Jury Impartiality in the Modern Era 2735 J Steblay N, Hosch H, Culhane S, McWethy A (2006) The new media on public perceptions of the justice impact on juror verdicts of judicial instruction to dis- system, especially in high-profile trials. Finally, it regard inadmissible evidence: a meta-analysis. Law Hum Behav 30:469–492 examines the viability of traditional judicial Steblay N, Dysart J, Wells G (2011) Seventy-two tests of responses to the newly wired and media-saturated the sequential lineup superiority effect: a meta- jury pool. It concludes with some sobering analysis and policy discussion. Psychol Public Policy reflections about the ability of the justice system Law 17:99–139 United States v. Telfaire, 469 F.2d 552 (D.C. Cir. 1979) to keep up with these technological changes. Wells G, Olson E (2003) Eyewitness testimony. Annu Rev Psychol 54:277–295 Wells G, Steblay N, Dysart J (2011) A test of the simul- The Traditional Concept of Juror taneous vs. sequential lineup methods: an initial report of the AJS national eyewitness identification field Impartiality studies. American Judicature Society, Des Moines The strength of the jury in an adversarial system of justice is the impartiality of the jurors. Impartial jurors are those who are willing and Jury Impartiality in the Modern Era able to consider the evidence presented at trial without preconceived opinions about the Nicole L. Waters1 and Paula Hannaford-Agor2 defendant’s guilt or innocence, to apply the 1 National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, governing law as instructed by the trial judge, J VA, USA and to deliberate in good faith to render 2Center for Jury Studies, National Center for a legally and factually justifiable verdict. State Courts, Williamsburg, VA, USA Traditionally, the process of identifying impartial jurors focused on voir dire during which judges and lawyers questioned jurors about their Overview knowledge of the facts of the case, opinions about issues that might arise during trial, or life The strength of the jury system in an adversarial experiences that might affect how jurors perceive system of justice depends on the impartiality the evidence they would hear during the course of the jurors. Yet the rapid evolution of of the trial. Once the judge and lawyers had Internet-based communication technologies removed biased jurors, the trial would begin. poses serious challenges to the traditional Except under very unusual circumstances, concept of juror impartiality. It is now possible there was little risk that the selected jurors for jurors to access virtually any piece of might lose their impartiality during the remainder published information about pending cases of the trial. in minutes, and the volume of potentially The rapid evolution of various types of new case-relevant information is growing exponen- media over the past two decades poses serious tially. Many jurors have become accustomed to challenges to this concept of juror impartiality. using these technologies to conduct research and Internet-based technologies now make it possible communicate with friends and family. For some for jurors to access virtually any piece of jurors, reliance on these technologies has become published information about pending cases in so ingrained that it would require conscious effort minutes, regardless of when or where published. to refrain from doing so for the duration of a trial. Many jurors have become accustomed to using This entry discusses the notion of what it these technologies to conduct research and to means for a juror to be and to remain impartial communicate with friends and family. For in the digital age. First, it focuses on the impact of some jurors, reliance on these technologies for new media on how jurors acquire and process everyday tasks has become so ingrained that it information. Then it discusses the impact of would require conscious effort to refrain from J 2736 Jury Impartiality in the Modern Era doing so for the duration of a trial. As a result, clock, the printing press, radio and television – all judges and lawyers can no longer be confident affected the brain’s neural circuitry. For the most either that a sufficient number of prospective part, those changes had a positive impact on jurors on any given panel will meet the traditional civilization, both increasing the scope of human definition of impartiality or that the jurors knowledge and distributing it more widely. selected for trial will remain so for the entire trial. He then posited that the Internet, which he The volume of potentially case-relevant describes as an immeasurably powerful information that might jeopardize juror computing system, might be affecting a similar impartially is also growing exponentially with shift in human cognitive ability. Preliminary the proliferation of various types of news media neurological studies suggest that Carr’s insights including traditional media outlets as well as may be quite accurate. If so, that prospect cable news organizations, online print media, will have a profound impact on juror and specialty blogs. The traditional news cycle decision-making, especially how trial jurors involved at most daily updates, but some trials receive and interpret information during the now receive continual, minute-by-minute, 24/7 course of a trial. news coverage as well as ongoing commentary Much of the existing scientific literature on and background information based on interviews juror decision-making is grounded in with trial attorneys, litigants, witnesses, and even theories derived from cognitive psychology that less central players such as coworkers, neighbors, individuals engage in schematic processing to and childhood friends. This level of media interpret their environment efficiently and saturation exposes a larger number of prospective effectively. “Schemas” act as cognitive filters jurors to potentially prejudicial information about through which individuals identify people more upcoming trials than ever before in history, and situations quickly, according to familiar par- making it more difficult to select impartial jurors adigms. For jurors, these schemas take the form for trial and to maintain their impartiality of preconceptions and knowledge of the world throughout the trial. that they use to construct narratives or stories Traditional approaches to minimizing from trial evidence and fill in missing details to these effects seem to be losing their increase the story’s internal consistency and effectiveness given the volume and intensity of convergence with their world knowledge. This trial information available to prospective jurors. cognitive processing helps jurors assess the trial Some of the most pressing concerns in evidence for credibility, consistency, and relative contemporary jury system management are importance. Contemporary researchers refer the impact of these technologies on juror to this theory as the “story model” of juror decision-making and on public perceptions of decision-making. In more colloquial terms, jurors the justice system. bring their common sense and community values to inform judgments about a criminal defendant’s guilt or a civil defendant’s liability for damages. The Impact of New Media on Juror During deliberations, jurors compare these Decision-Making individual narratives and, except in very rare exceptions, arrive at a consensus about the In a provocative essay published in the “correct” interpretation of the evidence and July/August 2008 issue of Atlantic Monthly, application of the governing law to produce Nicholas Carr described how his use of the a legally valid decision. Internet seemed to be changing how his brain Historically, this process took place during operates, especially his memory and his capacity trial as the lawyers presented each new piece of for sustained concentration. The article provided evidence to the jury through direct and cross- an overview of how the development of various examination of witnesses. The question-and- technologies – written language, the mechanical answer format through which attorneys elicit Jury Impartiality in the Modern Era 2737 J oral testimony to support their respective theory less confident in their collective common sense of the case was originally intended to provide and community values and thus find it necessary jurors with an unvarnished and neutral presenta- to verify initial impressions about the evidence or tion of trial evidence. The format is exceedingly to supplement it with external sources found archaic and is almost never employed in other online. Their cognitive schemas are no longer settings in which information is communicated purely internal psychological constructions, but to a lay audience. The jurors’ task can be tremen- rather exist as an externalized collective schema dously complicated insofar that it involves taking in “the cloud” where they can be accessed with the individual bits of trial evidence and piecing the click of a mouse. As the urge to use these them together into a coherent picture. In most technologies becomes stronger and the ability to trials, however, the relatively slow and methodi- do so becomes easier, judges and trial lawyers cal nature of the trial process, often interrupted by will find it increasingly difficult to block juror trial recesses and sidebar conferences between access to these potentially prejudicial sources the judge and trial attorneys, provided ample of extraneous information so that jurors might time for jurors to reflect carefully on the evidence maintain some semblance of impartiality