Jury Psychology: Social Aspects of Trial Processes

Psychology in the Courtroom, Volume I

Daniel A. Krauss, Joel D. Lieberman, Joel D. Lieberman

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317109952
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Social Psychology
• Index: Psychology

The first of a two-volume set on the Psychology of the Courtroom, Jury Psychology: Social Aspects of Trial Processes offers a definitive account of the influence of trial procedures on juror decision-making. A wide range of topics are covered including pre-trial publicity and inadmissible evidence, jury selection, jury instruction, and death penalty cases, as well as decision-making in civil trials. In addition, a number of global issues are discussed, including procedural justice issues and theoretical models of juror decision-making. Throughout the volume the authors make recommendations for improving trial procedures where jurors are involved, and they discuss how the problems and potential solutions are relevant to courts around the world.

Preface to Volume I—Jury Psychology: Social Aspects of Trial Processes

Joel D. Lieberman and Daniel A. Krauss

Jury Psychology: Social Aspects of Trial Processes focuses on the influence of trial procedures on jurors (and ultimately on other trial participants, most notably defendants). In this volume, a number of global trial context issues are discussed in chapters on procedural justice, civil trials, and capital cases. In addition, as noted above, this volume focuses on the influence of factors that occur before and after the presentation of evidence, by reviewing topics such as pretrial publicity, jury selection, and jury instructions, rather than on the evidence itself, which is covered in Volume II—Psychological Expertise in Court. The authors address these issues by considering how trial procedure in the United States is similar to, and different from, that of other nations.

As this volume focuses on jurors as they experience the trial process, it is not surprising that many of the chapters reflect a strong social psychological orientation. Social psychology studies how people think about, relate to, and influence each other in social settings. As juries are groups who must work together to evaluate evidence, and may bring their biases, fears, and desires produced by a lifetime of experiences into the deliberation room, social psychology is highly relevant. As a result, social psychological theories provide a framework for predicting how jurors will incorporate different types of information into their decision-making. In addition, the traditional social psychological approach to conducting research involving a heavy emphasis on laboratory experiments is clearly seen in the techniques commonly used to study jurors (and other trial participants).

As a result, this volume begins by addressing the validity of jury decision-making research. In Chapter 1 David DeMatteo and Natalie Anumba discuss the development of research in this area. They then focus on the methodological approaches commonly used to study jurors, including the strengths and limitations of the typical research design. DeMatteo and Anumba then discuss the response of the legal community and social scientists to jury decision-making studies. The chapter concludes with a consideration of the degree to which valid inferences can be made from the findings that are obtained. Consequently, this introductory chapter allows a context for interpreting the conclusions of many of the other chapters in this volume, as well as many of the chapters in the accompanying volume (Volume II—Psychological Expertise in Court).

Next, Chapter 2, provided by Tom Tyler, focuses on a discussion of procedural justice issues. Tyler reviews relevant research that has been conducted in this area over the past two decades. This research reveals that individuals are not motivated exclusively by self-interest, where their only concern is the outcome of a trial, but rather that the perceived fairness associated with the trial process itself is also highly important. Tyler discusses these issues in the context of the importance of maintaining public trust in the courts.

Chapter 3 presents a review of theoretical models of jury decision-making that have been developed by psychologists. In this chapter, Jennifer Groscup and Jennifer Tallon discuss the “Story Model” theory that maintains jurors attempt to integrate trial evidence as well as extra-legal evidence (e.g., pre-existing beliefs about the defendant based on defendant characteristics) through the development of a narrative structure. In addition, the theory of “Commonsense Justice” is examined. Commonsense justice maintains that jurors’ notions regarding what the law is or should be may differ from the law that is presented by the judge. The theory also maintains that jurors tend to rely on their commonsense beliefs over the stated law in their verdict determination. Groscup and Tallon also discuss more specific models that have been used to better understand jury decision-making, such as persuasion theories and other dual process models. This chapter provides readers with a basis for integrating the material presented in chapters that focus on specific elements of the trial process such as pretrial publicity, types of evidence, and jury instructions.

The biasing effects of pretrial publicity and inadmissible evidence are discussed by Joel Lieberman, Jamie Arndt, and Matthew Vess in Chapter 4. Procedural solutions to the problems of exposure to this type of information are reviewed. In terms of pretrial publicity, the authors compare approaches used in the United States (e.g., change of venue) with those commonly used in other nations, most notably the use of sub judice restrictions that prevent those involved with the case from publicly discussing it. A central focus throughout the chapter is the effects of admonitions delivered by the judge to disregard information. Lieberman et al. use a social psychological perspective to discuss these issues and to make several policy recommendations.

In Chapter 5, Joel Lieberman and Jodi Olson review the process and effectiveness of jury selection. More specifically, the authors discuss the relationship between individual differences (in terms of demographic and personality factors) and verdict decisions in criminal and civil cases. The authors also examine the “scientific jury selection” approach, and attempt to answer whether this recent approach to selecting jurors is superior to traditional approaches used by attorneys. In addition, the authors compare the jury selection approaches used in the United States, where jurors may be questioned extensively, leading many to be excluded from serving on a jury (based on their responses or individual characteristics), to approaches used in other countries where minimal questioning occurs and exclusions are quite rare.

In Chapter 6, Joel Lieberman discusses the overall comprehensibility of jury instructions. Lieberman points out that jury instruction comprehension rates tend to be alarmingly low, and examines potential causes for the low comprehension rates among jurors. A variety of potential procedural solutions to improving the instruction process are presented. The chapter concludes with a discussion regarding the extent to which courts in the United States have begun to revise their instructions based on the recommendations proposed by social scientists.

Although jurors’ primary job is to determine verdicts, in some cases jurors may have the power to sentence a defendant as well. The most important type of case where jurors have sentencing power is death penalty cases. In Chapter 7, Mona Lynch discusses issues associated with juror selection and decision-making in capital cases. In particular, the issue of bias created by the “death qualification” process of selecting jurors is explored. Lynch also reviews the impact of defendant and victim characteristics, evidence factors, and jurors’ confusion and resistance to instruction guidance in capital cases.

The broad topic of civil trials is reviewed by Edith Greene in Chapter 8. Greene begins with a review of the nature of civil trials and provides a comparative look at civil trials in other countries. The issue of the vanishing civil jury in nations outside the United States is an area of particular interest for this author. Greene explores concerns that have been raised about civil juries, and whether their decisions tend to occur on an arbitrary and unpredictable basis. Greene concludes with a discussion as to whether jurors are able to understand the complexity of evidence and instructions that may be present in civil trials.

We hope that readers will enjoy the depth of coverage of each of these chapters. The authors have not only provided a thorough discussion of the relevant literature, but have also taken into account a variety of international considerations for each topic. It is our hope that this approach will stimulate readers to consider the effects of different trial procedures (as well as cultural customs) on the dynamics of juror behavior, as well as the behavior of other trial participants.

Psychology in the Courtroom

This two-volume set explores the major areas in which psychology has been applied to court proceedings. A renowned group of psychological and legal scholars explore relevant problems that are created by or influence courtroom procedure and trial outcome from a psychological perspective. The authors discuss how courts within and outside the United States endeavor to handle these problems, and present empirically based potential policy solutions for these issues.

Readers may also be interested in the accompanying volume: Psychological Expertise in Court edited by Daniel A. Krauss and Joel D. Lieberman. In this volume, authors direct their attention to the use of psychological expert testimony and evidence in a variety of legal contexts. They explore the controversies that surround it, from questions of its admissibility to its effects on eventual juror decisions. A wide range of topics are covered including expert testimony on psychological syndromes and recent research on false confessions. The authors also provide a comparative analysis exploring how different types of psychological expert testimony and evidence are used by different countries’ legal systems. The authors conclude by making specific recommendations for how psychological research and information could be better utilized by courts around the world.

Contents to Volume II: Preface, Daniel A. Krauss and Joel D. Lieberman; The Admissibility of Expert Testimony in the united States, the Commonwealth, and Elsewhere, Daniel A. Krauss, Desiree Cassar, and Allison Strother; Psychological and Cultural Aspects of Interrogations and False Confessions: Using Research to Inform Legal Decision-Making, Richard A. Leo, Mark Costanzo, and Netta Shaked; System and Estimator Variables in Eyewitness Identification: A Review, Solomon M. Fulero; Insanity in the Courtroom: Issues of Criminal Responsibility and Competency to Stand Trial, Patricia A. Zapf, Tina M. Zottoli, and Gianni Pirelli; Psychological Syndrome Evidence, M. Alexis Kennedy; Child Sexual Abuse and the Courts, Susan R. Hall; Sexual Harassment: Antecedents, Consequences, and Juror Decisions, Sarah M. Greathouse, Lora M. Levett, and Margaret Bull Kovera.

1 The Validity of Jury Decision-Making Research

DOI: 10.4324/9781315590790-1

David DeMatteo and Natalie Anumba

Synopsis

The past several decades have witnessed remarkable growth in the amount of research that examines the application of psychology to legal issues. One important focus of this growing body of research is jury decision-making. Although researchers have amassed a considerable body of research examining various aspects of jury decision-making, there is often a reluctance among social scientists and legal practitioners to accept the research findings due to doubts regarding the validity of the research. In particular, critics of jury decision-making research point to concerns relating to the methodological soundness and resulting ecological validity of much of the research. As such, the validity of jury decision-making research, as well as other research that examines the application of psychology to legal issues, remains a hotly debated topic. We begin this chapter with a brief discussion of the history of jury decision-making research and the typical research designs used to study jury decision-making. Next, we discuss the responses to jury decision-making research among the legal community and social scientists. Finally, after addressing the major criticisms that have been leveled against jury decision-making research, we address the important question of whether jury decision-making research permits valid inferences.

The Validity of Jury Decision-Making Research

Perhaps the most interesting and noteworthy aspect of the legal system in the United States is the means by which many decisions are made. In many criminal and civil trial contexts, the outcomes are not determined by legal experts; rather, the decisions are made by a group of laypeople who typically have no formal legal education (Devine et al., 2001). As noted by Kalven and Zeisel (1966), the only legal “training” these individuals typically receive is the instructions provided to them by the judge presiding over the specific case, yet they are often expected to parse legal intricacies, weigh evidence and testimony that may be confusing or even contradictory, and come to a consensus regarding criminal culpability or civil liability.

Because of their prominent role in the United States legal system, juries have attracted a considerable amount of attention from those who work within the legal system and those who study the legal system. The role, utility, and functioning of juries have been the frequent subjects of debate among legal practitioners and legal scholars. Further, as noted by Greene and colleagues (2002), social scientists have devoted a great deal of attention to various aspects of jury functioning over the past 30 years. Despite the wealth of research on juries, the validity of the research findings is still a hotly debated topic. Methodological limitations and sampling considerations, among other concerns, have led some researchers and practitioners to conclude that findings derived from jury research are suspect. On the other hand, many researchers assert that the methodological concerns relating to jury decision-making research have been largely overstated and do not provide sufficient justification for questioning the ultimate utility of this line of research.

This chapter will begin with a brief discussion of the history of jury decision-making research. Next, we will describe the research designs that are most commonly used in jury decision-making research. We will then address the important question of whether the research that examines jury decision-making, particularly those studies that employ jury simulation approaches, permits valid inferences. Finally, after discussing the reception and use of jury research by legal practitioners, we will conclude this chapter by identifying promising avenues for future research.

The History of Jury Decision-Making Research

Despite the jury's longstanding role in the legal system, conducting research on topics related to jury decision-making is a fairly recent endeavor. The beginning of social scientists’ systematic and empirical inquiry into the legal phenomenon of jury decision-making is often traced to the University of Chicago Law School's Jury Project (Bornstein, 1999; Devine et al., 2001; Dunn, 2003; Greene et al., 2002; MacCoun, 1989). The Chicago Jury Project, which began in the early 1950s, was an investigation into the role and function of U.S. juries. The goal of the project was to bring together social scienti...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title Page
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Dedication
• Notes on Contributors
• Series Preface
• Preface to the Two-Volume Set
• Preface to Volume I—Jury Psychology: Social Aspects of Trial Processes
• Psychology in the Courtroom
• 1 The Validity of Jury Decision-Making Research
• 2 Procedural Justice
• 3 Theoretical Models of Jury Decision-Making
• 4 Inadmissible Evidence and PretrialPublicity: The Effects (and Ineffectiveness) of Admonitions to Disregard
• 5 The Psychology of Jury Selection
• 6 The Psychology of the Jury Instruction Process
• 7 The Social Psychology of Capital Cases
• 8 Psychological Issues in Civil Trials
• Index