Essay On Jury Competence

Question 1: Describe the issue of jury competence. How can jurors be helped to understand their instructions? What reforms to the jury system has psychologists suggested?

Some critics question whether juries tend to be overly focused on extralegal information that, in theory, is irrelevant to the guilt decision in criminal cases and to the liability judgment in civil cases. Others have asked whether they are able to understand and apply their instructions in the court room. Lastly, it has been asked whether jurors are able to understand complicated issues that could arise in complex cases.

In reaching their verdicts, jurors work to make decisions that are based on evidence that has been presented. Jurors tend to use the evidence deem relevant

by the law to make their decisions. In some instances, however, jurors may use information that has been deemed legally irrelevant. Jurors have difficulty ignoring evidence to which they are exposed but that is ruled to be inadmissible by a judge—even when they are explicitly told to disregard such evidence. Moreover, jurors can often times be influenced by information about a case that that they acquire through the media, this is known as pretrial publicity, but that is not part of the evidence admitted in the court.
Jurors can also sometimes use evidence that is appropriately offered for one purpose to inform another decision for which that evidence is legally irrelevant. For example, evidence about a criminal defendant’s prior record is not admissible to establish guilt, but it may be admitted to discredit the defendant’s testimony. However, jurors have difficulty in limiting their use of such information. It is also known that it is possible that jurors take into account their judgement of a plaintiff’s fault in determining the level of damage that plaintiff has suffered.
Some, but not all, of the difficulties that jurors have in appropriately dealing with these evidentiary issues may be related to difficulties that they have in understanding jury instructions. In addition, some studies have shown that jurors are better able to avoid misusing evidence in some of these ways when given instructions that explain the foundation of the legal rules.
The primary way in which juries are schooled in the requirements of the law is through the legal instructions that trial judges give them to guide their decisions.

These instructions explain the jury’s role, inform the jury about the legal rules that govern the case that it is to decide, define the standard and burden of proof, and define the possible alternative verdicts available to the jury. Typical instructions focus on stating the law precisely rather than on comprehensibility. It usually contains many legal terms, lengthy and complex sentences, and is usually difficult to understand for the average person. Research has validated that while jurors do well at understanding and remembering evidence presented at trial, they often have difficulty in understanding, remembering, and applying these to the legal instructions and rules. For example, jurors have particular difficulty in understanding the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in criminal cases, the “negligence” standard in civil cases, and legal terms such as “aggravation” and “mitigation” in capital punishment instructions. Typically, instructions on limiting the use of evidence or indicating that certain evidence is to be ignored is poorly

understood.
Significantly, there is evidence that the comprehension of and ability to follow instructions is improved when instructions are rewritten with the use of psycholinguistics. Removing legal jargon, negatives, and words with multiple meanings, along with using more common words, replacing abstract concepts and replacing them with concrete terms, simplifying sentence structure, and providing a systematic structure to guide decision making can all help make instructions more understandable. In addition, providing jurors with written copies of instructions can lead to improved memory and intellectual capacity of the legal instructions.
There have been many proposed reforms proposed to assist juries with their decision tasks. These reforms attempt to improve jury decision making. First, a number of reforms are aimed at assisting jurors in making sense of and remembering the evidence. For example, instructing juries about the law prior to the introduction of evidence provides jurors with a framework that helps them structure the trial evidence as they hear it. Similarly, allowing jurors to ask questions to a witness helps jurors understand the testimony presented and remember it better. Providing access to trial transcripts, witness lists, or trial summaries helps jurors refresh their memories, allows them to clarify the evidence when memories differ, as well as may allow them to more systematically evaluate the evidence. Lastly, allowing jurors to discuss the case in the midst of the trial may help jurors grasp the evidence. Some drawbacks to these reforms include, the possibility that the jury would form a premature judgment about the evidence, it may diminish the quality of the deliberations due to jurors becoming more familiar with each other’s views, and lastly it could produce more interpersonal conflicts prior to formal deliberations.
Other reforms are directed at helping jurors follow the legal rules. For example, dividing the trial may help jurors focus on the evidence that is most relevant to the separate decisions at hand. For example, decisions on punitive damages could be postponed until after the jury has determined liability and compensatory damages. Then, evidence relevant to punitive damages could be heard at a separate proceeding. Asking jurors to respond to a series of questions can be used to focus jurors on the relevant legal questions. Reforms directed at judicial instructions are also likely to improve jurors’ ability to understand and follow the law. Rewriting judicial instructions to make them more understandable and easier to follow, drafting instructions to assist jurors with scientific and statistical evidence, and formulating reason-based instructions may all help jurors comprehend and apply the law better. As well as being able to ask the Judge questions and receive answers to clarification when it is needed.
Question 2: What is extralegal information? What is the effect of extralegal information on jurors? Can jurors disregard inadmissible evidence? How biased are jurors?
Extralegal information is information that is legally irrelevant in that they cannot serve as evidence in a legal proceeding, for example, age, sex, race, or gender. Research studies suggest that occasionally jurors are influence by evidence of a defendant’s prior record or character and propensity to commit crimes. In civil cases, evidence related to tan accident victim’s injury may influence the judgment of a defendant’s liability.
There is evidence that race can effect a jurors decision.

In a study it was shown that Black jurors rated White defendants as more aggressive, violent, and guilty than black defendants, and White jurors were harsher on Black defendants than on White defendants, but only when the crime was not racially charged (Sommers & Ellsworth, 2000). However, if the case was racially charged, the defendant’s race did not influence White jurors. This phenomenon is known as aversive racism in which most White jurors are motivated to avoid showing racial bias and when cued about racial consideration they tend to make color-blind decisions. But without those explicit reminders to be objective, subtle racial biases influence their decisions.

Extralegal information affects verdicts particularly when they must rely on their assumptions and biases. According to the liberation hypothesis when evidence clearly favors one side or the other, juries will decide the case in favor of the side with the stronger evidence. However, when the evidence is ambiguous jurors are “liberated” and allowed to rely on their assumptions, sentiments, and biases. Another way extralegal information may influence the jury is when the evidence is contradictory or confusing and juror might rely on an experientially based

system.
The impact of extralegal information can come about in a few ways, the influence of prior-recorded evidence, the impact of character propensity evidence, and the impact in civil cases. Once jurors have heard evidence about a defendant’s prior criminal record or prior criminal charges, they may no longer be able to suspend judgement about the defendant and decide his or her fate solely on the basis of the evidence introduced at trial. Often times, prosecution is not allowed to introduce evidence of a past criminal record, for fear that jurors will be biased by it and judge the current offense in light of those past misdeeds. There is also the option of the judge issuing a limiting instruction in which evidence of a prior record can be used for limited purposes only. Evidence about a defendant’s character is generally not admissible on if the defendant committed a crime. When this time of evidence is admitted in trials, these types of character evidence affects jurors differently. It has been shown that positive character evidence has little impact on jurors yet negative character traits increase the likelihood of conviction. During a civil case the jury has two decisions the defendant’s liability and should the plaintiff receive damages. The severity of an injury though legally relevant in decisions about the damage, should be irrelevant to a judgment on liability of the defendant.
When a question posed or an answer offered during a trial is ruled inadmissible by the judge, jurors are instructed to disregard it. Psychological evidence indicates that it is difficult for jurors to disregard this testimony; in fact, the stronger the judge’s admonition, the less effective it may be. Deliberations tend to reduce reliance on inadmissible evidence.
Juries are inevitability bias. Juror bias is when a juror’s predisposition to interpret and understand information based on past experience. When people are exposed to new events, they respond by relying on past experiences. Bias in response to actions of others is inevitable due to people making assumptions about the causes of behavior. People make assumptions about others to enable them to predict what others will do and these often provide explanations for others behavior. Due to this unavoidable bias in juries, most jurors come with either a pro-prosecution bias or pro-defense bias. Personal predispositions may also affect the way evidence is evaluated. When jurors are exposed to a new piece of evidence, they assess the evidence in a way that is in line with their beliefs rather than in an objective fashion. There is also the case of predecisional distortion in which jurors will distort their appraisal of the evidence in a manner that supports their verdict choice.