The Jurors On Disregard Inadmissible Evidence

As a result, many jurors overlook the fact that the old man could only have “assumed” it was the boy; likewise the woman could not have seen the boy clearly. At first, they believe that the “eye-witnesses” must be automatically telling the “truth” or relaying “facts”. They trust the “circumstantial evidence” presented by the prosecution’s case because it confirms their bigoted attitudes. They are shocked at the 8th juror’s s suggestion, “supposing they are wrong”. The most bigoted jurors (3rd and 10th) are the last to concede defeat because of their deeply held

In the article " Trial Lawyers Cater to Jurors' Demands for Visual Evidence" by Sylvia Hsiech, visual evidence can be used very effectively to reach jurors in courtrooms cases, but such evidence must adhere to the rules of evidence and should not be overdone. According to the author, There is a high demand for lawyers to use sound bite-like presentation and hiring visual artists to illustrate piles of documents and basically bringing them to life. For example hiring an visual artist you can keep the jurors entertained and present it visual so they can see and understand it. In the article, the author talks about Brain Carney because according to him every case can be visual. For instance whether you think your case can't be transfer into a

Almost half the jurors expect to see some scientific evidence is astonishing. Breaking the survey down, by the type of crime, and the kind of evidence jurors wait to see is extraordinary. In murder cases over 70 percent of jurors expect some scientific evidence; whereas, in rape cases over 70 percent of the jurors expect some scientific evidence and DNA (Shelton, 2008). In burglary cases, over 70 percent of jurors wait for fingerprint evidence, cases involving firearms over 75 percent of jurors expect ballistics and over 65 percent of jurors wait to see fingerprint evidence (Shelton, 2008). Just looking at these percentage, any prosecutor or law enforcement officer would agree these numbers show the expectations of our citizens.

In chapter 8 of Adam Benforado Unfair, Benforado explains how a judge’s mind can be effected from a bias perspective. There are two types of judge’s, an umpire judge who calls cases as they are through his little black book of rules, and a regular judge who bases their cases off of personal experiences and have clouded minds making mistakes that those who work in the Supreme Court do not notice. If data had been collected from jury trials, hidden biases would have been uncovered sooner but not that biases are visible in our court system, changes need to be made. Benforado makes it clear that questions arise for judges such as how does one know for sure where bail should be set, whether a photograph of the defendant is unfairly prejudicial,

When thinking of a jury, there is a belief that everyone is fair when it comes to making the decision of whether the person being accused of the crime is guilty or not guilty because of the person’s race. What if this belief is not necessarily correct? There have been many instances in whether race has been a factor when the jury makes a decision. According to Baskin, Goldstein, and Sommers (2014), there has been enough evidence to show that racial biases influences the decisions of a jury. In this paper, the articles will show how jury decision-making is influenced by the offender’s race.

With jury bias we examined that the perspective taking, victim impact statements and race of the victim had no main effects with ps > 0.26 and no significant interactions either with ps > 0.64.

Questions concerning pretrial exposure center on the tension between two guaranteed rights in the United States, the First Amendment and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. The First Amendment allows the press to print, while the Sixth Amendment promises a speedy and public trial, that an unbiased and impartial panel directs. When the press exposes a current investigation, including prior convictions, or admissions, a panel, or select representatives on a panel, would be exposed. In Ruva & Guenther’s (2017) experiment, researchers examined how a panel’s memories, evidence interpretations, perceptions and guilt decisions varied when pretrial exposure was present. It was determined that representatives on a panel who were exposed would pass their bias onto other representatives not exposed prior. Given the strong constitutional protections that the press possesses, courts need to manage chances where pretrial exposure is present.

Jury nullification is when a jury returns a not guilty verdict, even when they believe that a defendant is guilty of the charge for which they are being prosecuted (Hall, 2015). A defendant can argue that the jury disregarded the law if the law is viewed as harsh or unfavorable (Hall, 2015). A prosecutor, nor a judge, may ask a jury to nullify. A jury can only be instructed to consider nullification by the defense (Hall, 2015). In the case of United States v. Dougherty (1972), nine people, including Dougherty, broke into a chemical company, damaging property as a way to protest the company’s support of the Vietnam War (United States v. Dougherty, n.d.).

He is polite and makes a point of speaking with proper English grammar. He is the fourth to ultimately vote not guilty

In a court room you have a judge, lawyers, a defendant, a plaintiff, a witnesses, an audience, and a group of twelve people who decide the defendant 's fate—the jury. The lawyers and witnesses main jobs are to convince the jury that the defendant or the plaintiff deserves justice. This is exactly what Emma Goldman does in her speech "Address to the Jury" delivered in 1917. Goldman is trying to defend herself and her co-defendant, Alexander Berkman, that they were not doing non-conscription activities. At this time period a non-conscription activity is someone hiding from being drafted. In Goldman 's "Address to the Jury" she uses repetition, anecdotes, and dramatic pauses to prove to the jury that the defendant and herself are not guilty.

will become clear in the interview video. It was then time for Jorge’s attorneys to go before the jury, and he stood when the prosecutor took her seat.

It is critical to understand why eyewitness testimony has such a great impact upon jurors’ choice of guilt because many innocent people have gone to jail due to eyewitness testimony. It is speculated that male and female jury members weigh guilt differently. This study hypothesizes there will be a measured difference between the independent factors, gender and type of eyewitness and the dependent variable, level of guilt. In this experiment the eyewitness type is: ‘no eyewitness,’ ‘unrefuted eyewitness,’ or ‘discredited eyewitness.’ The controlled condition is the level of guilt assigned by the participant after hearing details of a crime. The results supported the hypothesis. There were significant differences between the gender and eyewitness types when assigning levels of guilt. Female participants rated higher levels of guilt overall while both genders rated higher levels of guilt to the unrefuted eyewitness group over the other eyewitness types, which shown similar measures.

Likewise, the Sec. 4.19 of the Illinois Criminal Jury Instructions defines the standard thus: “The phrase ‘clear and convincing evidence’ means that degree of proof which, considering all the evidence in the case, produces the firm and abiding belief that it is highly probable that the proposition on which the defendant has the burden of proof is true.” (Emphasis supplied). Hawaii uses essentially the same language under its Instruction No. 3.6 of its Standard Civil Jury Instructions: “To ‘prove by clear and convincing evidence’ means to prove by evidence which, in your opinion, produces a firm belief about the truth of the allegations which the parties have presented. It means to prove that the existence of a fact is highly probable.” (Emphasis

In addition to this concept, Juror #10 shows that past experiences and person bias influence the thoughts and opinions of a person. Juror 10 segregates and divides people stereotypically into “us” being him and the middle class and with “them” being the people of the slums, a different race, or a different upbringing. As a result of these thoughts, Juror 10 was bias towards the young Puerto Rican man on trial because the young man was born in the slums, had a difficult childhood, and a troubled past. Since the boy was Puerto Rican, a different race from Juror 10, Juror 10 consistently antagonizes the boy because it fits his description of “them”. “Look these people are drinking and fighting all the time, and if somebody gets killed…they’re

1144); implying, it is imperative that individuals working within the legal system become aware of this theory to ensure that they are developing their case based on the individuals motivations rather than allowing their own biases (both implicit and explicit) to cloud their judgment. Blasi and Jost (2006) warns that ignoring SJT “may lead to serious errors in predicting attitudes and behaviors, both in a developing legal regimes intended to constrain behavior and in shaping arguments and policy interventions” (p. 1145); consequently, SJT can have a large impact on the legal system more than one might believe. SJT can assist in an array of different legal aspects for example, juror selection. One may take into account their clients group status to determine if either lower or higher group members may appeal to their client. According to Blasi and Jost (2006), another aspect that may need to be taken into account would be how a lawyer frames a particular incident. Given that a juror may unconsciously perceive the defendant through a victim derogation or victim enhancement lens, a defense attorney may have to adjust their case to frame the circumstances in a way that will favor the client to promote less bias and more just legal proceedings. Bearing in mind these simple applications can assist in reducing the effect of SJT on the criminal justice