Jury Selection PSY 256

The 6th Amendment §  Guarantees

a speedy trial and an impartial trial by a jury of your peers

§  Prosecution

has to prove guilt “beyond a reasonable

doubt” § 

85-90% certain?

§  Designed

to protect the innocent and convict the guilty

§  Blackstone §  Better

Ratio:

than 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to

jail § 

Ultimate procedural safeguard?

Georgia Jury Service Ø Qualifications

in order to be considered for the jury.

Must be a U.S. citizen §  Must be a resident of the county where the case is held §  Must be 18 years old or older §  Must understand/speak English. §  Can’t have a mental illness, §  Can't be a convicted felon § 

Ø Ways

to be exempt from jury duty.

Work in a position that is necessary to the public health §  Are a full-time college, university, or other post-secondary school student §  Are the primary caregiver for a child under 6 years old §  Are 70 or older §  Certain positions in the military § 

Voire Dire: What? §  Pretrial

legal proceeding mandated by federal or state statute

§  Judge

and/or attorneys formally examine groups of prospective jurors (called the venire)

§  Array

of questions: demographics, case knowledge; case specific attitudes

§  In

federal court the judge asks the questions

Voire Dire: Why? Has a variety of goals: 1.  2. 

3. 

Ingratiate self with jury Educate jury about case relevant law or central issues in the case Primary goal: Attempt to uncover biases that jurors might have

Voire Dire: How? Challenges for Cause §  § 

Unlimited Exclude jurors who §  §  §  §  Ø 

exhibit clear bias hold overt prejudices disagree with fundamentals of due process not eligible for jury duty Judges can and do ask jurors to set biases aside §  Croker & Kovera (2010) – juror rehabilitation in insanity defense cases

Voire Dire: How? Preemptory Challenges §  Ø 

Limited; number varies by jurisdiction more severe case the more you get Exclude juror without stating a reason §  Attorneys do this for a number of subjective reasons § 

Jury Selection Strategies

Traditional Jury Selection (TJS) Ø Based

on “common sense” & stereotypes (Fulero & Penrod, 1990)

avoid jurors with crossed arms or “fidgety” mannerisms §  favor those who smile §  criminal defense attorneys should challenge women, Englishmen, and Germans, but keep Irishmen § 

Ø Does

it work?

Ø Demographics

✗

Appealing idea §  Findings are mix – sometimes it matters, sometimes it doesn’t § 

Ø Personality? § 

~

Biggest predictor, hands down, is authoritarianism § 

More likely to endorse conventional values, respect authority, and act punitively toward people who defy authority or conventional norms

Biases in Jury Selection Selection is more like Jury de-selection à it is an exclusionary process

§  Jury

§  Cannot

exclude people based on cognizant (recognizable) groups §  Batson

v. Kentucky, 1986 – Race §  J.E.B. v. Alabama, 1994 – Gender §  Attorneys

tend to make up reasons to exclude jurors based on cognizant groups (Sommers, 2006; Sommers & Norton, 2008)

Sommers & Norton (2007) Challenge 23% 47%





















Challenge









Juror 1











77%









Juror 2











53%

Systematic Jury Selection (SJS) §  Use

statistical analysis to test for relationships between juror characteristics and attitudes about the case.

§ 

Relies on the assumption that individuals’ attitudes and can predict evaluations of evidence verdicts

Ø Not

many studies comparing TJS and SJS

§  Interesting

given it is a billion dollar industry

Systematic Jury Selection (SJS) Juror Bias Scale (Kassin & Wrightsman, 1981) Revised Legal Attitudes Questionnaire Pre-trial Juror Attitude Questionnaire (Myers & Lecci,

1.  2.  3. 

1998; 2008)

Most predictive of verdicts (of the 3) – but still only somewhat so §  6 subscales: § 

1.  2.  3.  4.  5.  6. 

Conviction proneness System confidence Cynicism toward the defense Social Justice Racial Bias Innate Criminality

²  Case-relevant

attitudes are better predictors of verdict than general attitudes or demographic characteristics (Narby & Cutler, 1994)

Systematic Jury Selection (SJS) Does SJS work? §  Legal Attitudes

Questionnaire (LAQ)

§  Jurors

retained §  Jurors excused §  First 12 jurors §  Random 12 §  Jurors chosen by prosecution §  Jurors chosen by defense §  Basically,

attorneys can ID the most biased, but nothing they do after that seems to alter the composition of the jury