Juries: US and France.

Uploaded on:
France: bankers,highly set functionaries, status and cash ... France: 3 judges purposeful with 9 lay members of the jury on both conviction and discipline ...
Slide 1

Juries: US and France Charlan Jeanne Nemeth Univ California, Berkeley USA Presentation to Jury Research Conference, Sydney University Law School, Sydney, NSW Oct 17, 2003

Slide 2

US and France: comparative histories with respect to arrangement of juries Initially, US: white male landowners France: bankers,highly put functionaries, status and cash Eventually, Right to serve on juries got to be democratized in both nations

Slide 3

Discrimination stayed IN both the US and in France, under-representation of the extremely poor and the exceptionally rich, females (esp in France), the exceptionally youthful and the exceptionally old.

Slide 4

Juries in the United States 12 individuals (typically); all laymen conscious to unanimity (regularly) thought is mystery nobody is available aside from legal hearers (common nationals) for consultation

Slide 5

Juries in France 12 individuals on "jury" comprising of 3 judges and 9 laymen Only 8 out of 12 votes are required for conviction

Slide 6

Power/Status: Judges "inside" the jury France: 3 judges purposeful with 9 lay legal hearers on both conviction and discipline Red robes, at raised table encompassed by excellent workmanship and long conventions Status prompts consistence

Slide 7

The issue of unanimity 12 consistent versus 8:4 It verging on changed in the US: Apodaca etal v Oregon; Johnson v Louisiana (l970)

Slide 8

"First Ballot" and "Last Verdict"

Slide 9

Apodaca,Cooper and Madden v.Oregon Johnson versus Louisiana - Court Opinion (Nemeth,1981;2001) "We have no reason for trusting that larger part legal hearers mindful of their duty and control over the freedom of the litigant would decline to listen to contentions introduced to them for absolution, end the exchange, and render a decision. Despite what might be expected, it is much more probable that a member of the jury introducing a contemplated contention for vindication could either have his contentions addressed or would bring through different hearers with him to forestall conviction. A larger part will stop dialog and outvote a minority simply after contemplated talk has stopped to have enticing impact or to fill some other need - when a minority, that is, keeps on demanding exoneration without having influential reasons in backing of its choice."

Slide 10

Apodaca,Cooper and Madden v Oregon Johnson v Louisiana - Dissenting Opinion Non-consistent juries need not face off regarding and ponder as completely as most consistent juries. When the imperative dominant part is accomplished, further thought is not required either by Oregon or Louisiana, despite the fact that the protester legal hearers may, if given the chance, have the capacity to persuade the lion\'s share . . . The aggregate push to sort out the riddle of authentic truth . . . is stopped when the essential lion\'s share is come to in Oregon and Louisiana . . . It is said that there is no confirmation that dominant part hearers will decline to listen to dissidents whose votes are unneeded for conviction. However, human experience shows that pleasant and scholarly discussion is not a viable replacement for the sincere and hearty contention important to achieve unanimity."

Slide 11

The test prove Most studies demonstrate no critical contrasts in decision as an element of unanimity versus some kind of greater part control Groups "hang" all the more frequently under require-ments of unanimity A 2/3 dominant part "wins" Davis,Kerr,Atkin,Holt&Meek, l975; Davis,Bray &Holt, l977; Nemeth,l977

Slide 12

Questions If unanimity NOT required, would minority perspectives be given due thought? Would there be untimely thought - stop after essential dominant part is come to would group certainty be undermined?

Slide 13

A trial and Trial Court (Nemeth,1976;1981,2001) First degree murder case in test setting:2/3 lion\'s share versus unanimity required Trial court hone: fire related crime, contract default, murder,etc.

Slide 14

Stopping shy of unanimity (when the imperative greater part is come to)? Maj guideline: Stop shy of unanimity however don\'t stop at imperative dominant part 4:2 5:1 6:0 4 9 5 The answers

Slide 15

Due thought to minority sees Functional pondering time Maj standard Unanimity 12.45 17.66 The answers

Slide 16

Community certainty Agreement with decision Maj Unan 3.77 4.45 Justice controlled Maj Unan 3.49 3.78 The answers

Slide 17

The answers: The nature of the consultation More "clash" under unanimity remarks "giving data"; "giving feelings"

Slide 18

Bales Categories Nemeth,1976 1. Appears to be amicable (Ex. "I\'m sad"; "that is a decent point") 2. Sensation (Ex. "The steward did it," clowning; undue embellishment) 3. Concurs (Ex. gesturing in understanding; "Yes, believe it or not") 4. Gives proposal (Ex. "How about we take a vote"; "how about we take a gander at the motel agent") 5. Gives assessment (Ex. "I believe he\'s blameworthy") 6. Gives data (Ex. "There was one observer") 7. Requests data (Ex. "Don\'t they for the most part give sales representatives an exceptional organization card?"; "what time did the person leave?") 8. Requests sentiment (Ex. "What do you think now?"; "what do you think about the way that Mr. Smith\'s fingerprints were found on the poker?") 9. Requests proposal (Ex. "By what means should we begin?"; "what would you like to do?") 10. Dissents (Ex. "You are incorrect"; suppositions in direct difference to a past late proclamation) 11. Demonstrates pressure (Ex. giggling, stammering, fiddling) 12. Appears to be hostile (Ex. interferences, "That is an imbecilic thing to say")

Slide 19

The nature of the thought Functional consideration time more prominent under necessity of unanimity. Minority perspectives are communicated - proportionate remarks to lion\'s share for more time.

Slide 20

The troublesome inquiry: how is equity best served, truth best identified? Assurance of minority perspectives might be vital, not on the grounds that they hold a "truth" but rather in light of the fact that their perspectives fortify unique data handling and thought.

Slide 21

MINORITIES fortify: scan for more infor-mation on all sides usage of all procedures location of novel,correct arrangements more creativity;better collective choice making MAJORITIES empower look for data supporting lion\'s share use of dominant part technique taking after of larger part; no novel discovery lessened innovativeness; untimely agreement Majorities versus Minorities (Nemeth,l995;2001;West&DeDreu,2001)

Slide 22

Process for identification of truth? More astute individuals? The part of instruction, preparing, ability Stimulating dissimilar thought? Securing minority sees by less status contrasts and a necessity for unanimity??

Slide 23

Questions of Democracy and "Due Process" Do we truly believe the layman? Then again Do we lean toward the informed, the master Do we need dominant parts to run the show? On the other hand Do we require unanimity, secure minority perspectives and take the risk of "hung" juries

Slide 24

Selected References Bermant, G., Nemeth,C & Vidmar,N (eds (1976) Psychology and the Law: Research Frontiers. Lexington,MA: D.C.Heath &Co. Nemeth,C (1977) Interactions between members of the jury as an element of larger part versus unanimity choice principles. Diary of Applied Social Psychology 7, 38-56. Nemeth,C. (1981) Jury trials: Psychology and the Law. In L. Berkowitz (ed) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology(vol 14,pp309-367). New York: Academic Press Nemeth, C (1984) Processus de groupe et jurys: Les Etats-Unis et la France. In S. Moscovici (ed) Psychologie Sociale (pp229-251). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Nemeth, C (1995 Dissent as driving perception, dispositions and judgments.Social Cognition, 13, 273-291. Nemeth,C.J. (2001) Dissent, assorted qualities and juries. In F.Butera and G. Mugny (eds) Social Influence n Social Reality (pp23-32). Bern: Hogrefe & Huber.

View more...