Juror Stress Debriefing: a Review of the Literature and an Evaluation of a Yukon Program
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
JUROR STRESS DEBRIEFING: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND AN EVALUATION OF A YUKON PROGRAM 2008 CanLIIDocs 145 Submitted to: Yukon Department of Justice Submitted by: Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family Prepared by: Lorne D. Bertrand, Ph.D., Joanne J. Paetsch, B.A., and Sanjeev Anand, LL.M., Ph.D. March 2008 2008 CanLIIDocs 145 The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Yukon Justice or the Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family. CONTENTS List of Tables and Figures................................................................................................................v Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................... vii Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... ix 1.0 Introduction..........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Background..............................................................................................................1 1.1.1 Project Components.....................................................................................1 2008 CanLIIDocs 145 1.2 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................2 1.3 Organization of the Report.......................................................................................2 2.0 A Critical Review of the Literature and the Options for Dealing with Juror Stress............3 2.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................3 2.2 The Sources, Prevalence and Severity of Juror Stress.............................................4 2.2.1 Case Studies.................................................................................................4 2.2.2 Other Investigations of Juror Stress...........................................................11 2.3 Combating and Preventing Juror Stress.................................................................21 2.3.1 The Debriefing Literature..........................................................................21 2.3.2 Jury Debriefing in Canada .........................................................................27 2.3.3 Other Methods of Preventing and Ameliorating Juror Stress....................30 2.4 Conclusion.............................................................................................................31 3.0 An Evaluation of Juror Stress Debriefing in the Yukon....................................................33 3.1 Summary of the Trials ...........................................................................................33 3.1.1 Daunt Trial.................................................................................................33 3.1.2 Rodrigue Trial............................................................................................34 3.1.3 Lange and Boucher Trial ...........................................................................35 3.2 The Debriefing Services ........................................................................................36 3.2.1 Post-trial Briefing by Judge .......................................................................36 3.2.2 Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD) Session...................................37 3.3 Survey Methodology..............................................................................................37 3.3.1 Sample........................................................................................................37 iii 3.3.2 Data Collection Instruments and Procedures.............................................38 3.3.2.1 Post-trial Survey..........................................................................38 3.3.2.2 Post-debriefing Session Survey..................................................38 3.3.2.3 Follow-up Telephone Interview..................................................39 3.3.3 Limitations .................................................................................................39 4.0 Evaluation Results.............................................................................................................41 4.1 Findings: Debriefing Session................................................................................41 4.1.1 Introduction................................................................................................41 4.1.2 Findings Immediately Following Debriefing Session ...............................41 4.1.3 Findings Three Months Post Trial .............................................................42 4.2 Findings: Juror Stress............................................................................................43 2008 CanLIIDocs 145 4.2.1 Stress at the Time of Trial..........................................................................43 4.2.2 Stress Three Months Post-trial...................................................................45 4.2.3 Pre- and Post-comparison of Jurors’ Reactions to the Trial ......................47 5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................................51 5.1 Conclusions............................................................................................................51 5.2 Recommendations..................................................................................................54 5.2.1 Recommendations Regarding the Trial Process ........................................54 5.2.2 Recommendations Regarding the Debriefing Process...............................55 5.2.3 Recommendations Regarding Legislation.................................................55 Appendix A: Debriefing Session Handout on Stress Reactions to Trauma Appendix B: Consent Form Appendix C: Post-trial Survey Appendix D: Post-debriefing Session Survey Appendix E: Follow-up Telephone Interview Schedule iv TABLES AND FIGURES Table 4.1 Percentage of Respondents Agreeing with the Following Statements ...........................41 Regarding the Debriefing Session Table 4.2 Respondents’ General Comments Immediately Following Debriefing ..........................42 Session Table 4.3 Respondents’ Additional Comments Regarding Debriefing Session .............................43 Three Months Later Table 4.4 Respondents’ Ratings of the Degree of Stress Caused by Various Aspects ...................44 2008 CanLIIDocs 145 of the Trial Table 4.5 Percentage of Respondents who Agreed with the Following Statements .......................45 Three Months After Trial Table 4.6 Percentage of Respondents who Reported Having the Following ..................................46 Experiences in Their Community Table 4.7 Respondents’ Comments Regarding Their Experience as a Juror...................................47 Figure 4.1 Mean Subscale Scores on the Impact of Event Scale (Revised) .....................................48 Immediately Following Trial and Three Months Later Table 4.8 Mean Responses on the Intrusion Subscale Items Immediately .....................................49 Following Trial and Three Months Later Table 4.9 Mean Responses on the Avoidance Subscale Items Immediately ..................................49 Following Trial and Three Months Later Table 4.10 Mean Responses on the Hyperarousal Subscale Items Immediately ..............................50 Following Trial and Three Months Later v 2008 CanLIIDocs 145 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project could not have been completed without the support of a number of individuals and organizations. First, we would like to acknowledge the financial support of Yukon Justice and the assistance of Catherine Simpson, Manager, Court Administration, Shauna Curtin, Director, Court Services, and Sue Bergren, Administrative Assistant, Court Services. We thank Dr. Joseph Hornick, Executive Director of the Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family (CRILF) for his consultation throughout the project. Thank you to Heather Manweiller for her assistance in completing the literature review. We also thank Ms Linda Haggett of CRILF for her assistance with typing the tables for the report. 2008 CanLIIDocs 145 We particularly would like to thank the jurors who participated in this project and provided us with information on their jury duty experiences. Their contributions were invaluable. The Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family is supported by a grant from the Alberta Law Foundation. vii 2008 CanLIIDocs 145 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background In 2005, the Yukon Department of Justice received funding from Justice Canada to set up a pilot project to research the jury experience in the Yukon during the course of homicide trials that were expected to take place during the following two years. The intent of the project was to evaluate the effectiveness of providing jury debriefing sessions in mitigating stress that jurors may experience as a result of serving on these juries. The study would contribute to the modernization of the justice system in the north and in small communities by providing valuable information about the impact on jurors of the experience of being involved in long and complex trials. 2008 CanLIIDocs 145 The project examined the stresses that Canadian jurors experience when they sit on trials that are lengthy, complex and that