What Factors Influence Jury Decision Making?

The 1957 film version of 12 Angry Men depicts the nature of a small group setting. Within this film, we can see the group as a system, the development of group climate, and the different roles portrayed in a group. Eleven out of the twelve jurors voted the boy on trial guilty when they were initially asked their vote. Later throughout the movie, the group went into detail on the trail, thanks to Juror 8, and eventually changed their vote. If it weren't for the call for communication on the topic, the boy who was being tried would have been sentenced to death.

In the movie 12 Angry Men, the jurors are set in a hot jury room while they are trying to determine the verdict of a young man who is accused of committing a murder. The jurors all explain why they think the accused is guilty or not guilty. Throughout the movie they are debating back and forth and the reader begins to realize that even though the jurors should try to not let bias cloud their judgement, the majority of the jurors are blinded by bias. The viewer can also see that the jurors have their own distinguishable personalities. Their personalities intertwine with each other to demonstrate how the jury system is flawed, but that is what makes it work.

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 placed in a group with different personalities, you have to find a way to work and communicate effectively as a team; of course you’ll find yourself stuck at times because of certain barriers such as the lack of communication between members. However, group members have to find the ability to work together as a team. In the film “12 Angry Men,” we see a group of jurors who have to decide whether the defendant has committed the crime or is presumed innocent throughout a capital murder trial. As the audience, we witness how challenging it was for the jury to deliberate on a verdict and come to a true consensus because of the different personality role, and negotiation strategies. Specifically, I found six jurors

Since the jury is a group of twelve people, it is safe to assume that they will come from different backgrounds, educational levels, religions, and ethnic groups. This does not mean that all diverse groups will be represented, but it is enough to offer diverse perspectives. This variety helps to eliminate any undue prejudice or bias that could be present in either a small group or single individual. Because these people have no association with anyone involved in the trial, they have no personal or financial reason to be biased. They will not be personally impacted by the outcome of the trials. This should result in an unbiased decision by the jury. A positive side effect of the jury system is that it affords the jurors a basic knowledge and education of the judicial system. Other than voting, it is the jury system that provides the most citizens an opportunity to be involved in government. Although we can learn about the judicial process in books, the experience of being a part of the system by participating on a jury is a more meaningful way of understanding the

In the United States criminal justice system, people are considered innocent until proven guilty. It is the job of the prosecution to “overcome the defendant’s presumption of innocence.” (Storm, 2012, p. 75) This is also referred to as the burden of proof (or proof beyond a reasonable doubt) in a criminal prosecution. Specifically, it means “the obligation to prove a disputed charge, allegation, or defense.” (Storm, 2012, p. 74) Two components of the burden of proof are the burden of production (presenting evidence to the judge or jury) and the burden of persuasion (convincing the judge or jury). (Storm, 2012, p. 75) Proof beyond reasonable doubt “is determined by examining the quality and quantity of the evidence presented.”

The history in England and Europe was of people being sentenced to lengthy prison terms, tortured or even killed in secret trials. If you were accused in this situation, you often had no chance to defend yourself and the charges were often trumped up to eliminate political and religious dissent. By requiring a jury to be involved in a trial, serious and sometimes fatal decisions are taken out of the hands of one or a few judges, and are put into the hands of a group of average citizens who look over the evidence. This greatly reduces the possibility of corruption in the trial. For many years, all juries in America had twelve people, which is how juries were conducted during the time the Constitution was written. Eventually, though, the Supreme Court reduced the allowable size of juries in state trials down to a minimum of six. Federal trials must still have twelve jurors. The Court also removed the requirement that juries be unanimous in their decisions in state courts. Instead, 10-2 or 9-3 verdicts are now accepted. Federal court juries, however, must be unanimous.

A bench trial, the judge only hears the facts, evidence, and if the defendant looks like they did it. One juror could save a defendant's life because in 12 Angry Men it stated, “There were eleven votes for guilty. It’s not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.” Juror number eight has a point in a jury trial. It is not easy to vote for guilty. He had a reasonable doubt to vote not guilty. “I don’t know” it stated in 12 Angry Men. Juror number 8 just wanted to talk about the situation. This is a reason why a jury trial is more preferable a judge wouldn’t hesitate and give the defendant life in imprisonment. With all the evidence given a judge would have had a final verdict by now. One man stood up and helped the defendant to find him not guilty. This could happen anywhere in a jury trial. If anything jurors could change their vote to not guilty to guilty or the other way around. In a jury trial the jurors could change their vote. “ FOREMAN. I vote guilty. Number two?TWO. Not guilty. FOREMAN. Number Three?THREE. Guilty. FOREMAN. Number Four?FOUR. Guilty.FOREMAN. Number Five? FIVE. Not guilty. FOREMAN. Number Six? SIX. Not guilty. FOREMAN. Number Seven? SEVEN. Guilty.FOREMAN. Number Eight?EIGHT. Not guilty.FOREMAN. Number Nine?NINE. Not guilty. FOREMAN. Number Ten?TEN. Guilty .FOREMAN. Number Eleven? ELEVEN. Not guilty. FOREMAN. Number Twelve? TWELVE. Guilty. FOUR. Six to six.” They all voted not guilty it was all tied up.

Another example that we could review with a rigorous jury selection process would be the Michael Jackson case in 2011. The defendant in the case was Dr. Conrad Murray. Dr. Murray was accused and convicted for manslaughter because he gave Michael Jackson a powerful anesthetic and abandoned him. The pool of perspective jurors started with 145 people (Duke, 2011). With the prosecution and defense using their peremptory challenges, they narrow the juror list down to 84 potential jurors (Duke, 2011). In order to further investigate, each candidate had to fill out a questionnaire that contained 113 different questions (Duke, 2011). The prosecution and defense had a week in order to review the questions from each juror. Each side was allowed twenty minutes in order to question each potential juror and determine if they would be a good fit for this problematic case. By using this

Jury members play an important role in our American criminal justice system. Many criminal cases never make it to trial because plea agreements are arranged. The cases that do go to a trial are normally serious cases such as first degree murder, manslaughter, etc., which could either put someone in prison for a long time or even invoke the death penalty. Jury members have the ability to determine whether someone lives or dies. If someone has that much ability, it’s important that the jury members are picked wisely. The jury members should be unbiased and there should be diversity within the jury pool. The selection of jury pool has been an issue within the criminal just system, mainly because of the discrimination that takes place. One of the facts about jury discrimination that is largely undisputed is “the all-white jury has been a staple of the American criminal justice system for most of our history” (Delone, Spohin, &Walker, 2012). I agree, that the all-white jury has been a staple of the American criminal justice system for most of our history.

Let me start by saying that I feel the proliferation of media and devices, particularly social media, make ALL information available to EVERY person across the globe 24/7. This being said, the availability of an uninformed jury pool is virtually impossible. In today’s society, everyone has information, therefore to assume that any perspective juror is unaware of at least the basics of every meaningful crime in their local, state and national scene is naïve at best. The best a defendant and defense attorney can hope for is that the jurors will put aside any preconceived notions of the guilt or innocence of the accused, follow the jury instructions, and render an unbiased verdict. Do I feel that this happens…NO. Jurors lie, attorneys and judges

It provides the certain power to the community to make a political decisions on being guilty or not guilty while satisfying individuals with the decision .Jurors decisions on verdicts are more likely to not be incorrect as there are 12 on the stand, whereas judge alone trials rely on one person on the decision of the verdict . The Bureau of Criminal statistics also show that even judge alone trials show higher acquittal rates than Jury trials in criminal cases . Another research conducted by the Australian Institute of Criminology state the findings that empanelled jurors reported significantly higher confidence when it comes to criminal trials than non- empanelled jurors

Confirmation bias is a tendency of people to prefer information that reinforces a thought or believe that they have. People demonstrate this bias when they retain information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotional issues and for deeply rooted beliefs. (Science Daily)

Juries provide a public opinion which helps show what the public would think about the case and weather the accused is guilty or not guilty.

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.