NCJ Number
45410
Date Published
1976
Length
99 pages
Annotation
A STUDY OF THE CRIMINAL JURY TRIAL WAS CONDUCTED USING THREE DIFFERENT RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES: NATURALISTIC OBSERVATION OF COURT PROCEEDINGS, INTERVIEWS WITH ATTORNEYS AND JURORS, AND A JURY SIMULATION EXPERIMENT.
Abstract
EACH PHASE WAS DESIGNED TO COLLECT DATA APPLYING SPECIFICALLY TO HYPOTHESES IN THAT PHASE. A SECOND PURPOSE WAS TO DEMONSTRATE THE UTILITY OF A COMBINED RESEARCH METHODOLOGY IN THIS APPLIED AREA. IN THE FIRST STUDY, THE SAMPLE OF TRIALS OBSERVED CONSISTED OF ALL MAJOR FELONY CASES TRIED BY JURY DURING A 2-AND-ONE-HALF MONTH INTERVAL (N=14) IN AN UNIDENTIFIED SOUTHERN CITY. THE OBSERVER RECORDED JURY SELECTION PROCEEDINGS, LENGTH AND KIND OF TESTIMONY, LEGAL OBJECTIONS AND RULINGS, AND OTHER OBJECTIVE MEASURES ON EACH TRIAL. IT WAS HYPOTHESIZED THAT THE DATA OF THE OBSERVATION WOULD SHOW NUMEROUS SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE EVIDENCE PROFILE OF THE PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENSE. THESE DIFFERENCES WERE FOUND IN THE FORM OF A DECIDED IMBALANCE IN AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN FAVOR OF THE PROSECUTION. IN GENERAL, THE PROSECUTION HAD MORE WITNESSES OF ALL TYPES, MORE PHYSICAL EXHIBITS, AND GREATER ACCESS TO RESOURCES IN CASE PRESENTATION. IN THE SECOND STUDY, INTERVIEWS WITH THE ATTORNEYS AND JURORS WERE CONDUCTED IN THE SEVEN OBSERVATION CASES IN WHICH A FINAL VERDICT WAS RETURNED. INTERVIEWS WERE OBTAINED FROM 18 ATTORNEYS AND 54 JURORS. ATTORNEYS WERE ASKED TO PREDICT HOW JURORS WOULD RESPOND TO THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE WHILE THE JURY WAS DELIBERATING. JURORS WERE SIMILARLY QUESTIONED AFTER A VERDICT WAS RETURNED. IT WAS HYPOTHESIZED THAT ATTORNEYS WOULD BE POOR PREDICTORS OF JUROR'S RESPONSES TO THE EVIDENCE. ANALYSIS OF THESE RESULTS REVEALED THAT ATTORNEYS WERE GOOD PREDICTORS OF THE JURY'S ABILITY TO REMEMBER AND UNDERSTAND THE EVIDENCE, BUT DID LESS WELL IN PREDICTING THE IMPORTANCE JURORS WOULD ATTACH TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE DIFFERENT WITNESSES. IN THE EXPERIMENTAL JURY SIMULATION STUDY CONDUCTED WITH 214 MALE AND FEMALE SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS, THREE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES WHICH THE ATTORNEYS CONSIDERED IMPORTANT IN ONE OF THE REAL TRIALS WERE MANIPULATED. THE VARIABLES OF LEVEL OF INCRIMINATION, JUDICIAL INSTRUCTIONS, AND USE OF AN IMPEACHMENT STRATEGY WERE INVESTIGATED IN A 2X2X2 FACTORIAL DESIGN; A MULTIPLE CONTINGENCY ANALYSIS OF THESE DATA FOUND THAT JUDICIAL INSTRUCTIONS CONSIDERABLY AFFECTED FINAL VERDICT, AS DID THE REBUTTAL TESTIMONY THAT REPRESENTED THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH AND LOW INCRIMINATION VERSIONS OF THE TRIAL (SIGNIFICANT AT .01 LEVEL). THE USE OF IMPEACHMENT STRATEGY WAS NOT SIGNIFICANT, NOR WERE ANY OF THE INTERACTIONS. ADVANTAGES OF THE COMBINED RESEARCH METHODOLOGY INCLUDED: GAINING ENTRANCE INTO THE LEGAL CIRCLE, OBTAINING PERMISSION AND ENCOURAGEMENT FROM THE PRESIDING JUDGE, OBTAINING AN UNUSUALLY HIGH PERCENTAGE OF COOPERATION FROM THE ATTORNEYS (100 PERCENT) AND THE JURORS (74) PERCENT IN THE INTERVIEWS, AND DESIGNING A JURY SIMULATION THAT INCLUDED VARIABLES WITH APPLIED VALUE. APPENDIXES INCLUDE FORMS AND QUESTIONNAIRES USED, THE TRIAL STIMULUS AND INSTRUCTIONS TO THE SUBJECTS USED IN THE JURY EXPERIMENT, AND A LISTING OF CASES OBSERVED BY CHARGE AND TRIAL OUTCOME. TABULAR DATA AND REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED -- DAS)