Debunking Myths and Misunderstandings of Jury Research
Myths, Misunderstandings & Mistakes
of Jury Research
UCL Jury Project:
2007:
Diversity & Fairness in the Jury System
Jury summoning system
– who is summoned, who serves,
are jurors representative, does system discriminate?
2010:
Are Juries Fair?
Jury decision-making
- Do juries discriminate against
minorities? Jury conviction rates. Do jurors understand
judicial directions? Juror internet use and impact of
media coverage of trials.
(1) Case simulation
(2) Large-scale data analysis of verdicts
(2) Surveys/interviews with jurors
Best research uses all 3 – triangulation
3 Main Research Methods
3 Main Research Methods
Study run only with real juries at Crown Courts
Large number of juries see an identical case
Defendant charged with violent crime (assault)
Only difference is race of defendant
Case simulation research
Case simulation research
Large-scale verdict analysis
Large-scale verdict analysis
Correlational studies - analysing all jury verdicts in all courts
in England & Wales over 2 year period (>½ million charges)
Juror surveys & interviews
Juror surveys & interviews
Immediate post-verdict jury studies at court:
•
Juror awareness of media coverage of cases
•
Juror use of internet during trial
•
Juror views of deliberation process
Reliable research about jury system in UK has been
seriously hampered by a number of
•
Myths
•
Misunderstandings
•
Mistakes
Conducting Reliable
Conducting Reliable
Jury Research
Jury Research
Myths about what can and cannot be explored
with real juries have affected both the jury policy
and research agenda
Jury Research Myths
Jury Research Myths
Misunderstandings about how to address
specific jury questions have led to misguided
“jury research”
Jury Research
Jury Research
Misunderstandings
Misunderstandings
Mistakes about how to properly use jury research
methodologies have produced questionable if
not dangerous research findings
Jury Research Mistakes
Jury Research Mistakes
S8, Contempt of Court Act 1981: it is a criminal offence to:
“
Obtain, disclose or solicit any particulars of statements made,
opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members
of a jury in the course of their deliberations
”
Myth of Section 8
Myth of Section 8
Impact of s.8 Myth
Impact of s.8 Myth
One empirical study with juries in England & Wales
1981- 2007
What filled the black hole?
A
ssumed our juries behave in same way
Fundamental error
•
Crucial differences in jury & social systems
•
Research on race and juries revealed distinct differences
between US juries and juries in England and Wales
•
Research from other jurisdictions can be valuable – but mainly
in terms of research design and methodology
•
Each jurisdiction needs to conduct its own research
Research from other
Research from other
jurisdictions
jurisdictions
In absence of reliable evidence here,
policy agenda for reform of jury trials
dominated by two elements.
(1)
H
igh profile jury trials
where
something
went
fundamentally wrong
Create demand for reform … but
invariably without answering 2 key
questions with empirical evidence:
1.
How widespread is the problem?
2.
What is most effective method of addressing the
problem?
High profile cases
High profile cases
Also s
etting
policy agenda and
dominating beliefs about juries
•
Those who work in the criminal courts can develop
strong views about juries
•
Professionals
’
personal experiences can be
extremely helpful in background research
•
But they cannot provide reliable empirical
evidence
•
Their perceptions need to be tested objectively.
Professional Anecdote
Professional Anecdote
What is the state of jury research?
What is the state of jury research?
Hardcore approach to jury research
Most “jury research” is in fact:
•
not
done with actual jurors
•
not
done with authentic and complete case
materials
•
not
conducted at the jury verdict level
•
not
conducted with large enough or
representative sample sizes to generate reliable
conclusions
At best misconceived-
At best misconceived-
at worst dangerous
at worst dangerous
Actual case analysis
•
Insufficient sample sizes
•
esp multi-variable analysis
Surveys/Interviews
•
Unrepresentative samples
•
Low response rates
•
Over-reliance on volunteers
•
On-line surveys
The self-selection problem
Common Methodological Errors
Common Methodological Errors
Temptation of case simulation
Temptation of case simulation
Relatively easy now to do some version of
“
mock jury
”
research
But not easy to do this research so it produces reliable
conclusions about how
juries
decide cases
Participants:
Myth of s.8 led to over-reliance on
“
proxy jurors
”
•
Students
≠ Jurors
•
Volunteers ≠
Jurors
Failure to consider unique jury environment
Materials must be:
•
Authentic
•
Complete
•
Capable of precise controlled testing of variables
•
Capable of large-scale repetition
The “acting out” problem
Common methodological errors
Common methodological errors
in case simulations
in case simulations
Juror decisions
Juror decisions
≠
≠
Jury verdicts
Jury verdicts
Most case simulation research looks only at
individual juror
decisions
not jury verdicts
Not surprising – jury
verdict
r
esearch
is much more
time
c
onsuming
and
complicated
But it is not a case of 12 individual decisions = jury verdict
Dangerous to extrapolate what verdicts will be from
individual decisions
I
n real world of criminal trial only verdict counts
There is no set sample size for case simulation studies
•
Sample size will depend on the number of variables
being examined and case variations.
•
But substantial numbers of full
juries
are necessary
Some research has drawn major
conclusions based
on only 1 jury verdict per variable/variation.
•
This is highly unreliable and can be dangerously
misleading.
•
Especially important when issues addressed in the
research involve important policy issues.
Sample sizes
Sample sizes
No attempt to test solutions
“Merely to explain and understand is to
fiddle while Rome burns.”
Ronald V. Clarke
Most researchers looking
Most researchers looking
only to discover problems
only to discover problems
R
esponsibility in carrying out
jury
research to insure:
1. Findings are not over-estimated
2. Original research design includes plans to test
solutions to problems if found
Responsible jury research
Responsible jury research
These are not just narrow academic points about jury
research methodology – real world impact
•
S
ignificant challenges facing trial by jury in 21st century
… including
major
criminal law reforms based on little
more than assumptions about how juries work
•
In the existing information vacuum about juries, it is easy
for any research which purports to be about juries to be
seized upon to suit different policy agendas.
•
It will also almost inevitably attract media attention.
Danger of being in
Danger of being in
the dark about juries
the dark about juries
•
Do juries understand complex evidence?
•
Do juries really defer to experts?
•
What is best way of presenting complex evidence to jury to
ensure it is understood?
•
Is there a CSI effect?
•
How does visual presentation affect jurors?
•
How do jurors perceive “virtual” evidence?
E
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
:
c
o
m
p
l
e
x
,
f
o
r
e
n
s
i
c
,
f
r
a
u
d
,
r
e
m
o
t
e
,
v
i
r
t
u
a
l
Important questions in need
Important questions in need
of hardcore jury research
of hardcore jury research
S
hould
be determined by properly conducted research
with real jurors that produces reliable evidence.
Future of trial by jury?
Future of trial by jury?
UCL Jury Project current research projects
Preventing improper internet use
(ESRC)
Improving jury deliberations
(ESRC)
Impact of special measures
(Nuffield)
Judicial directions on law
(Nuffield)
Insanity defence & fitness to plead
(Law Comm)
Questions?
Questions?
Unveiling the myths, misunderstandings, and mistakes surrounding jury research, exploring topics like diversity, fairness, decision-making, and the impact of media on jurors. The research methods involve case simulation, large-scale verdict analysis, and juror surveys/interviews for comprehensive insights into the UK jury system.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Myths, Misunderstandings & Mistakes of Jury Research
UCL Jury Project: 2007: Diversity & Fairness in the Jury System Jury summoning system who is summoned, who serves, are jurors representative, does system discriminate? 2010: Are Juries Fair? Jury decision-making - Do juries discriminate against minorities? Jury conviction rates. Do jurors understand judicial directions? Juror internet use and impact of media coverage of trials.
3 Main Research Methods (1) Case simulation (2) Large-scale data analysis of verdicts (2) Surveys/interviews with jurors Best research uses all 3 triangulation
Case simulation research Study run only with real juries at Crown Courts Large number of juries see an identical case Defendant charged with violent crime (assault) Only difference is race of defendant
Large-scale verdict analysis Correlational studies - analysing all jury verdicts in all courts in England & Wales over 2 year period (> million charges) 67% 65% 64% 63% 63% Jury conviction rate White Black Asian Other Not Known Defendant ethnic group
Juror surveys & interviews Immediate post-verdict jury studies at court: Juror awareness of media coverage of cases Juror use of internet during trial Juror views of deliberation process
Conducting Reliable Jury Research Reliable research about jury system in UK has been seriously hampered by a number of Myths Misunderstandings Mistakes
Jury Research Myths Myths about what can and cannot be explored with real juries have affected both the jury policy and research agenda
Jury Research Misunderstandings Misunderstandings about how to address specific jury questions have led to misguided jury research
Jury Research Mistakes Mistakes about how to properly use jury research methodologies have produced questionable if not dangerous research findings
Myth of Section 8 S8, Contempt of Court Act 1981: it is a criminal offence to: Obtain, disclose or solicit any particulars of statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members of a jury in the course of their deliberations
Impact of s.8 Myth One empirical study with juries in England & Wales 1981- 2007 What filled the black hole?
Research from other jurisdictions Assumed our juries behave in same way Fundamental error Crucial differences in jury & social systems Research on race and juries revealed distinct differences between US juries and juries in England and Wales Research from other jurisdictions can be valuable but mainly in terms of research design and methodology Each jurisdiction needs to conduct its own research
High profile cases In absence of reliable evidence here, policy agenda for reform of jury trials dominated by two elements. (1) High profile jury trials where something went fundamentally wrong Create demand for reform but invariably without answering 2 key questions with empirical evidence: 1. How widespread is the problem? 2. What is most effective method of addressing the problem?
Professional Anecdote Also setting policy agenda and dominating beliefs about juries Those who work in the criminal courts can develop strong views about juries Professionals personal experiences can be extremely helpful in background research But they cannot provide reliable empirical evidence Their perceptions need to be tested objectively.
What is the state of jury research? Hardcore approach to jury research
At best misconceived- at worst dangerous Most jury research is in fact: not done with actual jurors not done with authentic and complete case materials not conducted at the jury verdict level not conducted with large enough or representative sample sizes to generate reliable conclusions
Common Methodological Errors Actual case analysis Insufficient sample sizes esp multi-variable analysis Surveys/Interviews Unrepresentative samples Low response rates Over-reliance on volunteers On-line surveys The self-selection problem
Temptation of case simulation Relatively easy now to do some version of mock jury research But not easy to do this research so it produces reliable conclusions about how juries decide cases
Common methodological errors in case simulations Participants: Myth of s.8 led to over-reliance on proxy jurors Students Jurors Volunteers Jurors Failure to consider unique jury environment Materials must be: Authentic Complete Capable of precise controlled testing of variables Capable of large-scale repetition The acting out problem
Juror decisions Jury verdicts Most case simulation research looks only at individual juror decisions not jury verdicts Not surprising jury verdict research is much more time consuming and complicated But it is not a case of 12 individual decisions = jury verdict Dangerous to extrapolate what verdicts will be from individual decisions In real world of criminal trial only verdict counts
Sample sizes There is no set sample size for case simulation studies Sample size will depend on the number of variables being examined and case variations. But substantial numbers of full juries are necessary Some research has drawn major conclusions based on only 1 jury verdict per variable/variation. This is highly unreliable and can be dangerously misleading. Especially important when issues addressed in the research involve important policy issues.
Most researchers looking only to discover problems No attempt to test solutions Merely to explain and understand is to fiddle while Rome burns. Ronald V. Clarke
Responsible jury research Responsibility in carrying out jury research to insure: 1. Findings are not over-estimated 2. Original research design includes plans to test solutions to problems if found
Danger of being in the dark about juries These are not just narrow academic points about jury research methodology real world impact Significant challenges facing trial by jury in 21st century including major criminal law reforms based on little more than assumptions about how juries work In the existing information vacuum about juries, it is easy for any research which purports to be about juries to be seized upon to suit different policy agendas. It will also almost inevitably attract media attention.
Important questions in need of hardcore jury research Evidence: complex, forensic, fraud, remote, virtual Do juries understand complex evidence? Do juries really defer to experts? What is best way of presenting complex evidence to jury to ensure it is understood? Is there a CSI effect? How does visual presentation affect jurors? How do jurors perceive virtual evidence?
Future of trial by jury? Should be determined by properly conducted research with real jurors that produces reliable evidence.
UCL Jury Project current research projects Preventing improper internet use (ESRC) Improving jury deliberations (ESRC) Impact of special measures (Nuffield) Judicial directions on law (Nuffield) Insanity defence & fitness to plead (Law Comm)
