Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 18, 2024 Thu
Time: 2:01 am
Time: 2:01 am
Results for jurors
10 results foundAuthor: Equal Justice Initiative Title: Illegal Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection: A Continuing Legacy Summary: The staff of the Equal Justice Initiative looked closely at jury selection procedures in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee. It reviewed hundreds of court documents and interviewed more than 100 African Americans who had been excluded from juries due to racial bias. It found that some were struck from juries for stated reasons such as low intelligence, wearing glasses, manner of walking, and residing in a predominantly black neighborhood. Alabama's appellate courts found racial discrimination in jury selection in 25 death penalty cases in recent years. The Initiative also found evidence that some district attorney's offices teach prosecutors how to strike racial minorities from juries in a way that seems race-neutral. The report recommends thorough enforcement of anti-discrimination laws bearing on jury selection; penalties for prosecutors found to have engaged in discriminatory exclusions; monitoring of court proceedings and officials' conduct; greater diversity in the judiciary, district attorneys' offices, the defense bar, and law enforcement; and state action to ensure diversity in jury pools, among other remedies. Details: Montgomery, AL: Equal Justice Initiative, 2010. 61p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118738 Keywords: JuriesJurorsRacial Discrimination |
Author: Anwar, Shamena Title: Jury Discrimination in Criminal Trials Summary: This paper examines the impact of jury racial composition on trial outcomes using a unique dataset of all felony trials in Sarasota County, Florida between 2004 and 2009. We utilize a research design that exploits day-to-day variation in the composition of the jury pool to isolate quasi-random variation in the composition of the seated jury. We find strong evidence that all-white juries acquit whites more often and are less favorable to black versus white defendants when compared to juries with at least one black member. Using the Anwar-Fang rank order test, we find strong statistical evidence of discrimination on the basis of defendant race. These results are consistent with racial prejudice on the part of white jurors, black jurors, or both. Using a simple model of jury selection and decision-making, we replicate the entire set of empirical regularities observed in the data, including the fact that blacks in the jury pool are just as likely as whites to be seated. Simulations of the model suggest that jurors of each race are heterogeneous in the standards of evidence that they require to convict and that both black and white defendants would prefer to face jurors of the same race. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2010. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper Series; Working Paper 16366: Accessed October 5, 2010 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w16366.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w16366.pdf Shelf Number: 119863 Keywords: CourtsDiscriminationJuriesJurorsTrials |
Author: Roberts, Julian V. Title: Public Opinion and the Jury: An International Literature Review Summary: There is substantial literature on the legal institution of the jury and on the experiences of jurors. However less is known about public attitudes to juries. This report sought to help address this knowledge gap. It draws together findings from the small number of quantitative surveys that have asked the general public questions on this subject. It focuses on survey findings from England and Wales, but also considers international research. The report indicates high levels of confidence in the jury amongst the general public. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2009. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Research Series 1/09: Accessed October 9, 2010 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/public-opinion-and-the-jury-by-roberts-and-hough-web(1).pdf Year: 2009 Country: International URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/public-opinion-and-the-jury-by-roberts-and-hough-web(1).pdf Shelf Number: 114353 Keywords: JuriesJurorsPublic Opinion |
Author: Warner, Kate Title: Public Judgement on Sentencing: Final Results from the Tasmanian Jury Sentencing Study Summary: This seminal study, which was funded by the Criminology Research Council, is the first reported study to use jurors in real trials to gauge public opinion about sentences and sentencing. Using jurors is a way of investigating the views of members of the public who are as fully informed of the facts of the case and the background of the offender as the judge. Based upon jurors’ responses from 138 trials, the study found that more than half of the jurors surveyed suggested a more lenient sentence than the trial judge imposed. Moreover, when informed of the sentence, 90 percent of jurors said that the judge’s sentence was (very or fairly) appropriate. In contrast, responses to abstract questions about sentencing levels mirrored the results of representative surveys. The results of the study also suggest that providing information to jurors about crime and sentencing may be helpful in addressing misconceptions in these areas. Replication of this study may be of assistance to policymakers and judges who wish to know what informed members of the public think about sentencing. Portrayals of a punitive public are misleading and calls for harsher punishment largely uninformed. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2011. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 407: Accessed February 22, 2011 at: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/A/B/7/%7BAB703D46-E913-4384-B3DB-646DC27EF2D3%7Dtandi407.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/A/B/7/%7BAB703D46-E913-4384-B3DB-646DC27EF2D3%7Dtandi407.pdf Shelf Number: 120848 Keywords: JudgesJuries (Tasmania)JurorsSentencing |
Author: Conley, Robin Helene Title: Doing Death in Texas: Language and Jury Decision-Making in Texas Death Penalty Trials Summary: This dissertation explores the means through which language and culture make death penalty decisions possible – how specific language choices mediate and restrict jurors', attorneys', and judges' actions and experiences while serving and reflecting on capital trials. More specifically, it investigates how discursive constructions of place and space are mobilized within trial participants' argumentation and reasoning about death penalty decisions; grammatical and semantic forms as both facilitating and stymying empathic and emotional experiences; and how language mediates jurors' understandings and judgments about agency and culpability, regarding both defendants' criminal actions and their own sentencing decisions. In conclusion, it argues that language is one of the primary resources by which jurors construct defendants as non-human and thus decide to sentence them to death. The dissertation research involved twelve months of fieldwork, from 2009-2010, in and around Houston, Texas for data collection. The methodologies included interviews of jurors, attorneys, judges, and prison staff; participant-observation in death penalty trials; audio-recordings and note-taking of these trials; and qualitative linguistic analyses of transcribed interviews and courtroom interaction. The overall analysis reveals that language is crucial in the making and unmaking of defendants into human beings, acts often described by theorists of law and language as violent. The dissertation argues that language mediates a central tension and source of violence in death penalty trials, between encounters with the face of another human being and the discursive, institutional making of that being. Overcoming this tension is crucial to jurors being able to sentence a defendant to death. Details: Los Angeles, CA: University of California, 2011. 317p. Source: Doctoral Dissertation: Internet Resource: Accessed February 10, 2012 at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236354.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236354.pdf Shelf Number: 124044 Keywords: Death Penalty (Texas)JuriesJurors |
Author: Hannaford-Agor, Paula Title: Juror and Jury Use of New Media: A Baseline Exploration Summary: Over the course of six meetings held between 2008 and 2011, the members of the Executive Session for State Court Leaders in the 21st Century considered leadership challenges presented by a series of both longstanding problems and new trends. The new social media’s turn came in April 2010 with a discussion billed as examining “the opportunities and pitfalls of new media for state court leaders.” The youngest Session member, Garrett Graff, an expert on the new media, agreed to frame the issues for everyone’s benefit. He immediately took the discussion to an unexpected place. The real challenge, he claimed, is that “this is much more than just a set of tools—this is a different way of thinking.” That is not to say that the tools themselves are unproblematic. Graff noted that one consequence of the new media is that “every single person who is now sitting in a courtroom has access to just about every piece of information ever published anywhere in the world. And that is a tremendous challenge to the way we traditionally think of sealing off the courtroom from the outside world for the duration of a trial.” Currently, jury and juror use of the Internet to conduct independent research or to engage in ex parte communications on trial-related topics is universally prohibited as a violation of the juror’s oath and can result in a mistrial or an overturned verdict. The more profound challenge, however, is the change to the very nature of how people engage in truth finding. The Kennedy School’s Christopher E. Stone summarized the challenge as a “dilemma for an institution that is used to insisting on its own ways of knowing things, ways that are different from what ordinary people do. Consider the rules of evidence—or just the rules on hearsay—we have an institution that is used to telling the whole society, ‘Yeah, yeah, you think you learn things this way, but we have different rules for acquiring knowledge in this process.’” The jury trial clearly is where new ways of truth seeking are most likely to collide with the requirements of traditional court processes. The potential casualty is fairness. Chief Justice Christine M. Durham of the Utah Supreme Court expressed skepticism about the ability of courts to find a compromise that accommodates new understandings of truth finding with the traditional trial process: “Where I have trouble is with what becomes of the fundamental definition of fairness in the American judicial system—which is founded on the concept of the adversarial system as the means of guaranteeing fairness. We have inextricably connected those two values, fairness and the adversary system, from the beginning of our history.” If judges are no longer the gatekeepers for the flow of information into a courtroom, and if jurors no longer accept the legitimacy of restrictions on what is relevant to fact finding, can the American adversarial system continue to deliver fairness? The subsequent discussion led to a broad consensus that the Executive Session should, as part of its legacy, sponsor one or more jury experiments to inform court leaders as they confront changing technology and approaches to truth finding. More specifically, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), with its tradition of jury research, was asked to design a research project to explore the impact of the new media on juries, develop the necessary survey and other methodologies needed to explore the impact of the new media on juries, and recommend potential ways to reconcile the use of new media with the dynamics of the adversarial system. This paper frames the research issues and describes what was learned from the pilot test of a jury study in 15 civil and criminal trials. Details: Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2012. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 17, 2012 at http://www.ncsc.org/Services-and-Experts/Court-leadership/Harvard-Executive-Session/~/media/Files/PDF/Services%20and%20Experts/Harvard%20Executive%20Session/jurorandjuryuse.ashx Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncsc.org/Services-and-Experts/Court-leadership/Harvard-Executive-Session/~/media/Files/PDF/Services%20and%20Experts/Harvard%20Executive%20Session/jurorandjuryuse.ashx Shelf Number: 127230 Keywords: CommunicationsInformation TechnologyJuriesJurorsMass Media and Criminal Justice |
Author: Warner, Kate Title: Jury Sentencing Survey Summary: The study has three immediate aims: To investigate a new method of ascertaining public opinion by assessing the feasibility of using juries as a source of informed public opinion. To develop a new way of improving public knowledge about sentencing by using jurors as conduits of information. To ascertain attitudes to sentencing from an informed sector of the public. The broader aim of the study is to counter populist penal punitiveness by addressing the "comedy of errors"; namely, the situation that criminal justice policy and practice is not based on a proper understanding of public opinion, and public opinion is not based on a proper understanding of policy and practice. Public opinion surveys conducted across the world over the last four decades consistently find that between 70 and 80 percent of respondents think that sentences are too lenient. More sophisticated research has led researchers to label this „a methodological artefact "a result of the way in which public opinion has been measured" (Gelb 2008a: 45). It has been found that people have little accurate knowledge of crime and the criminal justice system, that those who have better knowledge are less punitive and that when given more information, people become less punitive. This suggests that a strategy to counter penal punitiveness is to improve public knowledge about crime and sentencing matters and to devise better methods of ascertaining informed public opinion. The provision of a better measure of informed public attitudes (in contrast to uninformed and flawed public opinion polls) will provide the basis for a reasoned argument for politicians and policy advisers to use when resisting calls made by the popular print and broadcasting media to increase penalties and to get tough on crime. Providing a source of informed public opinion, which can be fed into the criminal justice system, has the potential to improve public confidence in the system. Because of the relationship between ratings of confidence in the courts and perceptions of severity - those who report that sentences are too lenient are less confident in the courts - improving confidence in the courts can also reduce punitiveness. The Research Questions: The following six research questions were formulated: 1. How can juries be utilised as a source of public opinion about sentencing? Do they have the willingness and capacity to participate in a study exploring their views on sentencing? How willing are jurors to respond to invitations to stay and listen to sentencing proceedings? Do they have the willingness to read and the capacity to understand briefing information about sentencing? Are jurors willing to complete a survey form about sentencing? Are jurors willing to respond to requests to be interviewed about their views? 2. How receptive are jurors to learning about crime trends and sentencing? 3. To what extent are jurors (as newly informed members of the public) satisfied with the sentence imposed by the judge? 4. What kind of information affects public satisfaction with sentencing? Listening to the sentencing submissions? Knowledge of crime trends? Information about sentencing law and sentencing patterns? 5. What variables affect jurors' satisfaction with sentence? Variables relating to juror demographics? Variables relating to the offence type? Variables relating to the offender? Variables relating to the victim? 6. To what extent do the views of jurors as members of the public coincide or differ from those of the judge as expressed in the sentencing comments? Details: Report to the Australian Criminology Research Council, 2010. 156p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 14, 2013 at: http://www.criminologyresearchcouncil.gov.au/reports/0607-4.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: http://www.criminologyresearchcouncil.gov.au/reports/0607-4.pdf Shelf Number: 127618 Keywords: Juries (Australia)JurorsPublic OpinionPunishmentSentencing |
Author: Anwar, Shamena Title: The Role of Age in Jury Selection and Trial Outcomes Summary: This paper uses data from 700 felony trials in Sarasota and Lake Counties in Florida from 2000-2010 to examine the role of age in jury selection and trial outcomes. The results imply that prosecutors are more likely to use their peremptory challenges to exclude younger members of the jury pool, while defense attorneys exclude older potential jurors. To examine the causal impact of age on trial outcomes, the paper employs a research design that isolates the effect of the random variation in the age composition of the pool of eligible jurors called for jury duty. Consistent with the jury selection patterns, the empirical evidence implies that older jurors are significantly more likely to convict. Results are robust to the inclusion of broad set of controls including county, time, and judge fixed effects. These findings imply that many cases are decided differently for reasons that are completely independent of the true nature of the evidence in the case – i.e., that there is substantial randomness in the application of criminal justice. Details: Durham, NC: Duke University, 2013. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Economic Research Initiatives at Duke (ERID) Working Paper No. 146: Accessed May 29, 2013 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2266613 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2266613 Shelf Number: 128846 Keywords: CourtsFeloniesJurorsJury SelectionTrials |
Author: Anwar, Shamena Title: Politics in the Courtroom: Political Ideology and Jury Decision Making Summary: This paper uses data from the Gothenburg District Court in Sweden and a research design that exploits the random assignment of politically appointed jurors (termed namndeman) to make three contributions to the literature on jury decision-making: (i) an assessment of whether systematic biases exist in the Swedish namndeman system, (ii) causal evidence on the impact of juror political party on verdicts, and (iii) an empirical examination of the role of peer effects in jury decision-making. The results reveal a number of systematic biases: convictions for young defendants and those with distinctly Arabic sounding names increase substantially when they are randomly assigned jurors from the far-right (nationalist) Swedish Democrat party, while convictions in cases with a female victim increase markedly when they are assigned jurors from the far-left (feminist) Vnster party. The results also indicate the presence of peer effects, with jurors from both the far-left and far-right parties drawing the votes of their more centrist peers towards their positions. Peer effects take the form of both sway effects, where jurors influence the opinions of their closest peers in a way that can impact trial outcomes, and dissent aversion, where jurors switch non-pivotal votes so that the decision is unanimous. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2015. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper 21145: Accessed May 13, 2015 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w21145.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Sweden URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w21145.pdf Shelf Number: 135625 Keywords: JuriesJuror Decision MakingJurorsJury (Sweden) |
Author: Goodman-Delahunty, Jane Title: Jury reasoning in joint and separate trials of institutional child sexual abuse: An empirical study Summary: This report forms part of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse's research program in relation to the criminal justice system's response to child sexual abuse in institutional contexts. Child sex offenders are not a homogenous group and their offending behaviours vary widely. Offenders may offend against one victim or many victims, and they may engage in one incident of sexual abuse or multiple repeated incidents. The diversity and complexity of offending behaviours has a number of implications for the prosecution of child sex offenders. The scope of this report This study investigated the extent to which joint trials with cross-admissible tendency evidence infringed defendants' rights, and the extent to which joint trials posed a risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant. In particular, we investigated the reasoning processes of juries in a simulated joint trial of sex offences involving three complainants versus a separate trial involving a single complainant. Our jury deliberation and reasoning study investigated these issues by presenting 10 different versions of a videotaped trial involving the same core evidence to a total of 1,029 jury-eligible mock jurors. The study tested the impact of evidence strength, the number of charges and the presence of specific judicial directions on jury decision-making in joint versus separate trials. The five key aims of the project were to: 1. Document juries' interpretation of cross-admissible evidence in a joint child sexual abuse trial, to determine the extent to which juries engage in impermissible reasoning regarding such evidence Compare the above decision-making processes with those of juries in a separate trial involving the same defendant 3. Compare trial outcomes (acquittal, conviction or hung jury) in a joint versus separate trial involving the same defendant 4. Examine the relationship between jurors' misconceptions about child sexual abuse, jury deliberations and decisions, and trial outcomes 5. Determine the effect of question trail use on juries' reasoning and decisions. Details: Sydney: Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, 2016. 376p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 28, 2016 at: http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/getattachment/b268080d-599a-4d44-a9c5-c3f8181bae96/Jury-reasoning-in-joint-trials-of-institutional-ch Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/getattachment/b268080d-599a-4d44-a9c5-c3f8181bae96/Jury-reasoning-in-joint-trials-of-institutional-ch Shelf Number: 139863 Keywords: Child Sexual AbuseCriminal EvidenceCriminal TrialsJurorsJury Decision-MakingSex Offenders |