Jury consultants are professional psychologists who work within the larger field of forensic psychology. The jobs that jury consultant have often include; studying human behavior, studying and analyzing mannerisms, analyzing verbal responses, analyzing nonverbal communications and body language, preparing reports, communicating with advising attorneys, making and defending decisions, and conducting mock trials. Juries are a group of people, so of course individual biases play a great role in their selection process. This does take a professional on human behavior to perceive what and how a promising jury may think and act. Most jury consultants have backgrounds in law and psychology. [Roufa, T. (n.d.)]. The main reason for hiring a jury consultant …show more content…
This trial is known for the first use of jury consultants. The 2 brothers were blamed of plotting to plan a brutal manifestations against the Vietnam War. The defense attorneys determined that in order to have the most excellent jury possible they should survey people. They need qualified people as jurors. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania is the site of the trial. The reason of polling was to decide which probability groups would likely be concerned about their clients. In a suitable way, the defense was very favorable in having a jury selected that expressed by blue collar workers who would likely not have graduated from college. There are two kinds of techniques jury consultants use they are pretrial research and they do when the trial takes place. The effortless research is this category is mental outlook surveys administered in phone or in person, this was done in the Berrigan trial. [Use of Jury Consultants. (n.d.)]. Another example of a jury consultant or trial consultant would the Casey Anthony case. The trial consultant (Richard Gabriel) had his hands full. He managed a community mental outlook survey to evaluate public assumptions about the case. He wanted to determine what type of juror might open-minded enough to consult a dissimilar outlook on Anthony’s crime. The jury consultant was trying to find jurors that wasn’t biased. They wanted to seek jurors who would set aside their emotions and reason rationally. They wanted the jurors to conscientiously attend to the judge’s directions about the appropriate rules and laws. [Greene, E., & Heilbrun, K. (2013), pg 284]. Another example of a jury consultant would be in the O.J. Simpson trial. The defense team for the Simpson trial has hired a jury consultant to design a questionnaire and to help on selecting a jury favorable to Mr. Simpson. [Simpson Defense Team Hires Jury Consultant. (1994, August 10)]. The jury consultant will prepare
The American Jury system has been around for quite some time. It was the original idea that the framers of the constitution had wanted to have implemented as a means of trying people for their illegal acts, or for civil disputes. The jury system has stood the test of time as being very effective and useful for the justice system. Now it has come into question as to if the jury system is still the best method for trials. In the justice system there are two forms of trials, one being the standard jury trial, where 12 random members of society come together to decide the outcome of something. The other option would be to have a bench trial. In a bench trial, the judge is the only one deciding the fate of the accused. While both methods are viable
This chapter is mainly devoted to the jury selection process and how it is taken care
Smith, William (1997) “Useful or Just Plain Unfair? The Debate Over Peremptories; Lawyers, Judges Spllit Over the Value of Jury Selection Method” The Legal Intelligencer, April 23: pg 1.
As one of the seven jury deliberations documented and recorded in the ABC News television series In the Jury Room the discussions of the jurors were able to be seen throughout the United States. A transcript was also created by ABC News for the public as well. The emotions and interactions of the jurors were now capable of being portrayed to anyone interested in the interworkings of jury deliberations. The first task,...
... of the juror’s and their sentencing or decision making in our study but further research could be carried out solely into how political attitude could also influence the jury-decision making.
The questions should be shaped around the individual’s views and also his or her ability to think analytically. Nevertheless, without these important questions, an individual may not qualify for the job. For example, Juror #10, the Garage Owner was an individual who was prejudiced against the defendant. Juror #10 was quick to agree that the defendant is guilty because of his personal view on the defendant’s color and where he lives. By, incorporating critical thinking questions, this may assist to find individuals who do not let their own personal views cloud their judgement and their decision
The modern US version of a jury derived from ancient English law. It is said in the early 11th century, William the Conqueror brought a form of a jury system from Normandy that became the basis for early England’s juries. It was constructed of men who were sworn by oath to tell the king what they knew. King Henry II then expanded on the idea by using a group of white men with good morals to not only judge the accused, but also to investigate crimes. King Henry II had panels of 12 everyday, law abiding men; this aspect of it is much like modern juries. The difference is that these early jurors were “self-informing”. This means that they were expected to already have knowledge of the facts that would be presented in court prior to the trial. King Henry II’s first jurors were assigned the job of resolving the land disputes that were occurring in England. ...
They are the impartial third-party whose responsibility is to deliver a verdict for the accused based on the evidence presented during trial. They balance the rights of society to a great extent as members of the community are involved. This links the legal system with the community and ensures that the system is operating fairly and reflecting the standards and values of society. A trial by jury also ensures the victim’s rights to a fair trial. However, they do not balance the rights of the offender as they can be biased or not under. In the News.com.au article ‘Judge or jury? Your life depends on this decision’ (14 November 2013), Ian Lloyd, QC, revealed that “juries are swayed by many different factors.” These factors include race, ethnicity, physical appearance and religious beliefs. A recent study also found that juries are influenced by where the accused sits in the courtroom. They found that a jury is most likely to give a “guilty” verdict if the accused sits behind a glass dock (ABC News, 5 November 2014). Juries also tend to be influenced by their emotions; hence preventing them from having an objective view. According to the Sydney Morning Herald article ‘Court verdicts: More found innocent if no jury involved’ (23 November 2013), 55.4 per cent of defendants in judge-alone trials were acquitted of all charges compared with 29 per cent in jury trials between 1993 and 2011. Professor Mark Findlay from the University of Sydney said that this is because “judges were less likely to be guided by their emotions.” Juries balance the rights of victims and society to a great extent. However, they are ineffective in balancing the rights of the offender as juries can be biased which violate the offender’s rights to have a fair
Today juries are much more diverse. Men, women, and people from diverse backgrounds are called to jury duty. Although the origin of the jury system is not clear, history has shown that William the Conqueror from Normandy introduced a similar system to England around 1066 CE (Judiciary of Vermont 1). After the American Revolutionary War, the jury system became the American ideal of justice. This essay will explore the history of the American jury system and illustrate how it has evolved over the course of the American history.
Stevenson, D 2012, The function of uncertainty within jury systems, George Mason Law Review, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 513-548, viewed 6 May 2014, .
Otto, A. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1994). The Biasing Impact Of Pretrial Publicity On Juror Judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 18(4), 453-469.
A jury is a panel of citizens, selected randomly from the electoral role, whose job it is to determine guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented. The Jury Act 1977 (NSW) stipulates the purpose of juries and some of the legal aspects, such as verdicts and the right of the defence and prosecution to challenge jurors. The jury system is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society as members of the community ultimately decide whether the person is guilty or innocent. The creation of the Jury Amendment Act 2006 (NSW) enabled the criminal trial process to better represent the standards of society as it allowed majority verdicts of 11-1 or 10-2, which also allowed the courts to be more resource efficient. Majority verdicts still ensure that a just outcome is reached as they are only used if there is a hung jury and there has been considerable deliberation. However, the role of the media is often criticized in relation to ensuring that the jurors remain unbiased as highlighted in the media article “Independent Juries” (SMH, 2001), and the wide reporting of R v Gittany 2013 supports the arguments raised in the media article. Hence, the jury system is moderately effective in reflecting the moral and ethical standards of society, as it resource efficient and achieves just outcomes, but the influence of the media reduces the effectiveness.
... In a speech to the House of Lords in 1844 Lord Denman remarked: 'Trial by jury itself, instead of being a security to persons who are accused, will. be a delusion, a mockery and a snare. The question of juror competence remains a recurrent feature in both the research and policy. literature (Horowitz et al., 1996; Penrod & Heuer, 1997). Indeed, in the. 1998 the Home Office invited commentary on whether an alternative to the traditional jury system was appropriate for cases of serious fraud.
Famous writer Robert Frost stated, “A jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer.” While selecting a competent lawyer is important, in the court of law, the process of jury selection is easily one of the most important factors. While many elements are considered during the process of jury selection, the most valuable is the use of psychology. Psychology is used by lawyers during the process of jury selection to choose the best possible jurors to decide the fate of their client. Psychology can be used in many different ways such as voir dire, persuasion, and research.
videotaping of a real life jury as seen in a small criminal courtroom. The case