The Effects Of Jurors ' Consulting The Internet And Social Media

Media publishes both positive and negative aspects regarding a criminal case, and with Milats’ case, the media focused highly on negative publicity. As Ruva, Geunther and Yarbrough had found that both positive and negative media realises can influence the jury in different ways, it provided an understanding into the different types of media representation surrounding a case. The different types of media representation will influence ones memory, and pre-trial publicity can cause errors in judgement or confusion surrounding the case. Ruva and McEvoy (2008) explored how positive and negative publicity for the trail can affect the memory and decisions making of the jurors. Again, discussions surrounding how pre-trail publicity does effect the decision making of the juror were shown through the results of the study. Ruva and McEvoy had found that negative pre-trail publicity “had nearly twice the convictions rates as did non-exposed jurors” (2008, p. 7), whereas, positive pre-tail publicity gave jurors a biased decision and these jurors were more likely to have found the defendant not guilty, and also, more likely to sympathise with the defendant. Ruva and McEvoy argued that the negative pre-trial publicity should be used to influence the jury’s decision, as it gives the defendant more questions to respond to and can truly test the defendants’ credibility. In the end, the jurors decisions when exposed to pre-trail publicity, comes down to what information is stored in the

For a more adverse effect, the trail of Casey Anthony is a good example of how the media impacted the Criminal Justice System. Lawyer Nicholas Battaglia proposed a new term, “trail by media,” in his article for the Albany Law Review. Essentially, Battaglia proposed that the media had an adverse effect on the Casey Anthony trial by questioning certain finding of the defense, live on T.V., which swayed public opinion. Therefore, when the jury exonerated her, the public was in an outcry because they had come up with their own conclusions, or as Battaglia put it, “In a sense, this crated a “wrongful exoneration” of the defendant because the “armchair jury” had convicted her when the actual jury acquitted” (Battaglia, 2012) A perspective that I had previously not considered was the potential bias that media can represent as a result of either personal or occupational

The current jury system is based on an almost millennium-old principle found in the Magna Carta (1215). As a result of changes in society since, the system must be seen as potentially outdated. In other words, it may not satisfy the needs of modern society, judged by what the major stakeholders of the criminal justice system expect. Indeed, there are substantial flaws in current jury systems in terms of effectiveness. The two major concerns with jury systems are their representativeness and their levels of competence. The representativeness of juries is essential as their reason for existing is to represent the views of society. Having twelve jurors could be understood to ensure representativeness and eliminate room for bias. However, this does not remove the possibility of juries being biased towards parties. Even if the potential jurors contacted are representative in terms of gender, ethnicity, age and socioeconomic status and though jury duty is a compulsory engagement, 90% of Queenslanders opt out of it. This makes it very likely that juries will not be representative. One example is ethnic diversity. There is likely to be less ethnic diversity in courts because ethnic minorities might not have sufficient language ability or access to interpreters to be jurors. Another example is age. It is likely that retired people

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.

Juries exists in the criminal trial to listen to the case presented to them and, as a third, non-bias party, decide beyond reasonable doubt if the accused is guilty. For the use of a trial by juror to be effective, no bias should exists in the jurors judgments, the jurors should understand clearly their role and key legal terms, and the jury system should represent the communities standards and views whilst upholding the rights of the accused and society and remain cost and time effective.

In the 2013 case, R v Gittany, the accused, Simon Gittany, requested for a judge-only trial. This was due to the complexity of his murder case and the media coverage which Gittany believed would have influenced the jury’s perspectives and outcome. The complexities and intricacies of a trial that took barristers and solicitors years of expertise to understand and interpret cannot be expected to be completely understood from a group of twelve members from the public. This can be seen in a recent 2013 report from the Sydney Morning Herald, ‘Jurors Need More Direction’ where the NSW Law Reform Commission (LRC) found that the directions given to juries from judges ‘are not working, overly complex and need to be clearer’. However, their imperfections aren’t enough to have them off the trial process as juries allow the public to be involved in the judicial system. Public participation in the criminal trial process creates more confidence in the legal system. Juries are the most democratic aspect of the criminal trial process and are a crucial aspect in representing the interests and needs of the community.

In the Canadian Charters of Rights and Freedoms (1982) under section 11, it is stated that a person that has been charged with a criminal offence, has the right to a trial by jury. For many years jury trials have been under constant criticism in regards to the jury’s inability to adequately perform the responsibilities entrusted to them. Many studies have been performed looking into the jury selection process, jury bias, pre-trial publicity exposure and attitudes/personality of a juror, in order to increase the jury’s abilities to perform their responsibilities to present a fair trial. In the case People v. Weatherton (2014), the inappropriate behaviour of a jury member lead to a legal dispute regarding the final verdict. This behaviour lead to a lengthy investigation with the final decision, made by the Supreme Court of California, to reverse the guilty verdict. As a member of the jury, it is important to understand the responsibilities one must uphold while deciding whether a person is guilty or not guilty.

“The Jury Selection Process” is a research paper that reviews the jury selection process in detail. First we will review the stages of the criminal trail and go in depth with the jury selection process. The paper will demonstrate why the jury selection process is necessary for the United States as well as its patrons. The paper will also provide a break down of advantages and disadvantages on the jury selection process. In addition to the information listed above, we will review some large profile court cases and its jury selection process. This will determine just how detailed and challenging the process can prove to

In addition, it is imperative for the judge not to give the jury any improper advice that might affect their verdict. Any advice given by the judge to the jury must not be given privately (Law Teacher, 2016). In order to maintain the integrity of the civil jury system, the problem of judicial influence must be

Even though a little more of felony convictions are handled by juries, some attorneys perspectives encourage a trial by jury, arguments can be made in favor for jury trials that reinforce the risk for a negative outcome is low. Jury trial practices have evolved depending on the state, some states permit “jurors to take notes) (308) “Other practices, such as providing at least one written copy of instruction and providing guidance on conducting deliberations, are also common in state courts.”(308-309. To minimize the risk of bias interpretation of judgment upon the alleged crime, attorneys try to play toward the juror’s conscience. If they are fully aware of what their findings mean to the defendant and they do not consider all facts by the

Jury duty is lampooned frequently in the popular culture as being a dreadfully boring waste of time and energy that keeps us all away from the more important things in life such as family, work, and getting drunk. Indeed, most of the time, juries see cases that are often dull and certain. Unfortunately, not all cases can be high profile, riveting murder cases that Nancy Grace can shrill on and on about for months on end. Perhaps worst of all, it is something that we are forced to do, and Americans tend to not like being forced to do things. However, there is no better way to grant impartiality to criminal procedures than the jury system. The jury system allows us, the average American, to have our say in the criminal justice process in perhaps the most important role: we can determine whether or not a person is guilty of a crime and we can do so uninhibited by our own personal biases, the biases of judges, and the biases of the federal government.

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 88 Issue 1 Fall Article 8 Fall 1997 Populism, Free Speech, and the Rule of Law: The Fully Informed Jury Movement and its Implications Erick J. Haynie

This essay will be looking at the advantages and disadvantages of the jury trial. Jury trial is a legal proceeding where a jury makes a decision, which then direct the actions of a judge. The members of a jury are a group of independent citizens. They have no interest in the case before them, nor is their judgment coloured by regular experience of the business of the court. They are “twelve individuals, often with no prior contact with the courts, who are chosen at random to listen to evidence and decide upon matters affecting the reputation and liberty of those charged with criminal offences.” The jury has always been drawn from sections of society but has been made democratic only in the last half century. And now almost all citizen of the United Kingdom are eligible to serve on a jury. But the percentage of criminal cases actually tried by jury is surprisingly low. Nowadays “the magistrates’ courts deal with at least 95 per cent of criminal cases. In practice juries determine the outcome of less than 1 per cent of the total of the criminal cases.” But still the idea of trial by jury has always been seen as a “cornerstone of the English legal system” , and it remains the standard mode of trial for dealing with the most serious types of criminal case. But even though it is established and been in practice for years, people seem to believe that there are disadvantages to jury trails. Nonetheless, the jury system is becoming increasingly controversial. Critics claim that

The right to a trial by jury is a core element of the United States Criminal Justice System. This right is guaranteed to all citizens by the highest law of the land: The United States Constitution. But are juries truly an effective means of securing justice? The movie 12 Angry Men provides commentary on this question with its portrayal of twelve jurors deliberating over a murder case. The jury initially seems bound to condemn the defendant, a young man of nineteen years, to the electric chair, but a single man, Juror no. 8 descents against the majority. Over the course of the film, tensions rise, and after much debate Juror no. 8 manages to convince the other eleven jurors to eventually vote not guilty. Through their debates and casual side conversations, we are shown the role of personal biases and group manipulation tactics that can impede with objective analysis and ultimately the attainment of justice. Thus, the Movie 12 Angry Men mostly serves to challenge the jury system as a means of securing justice by demonstrating the harmful effects of personal biases, the lack of dedication to the system, and the potential for manipulative tactics.

Distinction of roles between judges and juries is a further fundamental difference between the adversarial and inquisitorial systems. In an adversarial system, there is a division of work between a judge and jury. The role of the judge is to adjudicate the issue of law and to ensure that the trial proceeds comply with the procedural and substantial laws, while the role of the jury is to adjudicate the issue of facts as served by the opposing parties based on the law given by judges. Generally, a judge will not interfere in jury’s decision making, but this approach varies subject to matters being decided in the criminal or civil cases. In civil cases, a judge has a power to set aside a decision taken by jury if such decision was not made in accordance with the applicable law. However, in criminal cases a judge does not