The Impact Of Expert Testimony Pertaining To The battered Woman Syndrome On Jurors\u27 Information Processing And Decisions

The effects of two presentational forms of battered woman syndrome testimony on juror/jury decision processes were investigated. It was hypothesized that the presence of the testimony would influence final verdicts via its mediating effect on jurors\u27 interpretations of trial testimony relating to the defendant\u27s beliefs and actions, and that the impact of the testimony would vary as a function of the degree to which it was linked to the defendant. In Experiment I, subjects (N = 108) read a homicide trial involving a battered woman who had killed her husband and was claiming self-defense. A third of the subjects received no expert testimony, while the remaining two-thirds received expert testimony on the battered woman syndrome; for half of these subjects, the expert presented only the general research findings ( general expert ), while in the other half, the expert supplemented this general information with an opinion that the defendant fit the syndrome ( specific expert ). Results indicated that the presence of the specific expert testimony, as compared to the no expert condition, led to interpretations of trial testimony that were more consistent with the defendant\u27s claim of self-defense. These interpretations, in turn, were related to verdicts rendered, with a greater proportion of not guilty verdicts rendered in the specific expert condition. This effect was not evidenced for the general expert condition. Effects for gender were also found. In Experiment II, jurors listened to an audio-taped version of one of the three conditions employed in Experiment I and then deliberated in small groups until a unanimous verdict was reached. A moderate shift in verdicts from second degree to manslaughter was found for the expert testimony conditions (general and specific) in comparison to the no expert condition. Content analyses conducted on the deliberations, as well as jurors\u27 post-deliberation judgments, indicated that the testimony (general and specific) led to more favorable interpretations of some aspects of the defendant\u27s self-defense claim. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings, as well as possible reasons for the differential utilization of the general expert testimony across the two experiments, are discussed

The Canadian Criminal Jury

The Canadian criminal jury system has some unique characteristics. In contrast to American law, that gives precedent to free speech over fair trial, and English law, that favors fair trial over free speech, Canadian law occupies a middle ground balancing these competing values. Jury selection procedure in most trials is similar to that of England: jurors are assumed to be impartial between the Queen and the accused and are selected without voir dire. However, in cases involving exceptional pretrial publicity or involving accused persons from racial or ethnic minority groups, jurors are vetted by a challenge for cause process in which members of the jury pool itself, selected as triers, determine which prospective jurors are impartial. Another totally unique aspect of the Canadian system is that special rules apply to juries in Canada\u27s arctic regions. In addition to the official English and French languages, unilingual aboriginal persons who speak one of two Inuit dialects or one of seven Dene (Indian) dialects are eligible to serve on the jury. The purpose of this language provision is to provide for cultural perspective in jury verdicts and to increase community acceptance of Canadian law

Judgments of sexual assault: the impact of complainant emotional demeanor, gender and victim stereotypes

The sexual assault victim "who comes to the attention of the authorities has her victimization measured against the current rape mythologies" (R v. Seaboyer, 1991). This is particularly troubling given that lay beliefs regarding the crime of sexual assault are at odds with the data documenting the circumstances surrounding actual rape. Research has consistently demonstrated that lay people (hence, jurors) will question the validity of a sexual assault claim and judge the victim more harshly, if the circumstances surrounding the assault and/or the characteristics and actions of the sexual assault complainant do not comport with people's expectations about the event. In this paper we report the results of a juror simulation that examines the impact of victim's postassault emotional demeanor on judgments, in the context of independent manipulations of gender stereotypicality and victim stereotypicality. Results revealed that the complainant's emotional display had a powerful impact on participants' judgments, with the claim viewed as more valid when the complainant was portrayed as tearful/upset as opposed to calm/controlled, but only when the complainant was portrayed as gender stereotypic

The Challenge for Cause Procedure in Canadian Criminal Law

There is a longstanding presumption in Canadian law that jurors will act impartially in carrying out their duties, but this presumption may be challenged when the defendant is a member of a racialized minority group. In those circumstances, the defence may initiate a challenge for cause procedure, wherein potential jurors are questioned about their ability to set aside any racial prejudice and judge the case solely on the evidence. Although the challenge for cause procedure has been in place for some time, little attention has been given to the process and whether it in fact effectively screens for juror bias. This article provides an overview of the challenge for cause procedure, with particular attention to race-based challenges, as well as psychological research assessing the effectiveness of the procedure. Reference is made to the authors&rsquo; analysis of actual jury selection proceedings in which the challenge procedure was invoked. The data revealed that, although only a small percentage of potential jurors admitted to potential prejudice in open court, many more were excluded by triers and counsel. En el derecho canadiense existe la presunci&oacute;n antigua de que los jurados act&uacute;an de forma imparcial al desarrollar sus funciones. Sin embargo, esta presunci&oacute;n se puede cuestionar cuando el acusado pertenece a una minor&iacute;a racial. En esas circunstancias, la defensa puede iniciar un procedimiento de impugnaci&oacute;n del jurado en el que se interroga a los potenciales miembros del jurado sobre su capacidad para dejar de lado cualquier prejuicio racial y basarse &uacute;nicamente en evidencias para juzgar el caso. A pesar de que la impugnaci&oacute;n del jurado es un tema que ha estado de actualidad durante alg&uacute;n tiempo, se ha prestado poca atenci&oacute;n al proceso y si realmente se detectan de forma efectiva sesgos dentro del jurado. Este art&iacute;culo proporciona una visi&oacute;n general del procedimiento de impugnaci&oacute;n del jurado, prestando especial atenci&oacute;n a las impugnaciones basadas en la raza, as&iacute; como de la investigaci&oacute;n psicol&oacute;gica para evaluar la eficacia del procedimiento. Se hace referencia al an&aacute;lisis de las autoras de los procesos de selecci&oacute;n del jurado en los que se invoc&oacute; la impugnaci&oacute;n del jurado. Los datos revelaron que, aunque s&oacute;lo un peque&ntilde;o porcentaje de los posibles miembros de jurado admitieron un prejuicio potencial de forma p&uacute;blica, jueces y abogados excluyeron a muchos m&aacute;s. DOWNLOAD THIS PAPER FROM SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2756034</p