Debunking Myths and Misunderstandings of Jury Research
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. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
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)
