Jury Decision Making Case Analysis

For this essay I asked my Grandma Diane questions about jury duty. She has never served on a jury but she has been summonsed to questioning to possibly be on one. When she got the summons letter she wasn’t excited, “ I didn’t want to do it, because I didn’t feel that I [had] the right to judge anyone else,” and didn’t really want to go. She got asked questions like, “Could you be impartial? Could you be fair? If “this” happened would you say that the person is guilty? Are you related to the person/persons involved? Have you heard anything about the case?,” the attorneys asked these questions because they wanted to make sure they had a jury that would make an unbiased decision in the court case. My grandma said that, “It made [her] respect what

During jury selection, potential jurors are interviewed then chosen or eliminated from the jury. The initial selection of potential jurors is completely random; citizens get “jury Duty” notices on a random basis. The screening of the jury selection is conducted by both the prosecution and the defense, and is overviewed by the judge on the case. During the interview, citizens are asked a number of strategic questions to ensure that they are not in any way bias for or against the defendant or case. The questions also eliminate those who have any connection to the case, in any way. It is during this interview that the lawyers on the case can voice their concerns regarding biased jurors.

The jury selection process is a significant portion of the trial process. Jury selection ensures that courts maintain proper Due Process and comply with constitutional guidelines. Furthermore, it gives lawyers the ability to evaluate the people in the jury and determine how they would feel about the case. The trial process branches out into six steps: jury selection, opening statements, presentation of evidence, closing arguments, charging of the jury and deliberation of jury. Throughout the process of jury selection, potential jury is based on a process names an voir dire; otherwise known as committing to telling the truth. During voir dire, potential jurors are included in

A jury 's decision can be invalidated if it can be shown that a juror was biased. For this reason, a juror is not allowed to communicate with friends, relatives or members of the media about the trial. Such action would be a violation of the 7th Amendment.

Trial by jury is not a new concept; it has been around since ancient times. The United States’ Founding Fathers embedded the right to trial by jury in the U.S. Constitution because King George III often denied them of the benefits of trial by jury (Shepard, 2005). Juries are needed to defend against absolute government, but juries are not entirely fair. For something around so long, the concept of a justice system based in adversarial processes still may be flawed. Jurors may possess implicit biases, which alter their judgments. Elek and Hannaford-Agor (2013) define implicit bias as, “an individual’s unconscious attitudes [that] introduce unjustified assumptions about other people and related evidence that can distort a person’s judgment

The critical analysis of the jury decision was done with great reach done by Jakes crew. Jake descripts what we learned in class on how to select the jury and how to a trail begins and ends. They also talked about using expert witnesses to the stand like the psychiatrist for both sides which we talked about in class. We also learned in class that the public opinion has a strong connection to the cases with a lot of public pressure and how to deal with it.

In regards to this weeks discussion forum, I can understand why there may be a situation in which a prosecutor may destroy evidence of a defendant's guilt, but I do not feel it is acceptable in any situation that may occur. I would presume there have been cases; such as self defense, where the defendant may be in trial for manslaughter even though they were legitimately defending themselves. Given the nature of the situation, coupled with certain emotional feelings or biases the prosecutor may have towards the defendant, I could see where this type of action may occur. The moral lapse of judgment, coupled with the knowledge that prosecutors have immunity from civil liability from procedural functions may as well impact their decision making

I believe our present jury system is satisfactory the way it is and should not be altered in any way. Legal personnel already know when the laws are updated, so making a change would not do anything but cause confusion among the public (Terrill, 2016). If the United States has been abiding the United States Constitution since the mid 1700’s, there is no need to alter it now (Hans & Vidmar, n.d.). As stated by Hans & Vidmar (n.d.), “The Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the U.S. Constitution guarantee the right to a jury for all criminal cases and in all civil suits exceeding twenty dollars” (para. 1). The jury has a panel of peers who are chosen from the community to serve on jury duty. These prospective jurors come from a list of registered

The system has the advantage of having citizens become triers of the fact. They are not agents of the government so jurors have less bias then the judges. Additionally, the jury system lets citizens be involved in the their justice system. However, the jury system has the disadvantage of having citizens become triers of the fact even though many do not understand the law or the legal process. Some cases can also be very traumatic for jurors, who lack exposure to violent crime pictures or evidence. (Siegel, Schmalleger, and Worrall, 2017, p. 368). Furthermore, juries may still act on their personal biases, especially when the evidence presented are too vague for them to render verdicts (Siegel, Schmalleger, and Worrall, 2017, p. 365). We have

Koehler et al. were attempting to discover how jurors with no expertise in the areas of laws and science (a.k.a 'lay jurors') are influenced by expert testimonies by forensic science experts through two experiments.

This can alter the impact of evidence or testimony and the juror cannot make an informed decision. The jury is not familiar with the law which can lead to confusion about different legal terms, what evidence is considered circumstantial and how to exclude that from their decision after seeing it in court. A jury comprised of the general public are also much more open to being influenced by how a lawyer presents their case and not by evidence. Since the jury does not have any knowledge of forensics they can be influenced by expert witnesses put on the stand by both the defense and the prosecution which are completely contradictory.

In making a reasonable criminal trial, the main thing amongst the most critical act is having a fair jury. Jurors have the immense obligation to decide if the blamed individual, or defendant, is innocent or not of any wrongdoing. Jurors must be reasonable and be free of favoritism. A member of the jury that display unfairness may cause an unjust trial for the accused. “Challenge for cause is when an attorney believes that a juror cannot be fair and impartial; and peremptory challenge is an automatic elimination of a potential juror by one side before trial without needing to state a reason for the elimination” (Hall, 2016, p 573). In choosing a jury, the lawyers for both sides and the law enforcement side that is accusing him of a wrongdoing,

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, throughout the past weeks you have heard two different sides of a story. A story in which a six-year-old boy, who had trusted and worshiped his older brother for his entire life was left behind by the very person who should have protected him. Although you have already heard both sides of the story I want you to take a minute and truly think of the horrors that this little boy has had to go through in his short life. A boy who was born an invalid, and a boy who never had the childhood that he deserved. Doodle only ever saw the good side of everyone he met, even including the scarlet ibis, a bird that he took the time to bury because no one else would. Brother taught Doodle to walk, simply because he was

The Judge's decision was that cops are allowed to go through you phone with passcode if you are a suspected criminal. The judge based his decision on that the passcodes is not a violation it's something they need to fix and finish the case. The Judge gave an example but my similar example is giving the code to stop a bomb from exploding. That's how the judge based his decision off.

THREE: When it comes to jurors passing judgment based on the appearance of the defendant, jurors that share common physical characteristics with defendants tend to be lenient towards that defendant. There can be positive biases in female jurors towards attractive male defendants but that isn't the case with males judging other males or females.