The Jury

Forensic Psychology – Juries

In this course, Dr Cody Porter (University of the West of England) explores juries. In the first lecture, we think about what the jury is and who is able to be a juror. In the second lecture, we think about race and gender biases in jury decision making, with a series of research examples. In the third lecture, we think about the impacts of media exposure, emotional expressions by individuals during the case, as well as the attractiveness of witnesses and defendants, on jury decision making. Next, we think about the role of an expert witness in a court case and their impact on jury decision making. In the fifth lecture, we think about eye witness testimony and how it can contribute to the unreliability of jury decision making. In the sixth lecture, we think about the use of mock jury research, including some key criticisms of its common practices. In the seventh and final lecture, we review what has been discussed throughout this course and consider whether it means that juries should be abolished.

The Jury

In this lecture, we think about the jury, focusing in particular on: (i) Bornstein and Greene’s 2011 definition of juries as being made up of twelve ordinary citizens with no legal training who must hear evidence, make sense of conflicting facts and reach a verdict; (ii) some key restrictions for jury eligibility in the UK, including age and location of residence; (iii) the fact that individuals are not eligible for jury duty if they lack capacity to give fully informed consent to do so; (iv) Kassin and Wrightman’s criticism of the blaming of juries for their poor decision making; (v) Eisenberg and colleagues’ 2005 research, which found that judges agree with jury verdicts 75-80% of the time; (vi) the tasks that a jury must perform, involving understanding a judge’s instructions, deciding which information to trust and reaching a unanimous verdict; (vii) breaking down the elements and challenges of listening to and following the directions of a judge (viii) Judge Jerome Frank’s scathing review of the usefulness of a jury; (ix) Findlay’s 2008 report, which stated that many jurors failed to properly understand DNA profiling evidence; (x) the Innocence Project, which supports people in overturning wrongful convictions; (xi) the Innocence Project’s findings that misleading and false forensic evidence was a factor in 24% of wrongful convictions nationally; (xii) the verdict and evidence driven approaches that juries can take when reaching a verdict; (xiii) jury susceptibility to incorrect beliefs, including their views on the effectiveness of interrogation techniques.