Recently in Jurors Category

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39726149/ns/us_news-security/

This article was published on msnbc.com by Associated Press on October 18, 2010.  The FBI were involved in this investigation (mainly because it has to do with threats of bombing).


"The trial featured 13 days of testimony by undercover informant Shahed Hussain, who met Cromitie at a mosque north of New York City. Prosecutors also relied on hundreds of hours of video and audiotape of the men discussing the scheme at the informant's home, handling fake weapons -- even praying together."

"Jurors deliberated for more than a week. A judge denied a request for a mistrial last week after a juror came across a document in an evidence binder that shouldn't have been there. The juror was dismissed."


What are the processes that the jury went through?

Do you think it was fair that the judge denied a request for a mistrial after a juror came across a document in an evidence binder?

What would you have done if you were that Judge and presented with that dilemma?

 

Here is a fun, yet informative little website that I ran across that has some good information about of variety of topics.  Some of these topics may help you with your project (depending on your role) and others are just full of useful information!

The case I'm going to discuss is several years old but I found it very interesting and relevant to psychology and law. In 1992, a hunter found the body of a decomposing woman while hunting. After the police found out that the dead woman had been a prostitute, it led them to believe that a possible suspect was Thomas Huskey, a man known for bringing woman to the area. Huskey had a reputation for taking women, tying them up behind the zoo, beating them, and then having sex with them.

About a week after the first body was found, police searching the area found three more dead women. Huskey was arrested and confessed, on tape, to all four murders. During the confession, Huskey changed his voice and expressions and said that he was now "Kyle". Apparently, "Kyle" was the one who killed the women, not Thomas. After "Kyle" emerged, "Philip Daxx", a British man, surfaced. This lead investigators to believe that Huskey had multiple personality disorder.

After 6 years had passed, the trial finally began. Huskey plead not guilty by insanity. The defense psychologist said that Huskey suffered from multiple personality disorder, however, the prosecution psychologist said that Huskey simply created these personalities to manipulate the court. During the course of the trial, the cellmate of Huskey, testified that Huskey had read Sybil and was going to try to make it seem like he had multiple personality disorder to avoid the death penalty. Huskey's mother also agreed that he did not have this disorder. To further the case against Huskey, the prosecution noted that he gave specific details about the crime while he was Tom but if he really did have multiple personality disorder, he would have no recollection of these memories, since they belong to "Kyle".

After the jury deliberated for quite some time, they still had not come to a unanimous decision. The judge declared a mistrial. Huskey was to be tried again in 2002 but he asked for a lawyer during his confession, which was then ruled inadmissible. Huskey is currently in prison for 44 years for previous rape charges.

On another website, I found that the murder charges against Huskey were dropped due to detective errors. He is still in jail for the rape charges mentioned earlier.

Psychology is obviously present here. Because multiple personality disorder is so rare, it probably wasn't Huskey's  best idea to pretend he had it. Any personality disorder is severe and it's likely that Huskey may have had some other form of one. Although he wasn't proven guilty, it seems pretty possible that he did commit the four murders. I'm glad that he's at least in jail for the rape crimes he committed so that he can't go out and murder more innocent women.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/multiples/index.html 

After reading through many of the blog posts on jury selection and jury duty I found a link on Luke's post "It's Your Duty" describing ways to avoid jury duty.  At the top of the list were the words "jury nullification" which linked to another website that I now have bookmarked and find absolutely amazing.

            http://fija.org/  This organization known as the Fully Informed Jury Association has a wealth of information that is very helpful to jurors, and anyone else interested in researching information relating to jury selection and duties.  On their homepage they offer a critical reminder of the true function of all jurors:

            "The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by the government.  The Constitution guarantees you the right to trial by jury.  This means that government must bring its case before a jury of The People if government wants to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property.  Jurors can say no to government tyranny by refusing to convict."

When thinking about jury selection and the jury process I got thinking about how these lawyers and attorneys use them to their advantage. With this idea in mind I came upon a website where it talks about the art and format of asking jurors questions and how it is important to not only ask well phrased Questions but to make sure these jurors have enough time to think and provide a good elaborate answer. This not only helps the thought process of the juror and gives them insight to what the case is about but also it allows the lawyer to gather information about the types of people that he is going to be presenting his case to. This information about the jurors is important because it unveils some underlying behaiors, attitudes, and  perspectives the jurors might have; and hoe they feel about this particular case.

 

Example: the defended is going to argue that his client was a victim of wrongful or mistaken identity. He asks jurors the question...have you ever been a victim of mistaken identity? This question does two things: it presents the defendants perspective on the case and it plants the idea in the jurors head a time they had been wrongfully convicted of a crime or another situation promoting empathy for the defendant. Another thing an interviewer needs to do in addition to asking thought provoking questions is to give them enough time to answer the questions.

 

The author of this website outlines seven steps to making sure you are giving the jurors enough time to think:

1. Ask the question of the entire panel (and tell them how they should respond): "By show of hands, has anyone here ever been wrongfully accused of something?"

2. Show them how to respond: While asking the question, raise your own hand in the air.  (Telling them how to respond and then showing them how to respond will encourage greater responses.)

3. Pause.  Don't rush it.  Mentally count to 10 or so before you even think about saying anything else or moving to another topic.

4. Look 'em in the eyes.  While you're pausing, make eye contact with several jurors and use the power of your eye contact to encourage responses.  Keep an eye out for the ones who look like they'd like to respond, but haven't made up their minds yet.

5. Nobody volunteered?  Pick on someone.  Actually, pick about 3-4 people, from different parts of the room, and ask them directly: "Mrs. Jones, have you ever been wrongfully accused of something?"  By asking them directly, sometimes you'll prompt a better response.  (A good place to start is with the people who looked like they wanted to respond, but didn't raise their hand.)

6. Ask the entire panel again.  Even if no one responds to your individual questions, it's not a waste of time, because you're giving the other jurors time to finish thinking their way through your question.  Now that they've had enough time to finish thinking, ask the entire panel once again, perhaps adding a bit of a challenge to your question: "Really?  No one here has ever been wrongfully accused of anything?"

7. Pause (again).  Look 'em in the eyes (again).  Hopefully, this will prompt any hold-outs into answering the question.  If not, consider rephrasing the question, or moving on to another topic.  At least you'll know that you didn't cut off anyone's thought process and prevent them from answering. 

If you are interested there are more links on this website that elaborate on information regarding questions and answer sessions with jurors and other variables in the process

http://www.trialtheater.com/wordpress/jury-selection/give-jurors-time-to-think-during-jury-selection/

Since I have never been called up for jury duty I figured I should do a little research on the actual process of selecting a jury. One of my roommates had been called in for jury duty on a couple of occasions so I spoke with him in regards to how it went and how he felt about the process. To sum up his comments briefly, basically "it was a waste of my time." I found this to be amusing as well as somewhat discerning considering being evaluated by a "jury of your peers" is a large part of our legal system. Upon questioning why he felt that way he responded, "it costs you money when you have to miss out on work, just to be called in twice, and sent home twice." With that being said, I can understand his distaste for jury duty. This had me wondering if he had used any psychological cues that may have led to him being dismissed. Turns out there are actually web sites dedicated in helping you AVOID jury duty.

http://www.courtreporterschools.com/?page_id=7

I also found a web site that sells a book on how to avoid jury duty. Leave it to someone to find a way to make money off of tips on how to get out of the selection process.

http://www.avoidingjuryduty.com/

The process begins with jurors being selected at random from an already compiled list of people (examples: listing of licensed drivers, public utility service records, or even polling precinct lists). After people are selected at random they are called in and go through a basic question/answer screening. If a juror has "passed" they will then be examined by the prosecution and defense teams (this is known as voir dire). This consists of general questions posed to the possible jury as a group, as well as more in-depth questions on a individual level.

There are actually quite a few aspects of psychology that tie in with this process of law. Possible jurors perceptions are tested, in which each response is judged. The entire process falls within social psychology since jurors are questioned on areas such as: race, opinions on stereotyping, and other "hot topic" areas. If the perspective juror has any sort of psychological disorder (choose any that fall under abnormal psychology) chances are they are going to be excused from duty.

In my opinion I feel that jury duty, even though it doesn't pay well (and in some instances is a "waste" of time), is still a duty we should all have to complete at some point in our lives. This should especially hit home for victims of crimes that would want a good set of jurors in choosing their fate in the courtroom.

For further readings and information please visit the following sites:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_selection
http://www.all-about-forensic-psychology.com/jury-selection.html

For my blog about juries, I decided to focus on the challenge rights that attorneys have when selecting a jury and specific cases related to those challenges.

voir dire: is the process of interviewing potential jurors in which judges and attorneys examine their backgrounds and possible biases.

Attorneys are allowed to challenge certain jurors when selecting a jury, which is simply a request to dismiss a potential juror.

peremptory challenge: an attorney can challenge a potential juror without providing a reason

challenge for cause: an attorney must provide a reason when challenging a potential juror, whether it be related to some bias towards the case, acquaintanceship with one of the parties, knowledge about the facts of the case, an obvious prejudice, or an inability to serve such as having a mental disorder. The judge then decides whether or not to dismiss the prospective juror.

I think it is a good idea to give attorneys these challenges.  I think both are necessary because it would not be fair for attorneys to eliminate an unlimited number of potential jurors for no reason.  The challenge for cause keeps attorneys in check and requires them to provide a reason to throw out a juror.  I think it is good that our courts allow attorneys to have these rights and that both exist to keep the attorneys fair and in check.   

 

Listed below are some cases related to jury selection...

Strauder v. West Virginia (1879): exclusion of potential jurors based solely on race is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause

Batson v. Kentucky (1986): peremptory challenges may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race

J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B. (1994): peremptory challenges may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their sex

I agree with the verdicts of these cases.  I do not think jurors should be thrown out based solely on their sex or race.    These cases give everyone an equal opportunity to serve as a juror, or at least through voir dire.

http://www.beavertonvalleytimes.com/news/story.php?story_id=126827936072322200
This article is about a man who was convicted of murdering a woman and her two sons on account of revenge. He found out that his wife was having an affair with another man and was pregnant with the other man's child. Serrano was upset and went to the other man's house to get him, but found his wife, 37, and his two sons who were 15 and 12. Serrano shot all three of them. The jury of 8 women and 4 men were to decide if Ricardo Serrano was to spend life in prison without parole or have the death penatly.

I found this disturbing because everyone on the defense side was trying to make it sound like Serrano was a good man. I understand that it is their job to defend the accused, but a good man doesn't go and shoot people out of revenge.
I also found another article that talks about the decision that the jury made and about how Serrano's wife wants to testify against him.
http://www.oregonlive.com/washingtoncounty/index.ssf/2008/08/murder_suspect_wants_to_preven.html

While looking for things to post concerning juries, I found this article discussing how important the role of the juror is in deciding whether someone is sentenced the death penalty. The authors, Raoul Cantero and Robert Kline, discussed how there are two phases the jury goes for: the trial phase and the penalty phase. The trial phase is when the jury decides if the defendant is guilty or innocent of a capital crime. If the defendant is found guilty, the jury must go through the penalty phase to decide if the defendant deserves the death penalty. Thinking about the reality of this situation, the jury must carefully be selected. It would be a very hard task to decide that someone does not deserve the right to live. Psychologically, the jury must be strong mentally and emotionally to be able to handle this. For the defendant, it would be hard to handle that they will be dying. Both sides are affected greatly which is why the death penalty is not legal in all states. The article I was looking at mostly focused on Florida because they're the only state that only requires a simple majority to rule in favor of the death penalty. Below are the links where I found this information at.


Full article
 Introduction to article

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9906EEDC143FE433A25752C0A9649C946097D6CF

(abstract of the article)

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9906EEDC143FE433A25752C0A9649C946097D6CF

(the entire article)

The above article is from 1901, but I thought it was interesting to see the types of problems they were having in the legal system in the past. It discusses the opposition by a former judge concerning jury selection for trials in New Jersey. Former Judge Thomas Henry, challenged the jury selection during the Quarter Sessions. His challenge was overturned by Judge Skinner, so he took his challenge to the Court of Error and Appeals.

"Mr. Henry says the Constables about the court have friends whom they desire to have placed on the jury list, and the Sheriff, to be accomodating, uses the names of these friends. Some of these constables are attached to the Prosecutor's office..."

Mr. Henry argued that the chosen jurors were possibly inclined to favor the prosecution's side, because that's how they were chosen, and resulted in the money received for their services to society.

Mr. Henry asked the judge in the current case he was defending, if he would allow a jury to be selected from a list of the defense's friends, and of course the judge denied this request. Mr. Henry made a valid point that many other attorneys and judges began to agree with-the method for jury selection needed to be reformed.

I enjoyed doing research on jury selection because I've never been asked to serve on a jury, so I was always curious about the process you have to go through. As it turns out, it's pretty time consuming. I've provided a link that has information on the jury selection process.

Also, when one of my friends was called to jury duty, she asked me how to get out of it. Just in case any of you decide you want to get out of jury duty, I also found a website that gives 20 effective ways to avoid jury duty. Some of them are humorous, other ones are more serious. So have fun reading those!

"Basically, jury consulting is applied psychology" - Thomas Diamante

Behind jury selection lies a jury consultant.  There has been an increasing demand for jury consultation, but what is it and is it actually effective?

Jury consultants use their backgrounds in psychology to help lawyers pick jurors who are most likely to side with their client.  During jury questioning, if lawyers suspect any bias in any of the potential jurors, they can challenge them and may eventually be excused by the judge, but the catch is, this is only allowed so many times.  After those times are used, lawyers may turn to consultants (who may come from many different areas of study, but primarily psychology) to help pick jurors.

Trial consultants start the process of jury selection months prior to trial.  Random people are selected to take part in focus groups where the are exposed to the lawyers arguments.  Consultants look to their reactions and deliberation to see what characteristics are important in a particular trial.  Based on these findings, consultants develop questionaires and strategies to select jurors most appropriate for the side they are working on.

Jurors are usually scrutinized based on their personalities, past experiences, and attitudes toward certain situations.  Other characteristics such as leadership potential and how likely they are to conform also get examined.  Consultants also judge the potential jurors by their voice (confident, passive, etc.), how they interact with others during break periods, as well as body language.  

Consultants also work to weed out the potential jurors that may have a bias toward the situation.  For example, the website talks about a potential juror sitting on a case of medical malpractice who has been a victim of one and how it would be difficult for them to just be reminded of the law and not make judgment based on prior experiences. 

Lastly, the website talks about whether or not jury selection even works.  Since it is difficult to really assess the success of jury selection, some may doubt its effectiveness.  Whether or not it is effective, the industry of trial consultation is a thriving business. 


Here is a link to the source of the above information.     

 

I found this game kind of interesting. At first you are asked to pick a case that you want to participate in, then it gives a short description of what is going on, then you pick if you want to be the prosecutor or the defense. The game then has a list of 20 jurors and gives some information about each one. You select which 12 of the 20 you would think would benefit your case the most. After you do this you are given a score and it also gives you the reasons why or why not each juror you selected would be beneficial to the case. I thought the game was interesting because it shows you to a certain extent what both sides go through in the juror selection process.

 

http://www.texaslre.org/jury_game.html 

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=BjUTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DfADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6825%2C8992713