Juries

‘A Typical Collection of Lower Middle-Class Londoners’

Niamh Howlin

Abstract

Roger Casement’s arrest, detention, trial and execution have been continually re-examined over the past century. There has been endless speculation over the use made of the so-called Black Diaries to discredit him and scupper his chances of having his sentence commuted. Another issue which has captured the imagination of scholars is whether or not he was convicted under a correct interpretation of the Treason Act 1351, or whether he was, as he claimed, ‘hanged by a comma.’ The adequacy of his legal representation and case management have also been questioned. This article, however, examines a previously ignored aspect of the Casement trial: the composition of the jury which tried and convicted him.

Half of rape jurors make guilty verdict before deliberation

Interesting research out of the United Kingdom about jurors and sexual assault charges.  Apparently, close to half of the jurors who sit on sexual assault cases in the UK reach a guilty verdict prior to deliberating with other jurors.  The research, among other things, further illustrates why it is so important to screen jurors for bias before they are seated to hear a case.  To read more about this research go here.

Revamping the Justice System: (Re)Defining the Role of Judges in Korea's Jury Trials

Geary Choe

Abstract

Koreans do not trust the justice system. This distrust prompted the Korean Judicial Reform Commission to advocate the introduction of jury trials to enhance the credibility of the system. Korea’s jury system, however, has many features that still allow Korean judges to maintain and exert significant influence over the outcome. In the pre-trial stage, even after a defendant moves for a jury trial, Korean judges may decide not to honour the request and proceed instead to a bench trial. Moreover, Korean judges are able to continuously inject their opinions and conclusions because they may participate in jury deliberations. Even after trial, Korean judges may set aside a jury verdict because Korean jury verdicts are only advisory and not binding. If the judiciary really intends to enhance its credibility, it should clearly define and circumscribe the role of judges in jury trials and make way for true civil participation.

Irish Juries and Technology

Interesting to see that the United States is not the only country facing challenges with jurors and technology.

Irish Times: Legal community worried about influence of internet on juries in criminal trials

Embedding Explained Jury Verdicts in the English Criminal Trial

Mark Coen

 

Jonathan Doak

Abstract: English juries do not provide reasons for their verdicts. This article argues that transparency is a fundamental value in modern decision-making, and that reform is needed to trial by jury so that verdicts are routinely accompanied by explanations. It examines the options that exist to incorporate explained verdicts in the English criminal trial and concludes that accountability and legitimacy would be enhanced through the use of a trained, independent lay facilitator to chair the deliberation process and draft an explained verdict.

Deaf and Blind Jurors in Australia, the U.K., and Ireland

Here is an interesting article about how other common law countries (Australia, UK, and Ireland) treat deaf and blind jurors.  The article also briefly mentions the work of the UN Committee to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 

Econotimes.com: Deaf or blind people can't serve on juries – here's why law needs to change

A Little Judicial Direction: Can the Use of Jury Directions Challenge Traditional Consent Narratives in Rape Trials?

Emma Henderson

Kirsty Duncanson

A Little Judicial Direction: Can the Use of Jury Directions Challenge Traditional Consent Narratives in Rape Trials?

Abstract:     

For the past 25 years, Victoria has engaged in a process of almost constant creation and revision of a set of jury directions to be used in sexual offence trials. These directions, given by the judge at the conclusion of the trial, are specifically aimed at disrupting existing patriarchal social narratives that have a strong tendency to render women’s claims of rape null. Research findings suggest that the directions have not been effective and that social narratives about the existence of “real rapes” (and thus, not-real rapes) continue to resonate strongly in the trial. This article analyses the use of the jury directions in two Melbourne County Court rape trials held in 2010-11. Although the trials are factually similar, in one trial the judge appears to have taken a different approach to the use of the jury directions, and this article hypothesises that this approach might be causally related to the conviction in that case (where in the other trial a conventional approach was matched by an unsurprising acquittal). This article proposes that jury directions given at the conclusion of the trial come too late in the piece to disrupt problematic narratives, and that it is possible that utilising the intent behind the jury directions in early decision-making, at the pre-trial hearings and evidentiary rulings stages, may lead to more just outcomes.

 

Judges, Juries and Prejudicial Publicity: Lessons from Empirical Legal Scholarship

Rebecca McEwen

 

 

John Eldridge

 

Judges, Juries and Prejudicial Publicity: Lessons from Empirical Legal Scholarship

Abstract:      

The criminal justice system has long held the view that judges are more capable than jurors of disregarding inadmissible prejudicial material. One consequence of this is the differential treatment of judges and jurors in respect of actual or potential exposure, via conventional or social media, to publicity which is prejudicial to a defendant. This article examines psycho-legal research findings which undermine the assumption upon which this differential treatment of judge and jury is based. It then identifies a number of questions which merit further attention in light of these findings.

 

Challenge for Cause in Canada

Regina Schuller

Caroline Erentzen

The Challenge for Cause Procedure in Canadian Criminal Law

Abstract:      

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. The present 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’ 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.

 

Australian State (NSW) Looking to Reintroduce Juries for Civil Trials

Australian State (NSW) Looking to Reintroduce Juries for Civil Trials

Here is an article that discusses a recent push to have civil jury trials reintroduced into New South Wales, Australia.  One interesting point of the article is that allowing jurors to decide civil matters does not necessarily delay the proceedings because "jury verdicts are faster than a judge preparing a lengthy written judgment."