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]. <https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur/vol18/iss1/7>. 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