"Importance of the Jury" - Nursingwritersden

173

Chapter 7

JURIES AND LEGAL DECISION MAKING

In this chapter, we examine the psychology of juries. Juries represent one form of legal decision making , which is the process of using procedural and substantive law to settle disputes heard in public forums. We begin by discussing the nature of legal decision making, identifying its unique fea- tures, differentiating it from other types of decision making, and consider- ing various contexts in which it is used. We then focus in detail on juries, discussing the law and reviewing the research to gain a better understand- ing of how they are formed and how they function.

In this chapter, you will become familiar with:

The defi nition of legal decision making The various contexts in which legal decision making takes place The unique characteristics of juries as legal decision makers The difference between grand and petit (trial) juries The basic structure and functions of petit juries The different models of jury decision making The process of juror selection

• • • • • • •

CHAPTER OBJECTIVES

In a story that quickly garnered national media attention in the United States, 27 – year – old Laci Peterson was reported missing from her Modesto, California home by her husband, Scott Peterson, on December 24, 2002. What made the case so compelling was not that Laci went missing on Christmas Eve, but that she was

CASE STUDY

c07.indd 173c07.indd 173 11/3/09 5:43:05 PM11/3/09 5:43:05 PM

C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 0 . W i l e y .

A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . M a y n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n f r o m t h e p u b l i s h e r , e x c e p t f a i r u s e s p e r m i t t e d u n d e r U . S . o r a p p l i c a b l e c o p y r i g h t l a w .

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 5/9/2020 12:18 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY AN: 309009 ; Roesch, Ronald, Hart, Stephen D., Zapf, Patricia A..; Forensic Psychology and Law Account: strayer.main.eds-live

174 Juries and Legal Decision Making

eight months pregnant at the time. Police searched in vain for Laci for several months. Scott, supported by Laci ’ s family and friends, spoke about the case at sev- eral press conferences.

Investigators eventually focused on Scott as a potential suspect based on several reasons. First, his statements contained inconsistencies about what was he was doing when his wife disappeared. Initially, he had reported that he was golfi ng but later maintained that he had been fi shing. A second reason was the revelation that he had been having extramarital affairs. The third reason was that one of the women with whom Scott had an affair came forward and gave damning information to police. She said Scott told her about two weeks before Laci disappeared that he had recently lost his wife and would be spending Christmas alone. During the Christmas holidays, Scott phoned her, claiming to be on vacation in Paris when he was actually attending a candlelight vigil for Laci, who was still missing at the time.

In April 2002, the body of the Peterson ’ s unborn child, already named Conner, was found only a few miles from the place where Scott said he had gone fi sh- ing the day Laci went missing. Laci ’ s body was recovered close by the next day. Autopsy could not determine a specifi c cause of death for Laci, but did reveal she had suffered broken ribs prior to her death that could not be explained by acciden- tal drowning. The only other piece of forensic evidence was the discovery of one of Laci ’ s hairs on a pair of pliers in Scott ’ s toolbox. Despite the lack of evidence tying Scott directly to Laci ’ s disappearance, police arrested him on April 18, 2002, and charged him with her murder and the murder of his unborn son. At the time of his arrest, Scott ’ s physical appearance had changed — he had dyed his hair and goatee — and he also had in his possession various articles (e.g., camping equip- ment, various credit cards and driver ’ s licenses) that gave rise to suspicion he was intending to fl ee or go into hiding.

Media coverage of the Peterson case became even more intense, and public sen- timent toward Scott grew increasingly negative. As the time for trial approached, a change of venue was ordered from Modesto to Redwood City. This was an attempt to increase the chances of selecting an unbiased jury. But after a jury was selected and the trial of People of the State of California vs. Scott Peterson started in June 2004, problems with the jury became apparent. During the trial itself, one juror was dismissed and replaced by an alternate after being seen exchanging words with Laci Peterson ’ s older brother. Later, only four days after the start of deliberation, the jury foreman approached the judge and asked to be dismissed, citing problems getting along with other jurors who felt he was too controlling. The request was denied by the judge who admonished the jury and instructed it to resume delib- erations. Then, a second juror was dismissed for misconduct and replaced by an alternate, after the juror admitted she had gathered her own evidence outside the court. When the jury learned they would need to start deliberations all over again, they also voted for a new foreman; this led to the dismissal of the previous foreman (at his request) and the appointment of yet another alternate. After only seven hours of deliberation, the reconstituted jury — satisfi ed with the circumstan- tial evidence presented by the prosecution and unconvinced by the defense theory that someone else was responsible for the murders — voted unanimously to convict Scott Peterson of fi rst – degree murder with special circumstances in the death of Laci and second – degree murder in the death of his unborn son.

c07.indd 174c07.indd 174 11/3/09 5:43:06 PM11/3/09 5:43:06 PM

EBSCOhost – printed on 5/9/2020 12:18 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

LEGAL DECISION MAKING: A SEARCH FOR JUSTICE

Justice is, in essence, the moral correctness, fairness, peace, or harmony of people ’ s collective conduct — how we interact, share resources, respond to disputes and wrong – doing, and repair harm. It is central to our concep- tion of society and civilization. Commonsense notions of justice incorpo- rate three basic elements: fair rules, fair play, and fair outcome. Fair rules means the laws that govern people are explicit, and the same laws apply to everyone. Fair play means that laws are administered and enforced rou- tinely and consistently. Fair outcome means that the net result of the laws and their administration and enforcement is the expected and proper one. This commonsense notion of justice is refl ected in the many representa- tions of Justitia, also known as Lady Justice, which can be found outside courts and other public buildings throughout Europe and the Americas. According to Roman mythology, Justitia ( Iustitia in Latin) was one of the four Virtues, along with Prudence, Fortitude, and Temperance. Justitia embodied the attributes of mythological fi gures from more ancient civili- zations, including the Greek goddesses Themis and Dike, and the Egyptian goddess Ma ’ at. For the Romans, Justitia personifi ed the natural and divine rightness of law; her image has come to personify the moral basis of the legal system throughout the Western world (Capers, 2006). She is often depicted as a bare – breasted or lightly cloaked woman, carrying scales, a sword, and a scroll of laws, and is often blindfolded (see Figure 7.1 ). The

Legal Decision Making: A Search for Justice 175

But the jury ’ s work wasn ’ t done. They reconvened a month later for the penalty phase of the trial. They heard evidence and then began deliberations; and once again, the deliberations were diffi cult. For a time the jury was deadlocked, with 10 jurors favoring the death penalty and two favoring life in prison. In an effort to avoid a hung jury, the foreman took several steps, including asking jurors to look once again at photos of the victims and to state their reasons behind their votes. When they took another vote a short time later the result was unanimous, and the jury recommended the death sentence for Peterson.

After the jury was discharged, jurors fi nally were able to discuss their experi- ences and they eventually published them in the book, We, the Jury: Deciding the Scott Peterson Case (Berattis et al., 2007). Their stories are compelling: learning to cope with the stresses of trial; struggling to decide how the process of delibera- tions should be organized; and dealing with emotions after reaching their verdicts. The story of the Peterson case reveals both the strengths and fl aws of the jury sys- tem, and the book provides a fascinating glimpse inside the private world of the jury itself.

c07.indd 175c07.indd 175 11/3/09 5:43:06 PM11/3/09 5:43:06 PM

EBSCOhost – printed on 5/9/2020 12:18 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

176 Juries and Legal Decision Making

symbolism is clear (Capers, 2006; Luban, 2001). On the one hand, Justitia is a young woman, full of passion and emotion, with the power to nur- ture others out of compassion or strike them down, seeking vengeance. On the other hand, Justitia ’ s powers are limited by the scales, blindfold, and scroll of laws, which force her to carefully listen to and weigh information and follow tradition in reaching an impartial decision.

Legal decision making seeks justice. Legal decision making is quite different from what can be termed operational decision making by jus- tice professionals, which is the process of using personal knowledge, skills, and abilities to determine the most appropriate course of action in a given situation. First, with respect to the nature of the decision, legal decision making is used to resolve disputes about the interpretation or application of specifi c laws in light of particular circumstances. Disputes about the

Figure 7.1 Justitia (Lady Justice) Statue of Justitia by John Massey Rhind From Image:JMR-Memphis1.jpg on en.wikipedia photo by Einar Einarsson Kvaran aka Carptrash 19:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC). Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/ or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled “GNU Free Documentation License.”

c07.indd 176c07.indd 176 11/3/09 5:43:07 PM11/3/09 5:43:07 PM

EBSCOhost – printed on 5/9/2020 12:18 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

interpretation and application of law are referred to as matters of law , and legal decision makers dealing with such matters are called triers of law . Disputes about the circumstances of a dispute are referred to as matters of fact , and legal decision makers dealing with matters of this sort are called triers of fact . In contrast, operational decisions involve matters of prac- tice or procedure in which laws and circumstances are not in dispute (e.g., “ What should I do in this situation? ” ). A legal decision may be consid- ered an end in itself, whereas an operational decision is a means to some other end. Second, with respect to the way in which decisions are made, legal decision making is formal (fi xed or structured) and time consuming, whereas operational decision making is often rapid and informal or intui- tive. The process of legal decision making always involves gathering or receiving information, reviewing it, and rendering a decision according to established rules and conventions. The law provides structure concerning the issues to be decided (substantive law) and how they should be decided (substantive and procedural law). The process of operational decisions is highly variable, and decision makers have considerable discretion concerning what information they use and how they use it. Third, with respect to who makes the decision, legal decision making involves people who are appointed and given special powers to make certain decisions, and quite possibly only to make a decision in the case at hand, whereas operational decision making involves people who are expected to make a wide range of practical decisions. Finally, with respect to the situational context of the decision, legal decision making takes place at a predeter- mined time and in a special setting, usually a public building that is dec- orated with offi cial or traditional trappings to underscore its legitimacy, whereas operational decision making occurs whenever and wherever the need arises. Even people who are involved in legal decision making need to make operational decisions on a day – to – day basis throughout the process.

To make these differences clear, the following are some concrete exam- ples of legal decision making:

An academic tribunal at a university — comprising representatives of the administration, faculty, and student body — sits to hear the case of a stu- dent accused of cheating on a fi nal exam. The tribunal will hear the evi- dence, determine whether the student violated the university ’ s code of conduct and if so, decide how the student should be punished. An employee believes she has been improperly passed over for promo- tion at work and fi les a grievance against her employer according to her

•

Legal Decision Making: A Search for Justice 177

c07.indd 177c07.indd 177 11/3/09 5:43:08 PM11/3/09 5:43:08 PM

EBSCOhost – printed on 5/9/2020 12:18 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

178 Juries and Legal Decision Making

union ’ s collective bargaining agreement. The grievance will be heard by a board comprising an independent arbitrator and representatives of the employer and the union. They will determine if the grievance is legiti- mate and, if so, how the situation should be remedied. Two men wearing turbans and kirpans (the ceremonial knives worn by baptized members of the Sikh religion) are refused service in a coffee shop. They make a complaint to a human rights commission that they were the victims of religious discrimination. A commissioner will hear the case, decide whether a human rights violation occurred and, if so, determine what remedies are appropriate. A parole board, comprising three members, meets to review the case of an offender who has served 10 years of a 15 – year sentence for kill- ing another man during a bar fi ght. The parole board will hear evidence from the offender and the corrections service, then decide whether the offender is suitable for release and whether special conditions should be put in place. A coroner and fi ve jury members have been convened in coroner ’ s court to review the death of three children who died in a school bus crash. Together, they will decide which witnesses to call, review the evidence presented by the witnesses, determine the cause of death, and then decide whether to make recommendations designed to prevent such incidents in the future. A judge presiding over a civil court hears a case involving two large banks. One bank claims the other bank breached a contract, resulting in a fi nancial loss totaling tens of millions of dollars. The judge will listen to months of evidence from bank offi cials and expert testimony from doz- ens of forensic accountants, then determine whether there was a breach of contract and, if so, how much one bank should pay to the other. A judge and jury sitting in criminal court are hearing the case of a man charged with aggravated assault. The defendant claims he was pro- voked into a fi ght by the alleged victim and, therefore, is not guilty of any wrongdoing. The judge will make sure the prosecutor and defense counsel make arguments and present evidence according to the law and then give instructions to the jury; the jury then will be sequestered to dis- cuss the evidence and reach a verdict concerning the defendant ’ s guilt or innocence.

The description of legal decision making offered here may give the im- pression that the process is fi xed, neutral, and objective. If so, the impres- sion is mistaken. Although legal decision making differs from operational decision making in many ways, both are intrinsically human. They require

•

c07.indd 178c07.indd 178 11/3/09 5:43:08 PM11/3/09 5:43:08 PM

EBSCOhost – printed on 5/9/2020 12:18 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

people to function as part of a social group to analyze information and develop action plans. To this end, people will use their cognitive, affec- tive, interpersonal, and behavioral functions; and everything they do will be colored by their own attitudes, beliefs, biases, feelings, preferences, relationships, stereotypes, and values. Its dual, confl icting nature — cold and impersonal on the one hand, yet inescapably emotional and personal on the other — is exactly what is captured so beautifully in images of Justitia, and the very thing that makes legal decision making such a fasci- nating topic.

JURIES

A jury is a group of people convened to make a legal decision by functioning as a trier of fact. Juries play a role in many legal systems; indeed, the word jury derives from the Latin juris , meaning “ law. ” A person who sits on a jury is called a juror .

Juries are used in a small minority of legal disputes. The vast major- ity of disputes are decided prior to a trial, either through a plea bargain in criminal matters or a settlement in civil matters. Even legal disputes that proceed to trial are decided primarily by judges or administrative bodies such as tribunals and review boards. Yet juries remain a topic of consider- able interest to psycholegal scholars and researchers.

Juries are diverse in terms of membership, function, structure, and operation. With respect to membership, jurors can be legal profession- als (judges or lawyers); people with special status, knowledge, or abil- ity; or ordinary citizens. With respect to function, juries may be charged with answering questions of law (i.e., to interpret the law), questions of fact (i.e., to interpret and draw inference from evidence), or both. These questions may be simple or narrow in scope, or they may be broad and far – reaching. With respect to structure, juries vary greatly in terms of size, ranging from small (e.g., six or fewer) to large (e.g., 23 or more), and manner of selection (e.g., appointment by an administrative authority or with input from the parties to a legal proceeding). With respect to opera- tion, juries vary in terms of how they deliberate, reach, and communicate decisions.

The defi nition and description offered here may come as a surprise to some people. This is because contemporary use of the term jury is much more restricted, typically referring to a group of ordinary citizens who are selected more or less at random to represent the general population and serve as impartial triers of fact in a criminal or civil court, hearing evidence, deliberating in secrecy, reaching a decision by a vote, and communicating

Juries 179

c07.indd 179c07.indd 179 11/3/09 5:43:08 PM11/3/09 5:43:08 PM

EBSCOhost – printed on 5/9/2020 12:18 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

180 Juries and Legal Decision Making

the decision, often without giving reasons (e.g., Diamond, 2004). Juries of this sort play a relatively minor role in some nations where the legal system is based in part on continental European civil law (e.g., Belgium, Brazil, France, and Spain), and a larger role in nations where the legal system is based on English common law, including the United Kingdom and many territories that were at one time part of or administered by the British Empire (e.g., Australia, Belize, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the United States; Roberts, 2004). (Some of these nations have regions or areas of law based on other legal traditions; examples include Qu é bec in Canada, Scotland in the United Kingdom, and Louisiana in the United States, which rely in part on a continental European civil law tradition. Also, many other nations and territories have legal systems that refl ect a blending between English common law and another legal tradition; exam- ples include continental European civil law in Hong Kong, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, and South Africa; Islamic law in Bangladesh and Pakistan; and multiple traditions in India, Israel, and Nigeria.) For reasons that will be made clear later, juries are a particularly important part of the administra- tion of justice in the United States. Indeed, the majority of all trials by jury take place in the United States (Diamond, 2004).

The History of Juries

The origin of juries, as they are used today in the United States, can be traced back to Viking Age Britain (Diamond, 2004; Roberts, 2004). The fi rst Viking raid in the British Isles at Lindisfarne in 793 CE was fol- lowed by permanent settlements, including what became the Danelaw. (The Vikings who settled England were mostly Danes.) The Danelaw was a large region that encompassed much of what is now the north and east of England. Its political, legal, and military administration followed Norse traditions. These traditions were reinforced by the conquest of Britain in 1066 by the Normans, who were descended from Danish Vikings (also known as “ Norsemen ” ) who had raided, conquered, and settled the region of what is now northern France.

One important feature of traditional Norse government was that the king or chieftain had limited power, ruling as a leader among peers and advised by an assembly of elders (as opposed to a king with unlimited power, ruling by divine right or by right of inheritance). In the British Isles, the Norse traditions of the Danelaw and, ultimately, the Norman conquerors merged with those of the Anglo – Saxons and native Britons. One level of governmental administration in Norman Britain was that of the shire or borough , governed by a reeve , who functioned as the king ’ s representative. A shire or borough was divided into smaller regions, called wapentakes

c07.indd 180c07.indd 180 11/3/09 5:43:09 PM11/3/09 5:43:09 PM

EBSCOhost – printed on 5/9/2020 12:18 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

(sometimes spelled vapontakes ) or hundreds , that comprised a hundred or so families and the land necessary to sustain them. In legal matters, the shire reeve, or sheriff, appointed a gemot or assembly of a dozen or so thegns (also spelled thanes ) — senior men — from the local hundred who swore an oath to make a decision according to the law. The gemot played a role in every aspect of legal decision making, from giving evidence to hearing evidence, and advising the sheriff on matters of both fact and law. The involvement of thegns not only ensured the sheriff had the benefi t of the community ’ s knowledge and values, but also helped to balance power, both legitimizing and limiting the authority of the king (Diamond, 2004).

As British society evolved, becoming increasingly centralized and urban, the common law system also evolved (Roberts, 2004). Responsibility for legal decision making was handed over from sheriffs and assemblies of elders to courts, presided over by judges. The move toward reliance on judges — independent, expert, and professional decision makers appointed by the government — had potential advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, it could help to ensure consistency and fairness in legal proceed- ings. But on the other hand, it could lead to feelings of disempowerment and alienation among the populace, weakening the perceived legitimacy of the government. To avoid these potential problems, legal proceedings included several specifi c roles for local citizens — not just elders, but virtu- ally any man of standing (i.e., a property owner) — who sat together as a panel of jurors.

In most countries where the legal system follows the common law tra- dition, the use of juries has declined over time. There are many possible explanations for this trend. One is that trials have become increasingly long and complex. This means serving on a jury can be a heavy respon- sibility for many people. A second is that modern democratic societies have many mechanisms that limit the power of their central governments, including a constitution, judicial independence, and high levels of open- ness. Arguably, juries are no longer necessary to help protect against the unreasonable exercise of power by governments. Third, many people who work in the justice system, including judges and lawyers, have expressed serious doubt that a group of laypeople had the knowledge or training necessary to make good legal decisions. Whatever the reasons, most com- mon law jurisdictions now use juries only in trials for serious crimes.

But the trend away from juries was resisted in the United States, where juries are considered a crucial means of protecting citizens from the unrea- sonable exercise of power, as well as an important way of educating citi- zens about and involving them in the administration of justice. The right to trial by jury is established in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the right may be exercised whenever

Juries 181

c07.indd 181c07.indd 181 11/3/09 5:43:09 PM11/3/09 5:43:09 PM

EBSCOhost – printed on 5/9/2020 12:18 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

182 Juries and Legal Decision Making

defendants face the possibility of punishment that exceeds six months of imprisonment ( Chaff v. Schnackenberg , 1966; Duncan v. Louisiana , 1968). Trial by jury is also widely available for civil matters in state and federal courts. In most other common law jurisdictions, defendants may have the right to trial by jury only when charged with serious crimes (e.g., in Canada, when facing a sentence of fi ve years or longer, or in some other criminal and civil matters).

It is important to keep in mind that although parties to a proceeding may have the right to trial by jury, they may also have the right to waive trial by jury if they so desire. Jury trials are more likely to be waived in civil than criminal matters.

Types of Juries

Today, two major types of juries exist in common law jurisdictions. A grand jury comprises a large panel of jurors who consider allegations of crimes (or, less commonly, provide fi nancial oversight of public institu- tions) to determine if there has been any wrongdoing and whether further investigation or prosecution is warranted. A grand jury typically comprises a large group of jurors — depending on the jurisdiction, ranging from a minimum of 11 or 12 to 23 or more — who sit in closed court, or privately, and hear evidence presented by a complainant or prosecutor (although they have the authority to compel additional testimony). The grand jury then deliberates and decides whether to issue an indictment. Virtually the only place grand juries are used today is the United States, and even then only in a small number of jurisdictions and in restricted circumstances. Most other common law jurisdictions, including Canada, have not used grand juries for many years.

A petit jury , also known as a trial jury, comprises a small group of jurors who serve as the trier of fact in a criminal or civil trial, under the guidance of a judge who interprets and instructs them with respect to mat- ters of law. A petit jury typically comprises a relatively small group of people — depending on the jurisdiction and the nature of the matter, rang- ing from a minimum of 5 or 6 up to 12 or even 15 — who sit in open court to hear evidence presented by all parties, with little or no infl uence over what or how evidence is presented. It then deliberates privately and issues a decision with respect to the issues at hand (e.g., verdict, liability). It is estimated that each year more than 250,000 criminal or civil trials by jury are held in the United States (Diamond, 2004).

Other types of juries exist, but are rarely used. For example, some juris- dictions can impanel a jury to review fatalities in coroner ’ s court. As dis- cussed previously, a coroner ’ s jury may play a much more active role in

c07.indd 182c07.indd 182 11/3/09 5:43:09 PM11/3/09 5:43:09 PM

EBSCOhost – printed on 5/9/2020 12:18 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

eliciting and questioning evidence and render complex decisions that include recommendations for preventing deaths.

Researching Juries

Research on juries is complicated because jurors are often required by law not to discuss their deliberations, and they typically do not have to explain the reasoning behind their decisions. In Canada, for example, the law strictly prohibits jurors in criminal trials from ever discussing their delib- erations or decisions. In the United States, jurors are often free to discuss deliberations or discussions after they have been discharged, but in most cases not while serving on a jury. This means researchers are generally unable to directly observe juries in action, and must use other strategies to gather information.

One alternative to direct observation is archival research . This type of research involves studying court records of jury trials and recording infor- mation about jurors, the cases they hear, and their verdicts. But offi cial records typically contain only limited information. A second alternative is to survey jurors or offi cers of the court (e.g., lawyers and judges) after trial. This relies on the willingness of people to participate in research, and also may be prone to bias with respect to what they know, remember, or are willing to report. A third alternative is to conduct fi eld experiments . These experiments involve systematic manipulation of various aspects of court proceedings, such as whether jurors are permitted to take notes dur- ing presentation of evidence, followed by a survey of jurors or offi cers of the court or by an examination of verdicts. But this type of research is diffi cult — judges tend to be uncomfortable with the idea of random assign- ment of juries or trials to various experimental conditions — and also does not provide insight into underlying processes. Finally, mock jury research involves simulation. People recruited to acts as jurors are presented with summaries or excerpts of trial evidence and legal instructions, and after- ward they may complete questionnaires individually or deliberate as a group. Although this approach allows tight controls and true experimental designs, it is not clear whether the fi ndings generalize to actual juries.

Characteristics and Processes of Petit Juries

Because petit juries are the type most commonly used, and most com- monly studied, let ’ s take a closer look at them.

The size of a petit jury varies not only across jurisdictions, but also across different types of trials within jurisdictions. The ancient rule was that a gemot should comprise the 12 leading thegns of the shire or borough, assembled by the reeve. This is still the standard or most common size

Juries 183

c07.indd 183c07.indd 183 11/3/09 5:43:10 PM11/3/09 5:43:10 PM

EBSCOhost – printed on 5/9/2020 12:18 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

184 Juries and Legal Decision Making

for a jury, although some jurisdictions permit smaller juries, comprising only fi ve or six jurors, for some or all trials. Smaller juries are easier to impanel, especially in jurisdictions with small populations.

In the United States, the Sixth Amendment — which establishes the right to trial by jury — is silent on the issue of jury size. In the second half of the twentieth century, several states began using smaller juries, most com- monly comprising six jurors. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually weighed in on this practice, ruling that smaller juries were constitutionally permis- sible in both criminal and civil trials ( Colgrove v. Battin , 1973; Williams v. Florida , 1970). But how small a jury is permissible? This question was addressed in Ballew v. Georgia (1978), in which the Supreme Court held that a jury of six was the constitutional minimum.

It is sometimes diffi cult to keep a jury intact after jurors have been selected. Jurors may be excused before a verdict is reached due to personal circumstances (e.g., illness, family or work problems) or, in rare circum- stances, misconduct (e.g., ignoring instructions from a judge not to discuss evidence with others prior to deliberation). Typically, the law governing a trial specifi es a target size for the jury, as well as a minimum size, and may also allow for the selection of one or more “ extra ” jurors, called alter- nates . Alternates function as regular jurors, listening to the presentation of evidence, and can replace regular jurors in the event they are excused prior to deliberation; once deliberations begin, alternates are excused and do not participate further. In rare cases, jurors may be excused during the course of deliberation or there may be no alternates available to replace those excused, and the jury may be smaller than the target size. This is usually not a problem, unless the jury size exceeds any minimum specifi ed by law (e.g., six in the United States), as the law recognizes there is nothing magi- cal about a particular number of jurors.

Selection

When a matter proceeds to trial by jury, a jury is empanelled before any evidence is presented in court. The process of selecting jurors comprises two major steps. The fi rst step is to identify a large pool of potential jurors, sometimes referred to as venirepersons , using a few general crite- ria. Typically, the law requires that potential jurors are adults (usually at least 18 or 19 years old), citizens of the nation in which the trial will be held, and residents of that jurisdiction. Potential jurors are often identi- fi ed through offi cial records (e.g., people registered as voters or possess- ing driver ’ s licenses). This step is designed to ensure the pool of potential voters is representative of the community at large, although reliance on offi cial records may introduce some systematic bias (e.g., excluding

c07.indd 184c07.indd 184 11/3/09 5:43:10 PM11/3/09 5:43:10 PM

EBSCOhost – printed on 5/9/2020 12:18 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

people who cannot afford telephones or automobiles, or who change address frequently).

The second step is to select a short list of actual jurors. A large group of venirepersons is subpoenaed to attend court and undergoes examina- tion designed to identify people who may be inappropriate to serve as jurors. Potential jurors may be deemed inappropriate if they have personal experience with the administration of justice, general knowledge of the law, or specifi c knowledge of the case at hand. It is common to exclude from jury duty people who are employed (or have family members who are employed) in the justice system or who have been convicted of seri- ous criminal offenses. To illustrate, according to the Jury Selection and Service Act (1968), a person is automatically excluded from jury duty in the United States if he or she:

1. Is not a citizen of the United States is not at least 18 years old, or has not resided for a period of one year within the judicial district;

2. Is unable to read, write, and understand the English language with a degree of profi ciency suffi cient to fi ll out satisfactorily the juror qualifi – cation form;

3. Is unable to speak the English language; 4. Is incapable, by reason of mental or physical infi rmity, to render satis-

factory jury service; or 5. Has a charge pending against him for the commission of, or has been

convicted in a State or Federal court of record of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year and his civil rights have not been restored.

Potential jurors may also be deemed inappropriate if they have personal experiences, attitudes, or beliefs relevant to the case at hand that may bias their judgment. For example, people who have been victims of sexual assault or who believe all sex offenders deserve the death penalty may be excluded from jury duty if the trial is for someone charged with sexual assault. The goal of this second step is to ensure the jury is impartial.