causal chain of events. In this process, try to understand the evidence by making sense of it through a story. If there is a lack of evidence, a juror will resort to their beliefs, own experiences or prejudice and come to a decision. This decision making is more of a risk, and not predictable. I think this was the most interesting thing to me because I understand how a juror would decide if there was clear cut evidence, but did not know what would happen if there was a lack of evidence. Even though this process is not predictable is neat to see how a juror would process the information by creating a story to understand the evidence. It’s a little scary to think about because when it comes to juries, we want them to put aside any prejudice beliefs they have in order to make a fair verdict but when a lack of evidence is given, prejudice beliefs are what some juror turns to. When making decisions there is a difference in making them alone and making them with a group. When the jury is out in the court room they are making a decision themselves about whether they believe the person on trial is guilty or not guilty. However they cannot solely give the verdict based on their decision alone it has to come from the group of jurors. This is where I believe things get complicated. When a group of jurors are coming to a verdict, one of the first steps they take is choosing one person to act as the foreperson. A foreperson is a person who takes notes during the deliberation, they monitor how long the other jurors speak, and they also talk to the judge for the whole group. Among the jurors are strong jurors, these are the people that hold characteristics of a leader, and have an influence on the deliberation process. I would believe one of the strong jurors would also be the foreperson for the deliberation process. According to the chapter there are three stages of deliberation. The first phase is orientation, this is where a foreperson is elected, and they discuss procedures, and raise general issues. They can ask question about the process of deliberation to understand their next steps. The second phase of deliberation is open conflict, in this phase discussion has opened up and either coalitions may form or differences in opinion come forward. As juror work toward a common understanding and agreement on the verdict the last phase of the deliberation is met. A jury can come to an anonymous verdict where everyone agrees or the majority of the jury which is more of a hung jury. The last phase is reconciliation, during this phase attempts may be made to soothe hurt feelings and make everyone feel satisfied with the verdict. I would say that I do have faith in the US judicial system to an extent. I believe they try their hardest to make sure people are treated with the equal rights to trial. They had processes for certain things, like selecting a jury, receiving evidence and other process. They make sure we, the people, are protected and give justice where and when it is needed. However learning about how juries come to a verdict might not have my full faith. I mean we hear it all the time when innocent people get put into jail due to the judicial system. I think that is where I draw the line of faith. This process gives as much of a fair chance to anyone as it could but sometimes it doesn't work out.

Terms : mathematical model, story model, foreperson, strong jurors, orientation, open conflict, reconciliation, jury, trial, deliberation, verdict, hung jury

The chapter begins by explaining what juries are and what they are supposed to do. A trial is an elaborate, highly structured method of providing a jury or a judge with the information necessary to make a considered, impartial decision. But all people are not perfect and have biases. People on the jury may all have different biases, never met, may never meet again after being on jury together, may not discuss an ongoing trial with their friends or family while it is going on, etc. But their decisions will change the lives of the people on court. Large sums of money might be paid, a defendant might be sent to prison, or released from prison, or even sentenced to death. Lawyers are really just trying to persuade a jury when a trial is taking place...they are the ones that make the decision, unless a judge decides to call a mistrial and dismisses the jury. Hopefully, biases for juries are not too much when there is evidence and are guided by law. It is the lawyers hope that there is a counterbalance with evidence and biases.

The process of jury decisions making is best explained through the use of mathematical models. In these models, jurors are assumed to use a sort of mental meter that moves toward either a guilty and not guilty verdict based on the weight of the evidence. The alternate model is called the story model, where instead of the jury using mathematical weighing, they use the stories of the case to add up the evidence to make up a decision. Juries based most of their decisions on evidence, so for example: the OJ Simpson case is widely known for the quote, "The glove didn't fit" so even though it is very likely that OJ Simpson killed his wife, the jury saw the evidence and it did not match for him killing his wife. There are a couple sources of biases including pretrial publicity, where if there is a lot of press towards the case, there is always a prosecution slant. The defendant’s characteristics is another bias because people judge other people as soon as they see them or what they hear about them. And the other, even though they are told to dismiss this type of evidence when an attorney yells out objection, is inadmissible evidence. They are told to not have this considered in their decision, but if they have heard it, it will usually stick in the back of their mind.

The effect a group has on an individual during the decision making process is very crucial. Someone may be against what the majority of the jury thinks. They will either be influence by information or they just give into the pressure (informational and normative influence.) If there is a strong juror or the leader of the jury, he may be able to persuade that lone juror to vote with the majority. Some people are afraid to voice their opinion during a trial because they do not want people to be upset and that can affect a case negatively. I am just surprised that people give into pressure so easily and forget that there is someone's life on the line (sometimes). That can be a reason for the wrongly convicted people in prison. The judge usually agree with the jury when they convict someone at 63%. I do not think I always agree with the US Supreme Court system, but that is all we have.

Key terms: inadmissible evidence, informational influence, normative influence, mathematical models, pretrial publicity, story models, strong juror

I'm not surprised that Chapter 13 incorporated a lot of the elements of Primal Fear into it. I wish I would have read chapter 13 before I watched the film because it would have made the legal aspects of the case more clear. Nonetheless, the chapter was extremely informative. The main theme of the chapter was that jurors base their verdicts almost solely on the presentation of evidence, which introduces the liberation hypothesis as the strength of the evidence weighs heavily on a juror because the evidence for acquittal or conviction is usually compelling. The meter metaphor was used to symbolize the two extremes of guilty and not guilty. During trial and after the introduction of each piece of evidence, the juror's meter will sway depending on how hard that evidence hit home. Sometimes one side will blow the case open with a compelling piece of evidence which can essentially "freeze" one juror's meter making any subsequent piece of evidence introduced not matter.

Bias is another act of the legal system that can sway jurors from one side to the other. As jurors you are asked to set aside prejudices, make sense of the often contradictory evidence being shown and apply the law to the case they are hearing. I thought the information about defendant characteristics was interesting. I can imagine as a juror that you are constantly evaluating defendants throughout the trial. Perhaps the defendant is an attractive female, according to evidence in the textbook, we are more likely to treat that particular defendant more leniently. Furthermore, members of the same race tend to treat defendants of the same race more leniently as well. Inadmissible evidence can have a strong effect on jurors as well. If the judge would sustain a particular piece of evidence, the juror is told to disregard the previous piece of evidence. Can jurors totally forget a compelling piece of evidence even if they are told it doesn't carry any weight in the courtroom. Lawyers can easily procure inadmissible evidence during a trial and use that as a means of planting a seed in a juror's head. Ironic processes explains this fact because when we are told to forget something if often dominates our thoughts. Furthermore, the reactance theory claims that jurors may deem inadmissible evidence important in order to maintain their freedom. Who says I have to forget something after it has already been said?

Studying individual jurors has its benefits, but the real question is how all twelve behave as a group. The fictional portrayal of an educated, articulate, and wealthy juror who persuades the other jurors that his stance is right is usually exaggerated. Lawyers will still label individual jurors as strong jurors and these people tend to have the same characteristics as described above, but they have limited involvement in swaying the other 11 jurors. It makes sense to when understanding group dynamics how a small group of jurors can persuade the other jurors who may be thinking differently on the case to change their stance. Peer pressures have a lot to do with this aspect as does pleasing other more authoritative jurors.

terms used: mathematical models, liberation hypothesis, inadmissible evidence, sustain, ironic processes, reactance theory, strong jurors

Chapter 13, Juries and Judges as Decision-Makers
Chapter 13 clearly emphasizes on the decisions that are made by jurors and judges as devices. These devices determine the life of another, and their family and friends. We hope that these decisions are made without bias, and clearly weighted on pure evidence. Part of the decision making process done my jurors is through the use of mathematical models. Mathematical models determine the weight of the evidence that could shift the direction of the verdict from one way to another. However, an eye-witness testimony is seen as heavily weighted and can outweigh over other forms of evidence. When this happens the jury becomes “frozen”. Another technique the juries use is the method of a story model. Story model is when the juries create stories to make sense of the evidence presented at trial. The juries create a “chain of events” to be able to determine motive for the characters involved, that leads to the different consequences. The juries construct their stories while hearing the evidence at trial. Story model is used, and proven to have been useful in cases involving rap, sexual assault, and murder. However, evidence is not everything, although it is used heavily in trial. Not only does the jury have methods in determining the verdict of a trial, but there are also some ways the jury can formulate a biased verdict. The legal system expects that the jury be fair and just, but sometimes, even when the jury tries not to, prejudice and bias can easily slip through. How some of the bias is formulated is by information about the trial that is presented in the news coverage, and the media. This is defined as pretrial publicity. Everyone is always searching for the best story, so when a high publicity case starts, information that “cannot be used in the courtroom”, is put out to the public. The more people view the media coverage the more likely they will assume that the defendant is guilty. This also can affect the members of the jury who hear about this same information. If the community is highly affected by strong media coverage the court system will take it upon them and conduct a change of venue. This is where the trial is moved to a different location that has not been consumed by high levels of media, and to where the community does not know much about the trial case. Alongside of that, the courts are said to not be influenced by the defendants wealth, social status and gender do not influence the jury. I on the other hand, don’t find this accurate. I personally feel that we as a society are influenced by these agencies. In fact I feel that these, along with race, are what we derive assumptions on. Our unconscious mind develops these assumptions by our society. Until, we are fully aware of these society doings, then that is when we can become consciously aware of the formation of biases for race, class, and gender. Overall what I found interesting in this chapter was how juries use the method of a story model in order to better understand the evidence presented in a trial. However, even though this type of method has been found useful, could the different scenarios create a bias, and influence a jury’s verdict? Secondly, I have faith in the legal system but I do, however, strongly feel that there is much that needs to be improved, especially in having equal rights, and benefits to all races, genders, and social classes.
Psychological Terms: Mathematical models, frozen, story model, pretrial publicity, prejudice, bias, story model, change of venue, conscious, unconscious mind.