The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research

Volume 18 Article 7

2017

Jury Deliberation

Giuliana Pietrantoni [email protected], [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur

Part of the Civil Procedure Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, and the Law and Society Commons How has open access to Fisher Digital Publications benefited ou?y

Recommended Citation Pietrantoni, Giuliana. "Jury Deliberation." The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research 18 (2017): -. Web. [date of access]. .

This document is posted at https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur/vol18/iss1/7 and is brought to you for free and open access by Fisher Digital Publications at St. John Fisher College. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Jury Deliberation

Abstract Juries are tasked with the duty of deliberating and applying the law to the case at hand. But it is unclear whether juries deliberate or deliberate well enough. Factors which may affect jury deliberation are the motivation of jurors, characteristics of jurors, emotions during and after trial, bargaining, charges, and dissenters. This paper argues that jurors do engage in rigorous dialogue which eventually results in compromises, although whether this creates an unjust verdict is unclear.

Keywords jury, deliberation, compromise, dissenters

This article is available in The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research: https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur/ vol18/iss1/7 Pietrantoni: Jury Deliberation

Jury Deliberation Giuliana Pietrantoni ABSTRACT Juries are tasked with the duty of deliberating and applying the law to the case at hand. But it is unclear whether juries deliberate or deliberate well enough. Factors which may affect jury deliberation are the motivation of jurors, characteristics of jurors, emotions during and after trial, bargaining, charges, and dissenters. This paper argues that jurors do engage in rigorous dialogue which eventually results in compromises, although whether this creates an unjust verdict is unclear.

Do juries deliberate well? What occurs in evidence. Jury deliberation should ideally the jury room is a secret in order to promote embody democratic and egalitarian values. freedom of expression among jurors in order According to the study “Do Juries to produce fact finding and a just verdict. Deliberate,” a competent deliberation as Juries are tasked with the duty of defined above occurs in 35% of the cases deliberating and applying the law to the case (Gastil, Burkhalter, and Black 339). Only at hand. But it is unclear whether juries one in ten cases results in a reversal of the deliberate or deliberate well. Factors which initial opinion of the jury during may affect jury deliberation are the deliberation, meaning most juror’s initial motivation of jurors, characteristics of opinion after the trial is the same after jurors, emotions during and after trial, deliberation. This suggests jurors’ verdict bargain of charges, and dissenters. Within choices are already determined prior to academic research, using mock trials and deliberation, but this does not prove jurors surveys, studies have concluded juries do do not participate in rigorous deliberation. conduct deliberation. However, the research The National Center for State Courts methods are not completely accurate, (NCSC) conducted an experiment based on surveys are biased and mock trials are hung juries with participation from 3500 merely simulations. ABC produced a special jurors in large, urban areas. The NCSC called In the Jury Room, revealing six actual study concluded jury deliberation does ​ ​ juries, their deliberations, and how they impact the final verdict (Larsen 1576). reached the verdict. In combination, this Larsen concluded from the NCSC’s data that research and data demonstrates jurors do 62% of jurors changed their minds and 24% engage in rigorous dialogue which changed their mind during the trial. The rate eventually results in compromise; whether of a hung jury is 6.2%, and 54% of hung this creates an unjust verdict is unclear. jury trials consist of only one dissenter (Larsen 1576). 10% to 27% of juries hold What is competent deliberation? Ideally, early votes, thus the absence of the early competent deliberation is composed of vote implies juries continue to discuss the respectful, open, and rigorous discussion evidence (Gastil, Burkhalter, and Black with full consideration of the facts and 341). Juries conduct two types of

Published by Fisher Digital Publications, 2017 1 The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research, Vol. 18 [2017], Art. 7

deliberation styles; verdict-driven and deliberation and quality of the discussion, evidence-driven. Verdict-driven deliberation because it involves individual jurors’ consists of an early vote and ample participation and perception of jury discussion focused on verdict choices, while deliberation. Satisfaction with the evidence-driven is more deliberative deliberation implies the task at hand was because jurors discuss evidence thoroughly. appropriately addressed. Quality of Often evidence-driven deliberation allows interpretation of evidence and equity and for more time to speak, allowing minority respect among the jury are factors predictive voices respect and equality. The role of of group satisfaction (Gastil, Burkhalter, and deliberation is to legitimize not only the Black 345). The study “Do Juries verdict, but also the jury itself. Hans and Deliberate” concludes 89% of jurors Vidmar stated, “Even if its impact on the thoroughly discussed facts of the case and ultimate verdict is modest, deliberation helps listened and respected their fellow jurors. to assure the integrity of jury decision 67% of jurors discussed the judge’s making” (Gastil, Burkhalter, and Black instructions. Furthermore, 95% of jurors felt 339). Jury deliberation is a cornerstone of they had ample time to express themselves. the US Judicial System and of democratic The study concluded that juries deliberate involvement; it is crucial for the integrity of and they understand their role as one juries to stay intact. The key to fulfilling the focused on deliberation (Gastil, Burkhalter, duty of competent deliberation is to analyze and Black 353). With this data it is evident evidence carefully, discuss instructions, jurors partake in competent forms of ensure adequate time for each juror to speak, deliberation, invoking democratic values, maintain mutual respect, and discuss the prudence, and egalitarianism. But these judge’s instructions. Judges from the Seattle studies used post-trial surveys, which may Circuit Courts give the instructions: “Each be biased. If jurors had naive or romantic of you must decide the case for yourselves, feelings towards the group’s discussion, but you should do so only after you have their opinions may not want to criticize the considered all of the evidence, [and] quality of their work because this discussed it fully with your fellow jurors.” undermines the verdict choice, a choice The judges are encouraged to add, “Do not someone’s life depended on. It is easier to be afraid to change your opinion if the look past one’s own bad choices while discussion persuades you that you should. essentially grading one’s self in a survey. But do not come to a decision simply But if this data is for the most part honest because other jurors think it is right” (Gastil, and correct, then it can be concluded jurors Burkhalter, and Black 340). It is evident, uphold their deliberative duty to their jurors deliberate, thus resulting in a community. difference of opinion regarding the case; Individual jurors are impacted by their therefore deliberation does impact the final political knowledge and skills, leadership verdict. But it is still unclear whether types skills, their motivation, self-confidence, and of discussion, verdict-driven or partisanship. The study “Do Jurors evidence-driven deliberations, impede Deliberate” sought to measure these justice and are competent forms of characteristics of jurors and how they affect deliberation. deliberation (Gastil, Burkhalter, and Black Juror satisfaction suggests forms of 338). The study had many theories.

https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur/vol18/iss1/7 2 Pietrantoni: Jury Deliberation

Hypothesis 1a predicted juries report more thorough deliberation. There are two rival deliberative experiences when they have a views regarding inequalities among jurors. favorable disposition toward the jury One stresses the value of knowledge and system, because they believe in the value of skill while the other stresses that inequalities juries they seek to promote them in among jurors actually undermines discussion. The study concluded the jurors competent deliberation (Gastil, Burkhalter, who had more stock in the system were and Black 344). From the study it is evident more likely to experience respect (Gastil, individual characteristics affect deliberation Burkhalter, and Black 353). Hypothesis 1b dramatically. While education may help an predicts juries will report more deliberation individual juror, it has the potential to when there is perception of potential undermine the jury as a whole. For juries it common ground with members that have may not helpful to the deliberation if similar ideological backgrounds. Partisan educated jurors are controlling the diversity can be interpreted as a threat to a deliberation by taking on leadership common ground a juror may feel is positions due to their increase in necessary for effective deliberation. self-confidence and knowledge. In addition, Hypothesis 1c predicts jurors will repeat it is easy to comprehend how diversity of more deliberative experiences when they partisanship can undermine stability and have higher levels of political knowledge produce factions, but this may promote more and formal education. Education and discussion than a jury of the same beliefs. knowledge help jurors work through Due to the need to promote one’s side there complex dilemmas. Jurors with high levels would be less motivation to debate if of education, motivation, and favor toward everyone agrees. But instability due to the system act as catalysts, promoting partisanship diversity would create a higher deliberation. These jurors draw on tendency to compromise. communication skills they need to deliberate Emotions run high during a trial and in the from their education and often take on a jury room. There are many parts to the trial leadership role to promote the values of a process where emotions can impact a juror’s jury, equality and respect. Hypothesis 1d thought process and physical well-being, predicts jurors will report better deliberative and can influence social functioning. experiences with higher levels of Observers interpret emotions within a social motivation. Motivation is affected by situation which affects social interaction. political self-confidence, willingness to Emotions are subjective feelings which serve on a jury, and interest of case being seem objective to an individual juror. tried. Jurors with higher self-confidence According to a study, “How Emotion combined with their interest in the trial were Affects the Trial Process,” there are three more likely to engage in more thorough trial-related factors which may affect analysis (Gastil, Burkhalter, and Black 353). emotions (Miller, et al. 56). The first factor Also, uneven distribution of characteristics is when the prosecutor may show among jurors may prompt problems during emotion-evoking evidence, such as deliberation. Unequal knowledge and skill gruesome photos of the crime or injuries. may undermine group members’ assessment The second factor is during sentencing of deliberation, because jurors may feel as if hearings, when victims and victims’ families they should not speak or cannot speak and give statements describing how the crime therefore the environment leads to a less

Published by Fisher Digital Publications, 2017 3 The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research, Vol. 18 [2017], Art. 7

has affected their lives. The third factor are made. This suggests verdicts made with which evokes emotion is the defendant's compromise are unjust. Chief Justice Burger behavior during a trial. Through these stated, “Courts have long held that in factors the jurors are able to understand the practical business of deciding cases the fact impact of the crime, the level of violence, finders, not unlike negotiations, are and mindset of the offender. These factors permitted the luxury of verdicts reached by also create anger, disgust towards the compromise,” (Larsen 1583). Compromised offender, and sympathy for the victim. verdicts undermine the Judicial System, Convictions increase when graphic evidence creating a lack of public confidence in the is shown, because anger resulting from entire criminal justice system since witnessing the violence leads to finding compromised verdicts indicates the jury was someone to blame and hold accountable, and incompetent for not uncovering the truth. the defendant is set up to receive this blame The motive behind a compromising jury is (Miller et al. 57). Emotions allow a juror to indifference about civic duty, and if they do become invested in the trial, to care about care about civic duty, they compromise due justice. But emotions of anger and sadness to a good enough deal or compromise. In a lead jurors to find someone to blame, to feel mock trial stimulation, Kelman, a social the need to hold someone accountable, scientist, predicted that decision-making because they are now accountable and behavior is altered by the presence or responsible to provide justice for the absence of options, the “compromise effect” victims. The US judicial system promotes (Larsen 1577). Kelman concluded an option this rationale, but this rationale does not does better by being in the middle of other promote egalitarian or democratic choices. The presence or absence of higher deliberation. charges affect how jurors saw the case, confirming tendencies for compromise “Jurors arguing and coming to some sort of among verdict alternatives (Larsen 1578). compromise is just part of the system;” this Hastie, a social scientist, conducted an is the stereotype of the cynical point of view experiment with a mock trial, tracking of the US Judicial System (Larsen 1574). factions within a jury based on options of Jury deliberation often leads to bargaining charges. One group had to have unanimity, and compromises. The menu of options, or the other just a majority decision (Larsen charges, leads jurors to believe the 1581). Within the experiment, there were defendant must be guilty of one of these differences in factions depending upon the options; these jurors tend to be unanimity requirement and large factions pro-prosecution and resort to an were unlikely to change. Hastie concluded “accountability” deal (Larsen 1573). people form factions to track verdict Sometimes the menu of options leads to a opinions because deliberations are most compromise resulting in a “mercy” deal likely verdict driven. Juries are then (Larsen 1573). One judge stated, “the jury, if polarized after group discussion because it cannot agree on the basic issue of guilt, individuals’ ideas become more extreme may seek the course of least resistance in the through the discussion, and then the jurors jury room, and unjustly convict on the lesser negotiate with each other until a offense instead of forth righting acquitting,” compromise is made because they are (Larsen 1575). Since jury deliberations are motivated to make a deal (Larsen 1582). mostly in secret, it is unknown how deals

https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur/vol18/iss1/7 4 Pietrantoni: Jury Deliberation

But do compromise verdicts compromise hung juries, because someone has to change justice? Juries are not designed to produce their opinion. Mock trials even suggest an negotiators. Jurors are ignorant of asymmetrical bias, that those who share the consequences of the deal they make, but minority opinion arguing for acquittal have they are also not part of any interested party. an easier time convincing others to find a Deals made with ignorance result in bad defendant not guilty than those convincing bargains, thus ending in injustice and minorities of guilt (Water and Hans 516). In inconsistency. At least in plea bargains, a their study, “A Jury of One,” Waters and defendant's lawyer is present. Compromises Hans asked when jurors started leaning may lead to a compromise in reasonable toward a specific side (Waters and Hans doubt standard, which results in the 521). The findings indicate 40% leaned problems of mercy and innocence (Larsen toward conviction after prosecution's 1606). Mercy problems result when the evidence and only 15% leaned toward defendant is guilty and the jury gives them a acquittal after defense’s evidence. During light sentence. The innocence problem jury deliberation 15% were for acquittal, results when an innocent person is charged. 21% wanted to convict, and 24% leaned But compromises are not mistakes and are toward a hung jury. Waters and Hans not illegitimate, because they can be the determined 62% of jurors changed their result of rigorous deliberation and therefore minds at least once. 38% of juries have have the potential to be just. Jurors create dissenters of one person who was at odds deals because it is a natural course of group with the final verdict (Waters and Hans decision making. Compromises in the jury 522). 28% of holdouts in jury deliberation room are not unjust because they reflect a change their mind (Waters and Hans 525). give and a take. A defendant may not be Dissenting jurors are skeptical that all the completely guilty of a crime but guilty of evidence is shown, they perceive the something; thus by determining between prosecution as less skillful, and had less guilty and not guilty, jurors compromise. satisfaction with deliberation. Dissenters This is almost a quasi-form of nullification, often reported dissatisfaction when there because jurors ignore their duty to apply the were only a few people dominating law in a way that is justice to the discussion (Waters and Hans 528). community. But compromises are not Dissenters are more likely on juries who cast always the result of deals. Compromises an early vote. Dissenters often believe the may result in battering and bullying small evidence is hard to understand, and that the factions of dissenters into submission, which consequences did not apply to the defendant results in the innocence or mercy problems. fairly. Ethnic backgrounds and education levels do not predict dissent, except when it Since deals are made through negotiation, comes to Hispanic jurors or victims (Water some jurors have to change their minds in and Hans 531). order to come to a consensus. The cynical viewpoint of juries suggests jurors make up In the ABC special, In the Jury Room, the ​ ​ their minds after opening statements. This case Colorado vs. Lauren Trujillo evoked ​ ​ may form the conclusion deliberation is intense emotions. Lauren Trujillo was useless and the result is predetermined. charged with potentially abusing her However, statistics prove this is not true daughter to the point of death or reckless because there would be more than 6% of behavior leading to her daughter's death.

Published by Fisher Digital Publications, 2017 5 The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research, Vol. 18 [2017], Art. 7

Throughout the trial the jury was crying. because the jury agreed the mother had to be They were shown autopsy pictures of the held responsible for something. This jury two year old’s body. The child died of was dramatically influenced by their severe skull trauma and all of the victim’s emotions created by the emotion-evoking organs were ripped and torn. The medical images and demonstrations of the abuse examiner also took a teddy bear and inflicted on the victim. demonstrated the amount of impact it would In the case of Arizona vs. Wendy Sue take for the daughter to sustain such a head ​ Anderson, another ABC special episode of injury. The noise created by the ​ In the Jury Room, the jury demonstrated the demonstration echoed throughout the room ​ effects of the tendency to conform due to and made people cringe. The photos and peer pressure and the effects of emotion. demonstrations caused the jury to be angry Anderson was on trial for drinking and and cast their blame, which was focused on driving, actions which ended the life of a the mother during deliberations. However, young boy and permanently damaged his the jury also had sympathy for the mother, father. The victims were recklessly driving a who slept during the abuse of her daughter. motorcycle at the time of the accident. The The mother took painkillers for pain of majority opinion in the deliberation room injuries and paralyzation caused by a after the trial was that the woman was shooting. The mother was also in an abusive reckless because of blood alcohol content. relationship. The mother’s boyfriend The prosecution had demonstrated the admitted to abusing the child and took the woman’s BAC with a sign; .244 was written plea bargain to testify against the mother. A in bright red in large font. While there were psychologist testified the mother suffered inconsistencies in regards to the facts of from battered women’s syndrome because case, the majority of jurors did not care she only knew abuse. She had been raped because the woman drove drunk; thus the and sought a relationship with an abusive sign had remained with the jurors man due to the syndrome. During throughout the trial. Among the jury there deliberation the jury could not imagine the was an architect, engineer, teacher, mother had no knowledge to the extent of construction supervisor, retiree, technical the abuse because her daughter had broken editor, and a cafeteria worker. The architect ribs; however they jury decided she was not took on the position of foreman, which abusive toward her daughter. Half of the demonstrated how a person with higher jury believed her to be reckless because she levels of education is more likely to take on kept her child in an abusive environment. a leadership role on a jury. But the The jury decided to “make concessions” occupations also show an inequality among when split on what to charge Trujillo, jurors and how this may cause instability. because the jurors had different viewpoints The dissenter of the jury, Rhonda, was a and would never agree. This is an example cafeteria worker. Rhonda is an example of of deal making and instability due to the stereotype of a dissenter. She is ideological differences. The jury Hispanic, a blue collar worker, believed the compromised on the lightest charge of cops and system did not do an adequate job, recklessness, which was a misdemeanor of and was unsure about the evidence. But the two years in jail, but the jury did not know rest of the jury believed otherwise and due this. The deal the jury negotiated is an to being the lone dissenter and not having a example of an “accountability” deal,

https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur/vol18/iss1/7 6 Pietrantoni: Jury Deliberation

faction to support her, Rhonda caved and and the motivation of discussion. While voted guilty, even though she did not want juries do deliberate rigorously and promote to. egalitarian and democratic values, they also compromise. Juries compromise because The juries of the ABC special, In the Jury ​ compromises are natural within group Room, deliberated rigorously, compromised, ​ discussion and due to the unanimity negotiated, and carried out the requirement. Compromises are not unjust characteristics and stereotypes of jurors but there is a difference between according to the studies “Do Juries compromises and bad bargaining. Deliberate,” “How Emotions Affect the Compromises may reflect a Trial Process,” and “A Jury of One”. While quasi-nullification if the option of charges this ABC special allowed insight into the do not apply well to the defendant. But this jury room, the six cases shown are not may also be the result of needing to hold indicative of cases across the country. someone accountable. Bad bargains are Furthermore, ABC edited the footage of the unjust because they are not the result of trial and deliberation, and therefore viewers egalitarian discussion, because majority did not receive the entire picture. But In the ​ factions take over and bully dissenters either Jury Room in tandem with academic studies ​ into a hung jury or most likely towards on juries provides greater insight on how majority opinion. Overall, juries complete juries deliberate. Deliberation is dependent their duties effectively through rigorous on individual juror characteristics, deliberation. emotion-invoking evidence from the trial,

References

Gastil, J., S. Burkhalter, and L. W. Black. "Do Juries Deliberate? A Study of Deliberation, Individual Difference, and Group Member Satisfaction at a Municipal Courthouse." Small Group Research 38.3 (2007): 337-59. Web. ​ ​ Larsen, Allison. "Bargaining Inside the Black Box." The Georgetown Law Journal 99 (2011): 1568-612. Web. 12 ​ ​ Apr. 2016.

Miller, Monica, Eddie Greene, Hannah Dietrich, Jared Chamberlain, and Julia Singer. "How Emotion Affects the Trial Process." Judicature 92.2 (2008): 56-64. HeinOnline. Web. 12 Apr. 2016. ​ ​ ​ ​ Waters, Nicole L., and Valerie P. Hans. "A Jury of One: Opinion Formation, Conformity, and Dissent on Juries." SSRN Electronic Journal SSRN Journal. Web. ​

Published by Fisher Digital Publications, 2017 7