The Question of Jury Competence and Bias - Essay Example

Jury Bias The Jurors decide cases on the basis of their own perceptions. Their perspective of reality is what matters most, since they have not seen the reality of the situation but base their judgment on circumstantial evidence and, possibly, on their own biases. But to the public the jurors are the persons to deliver the correct verdict. “They have the ultimate responsibility for rendering a verdict based not only on the merits of the law, but also on their conscience and their sense of justice.” (Wenner, David. & Cusimano, Greg. (1944)). However, jurors hold bias like preconceived notions about the case, they hold their own beliefs even when they enter the courtroom, their opinions regarding matters perceived inside and outside the Courtroom, notions on the basis of the evidence produced and their opinions regarding the credibility of the witnesses upon cross-examination, the persuation by the council and lastly by the influences of the other jurors. The jurors’ perception of the reality is what ultimately matters and not the reality itself. Sometimes it is seen especially in cases of Medical Health Care delivery systems that the jurors have a preconceived notion that the plaintiff wants to profit out of the litigations and wishes to victimize the Medical health Company. They often view such cases as flimsy, and the Corporations as victims to the deeds of the plaintiff. The main aspect to be considered is whether the act was really negligence on the part of the Company and whether this has resulted in injuries to the plaintiff. Research has indicated that “juries make decisions based more firmly on their values, beliefs and experiences than on the case facts.” (The Art of Forensic Psychology. 2007). Another aspect to be dwelt is regarding the facts that lawyers have to be very careful while presenting data to the jurors. If there is a gap in the evidence, it is most likely that the gap would be filled by the preconceived notions, beliefs and bias of the jurors. This stems from the psychological belief that a person would retain his original belief whether it is right or wrong, and even when presented with contrary opinions, he would continue to hold his own opinion. It is only after his conscious mind accepts the fact that contrary opinion is available, that he would change his stance. Therefore before the evidence is presented to the Courts, the lawyer has to make sure that there are no gaps in the evidence. Certain matters require no proof and everybody is aware of them. In the case of gaps to be filled, the jurors would make their own methods of reaching a decision and in the absence of evidence, the decision would be taken on belief, values and bias of the jurors. In today’s world, jurors enter the courts with certain bias and some of them are strongly rooted in their minds. It is therefore, necessary for the trial lawyers coping with the bias to present the matter, such that higher degree of justice is received for the victim. The main factor to be considered in this respect is that although the jurors’ attitudes may suggest bias “it is very difficult to identify a relationship between them in the courtroom” (Waites, Richard., & Kellerman, Joan. (2007)). The current aspect of jurors’ bias is directed to corporations. There is clear evidence to show that the jurors are biased against large corporations since most of their decisions carry “more emotion than logic” (Dobson, Jim., & Lybrand, Steven. (2005)) this bias may probably stem from the fact that they feel that corporations would be able to pay up larges sums towards compensation and also to act as a deterrent against future errors. However it has also been seen that corporate houses transgress laws with impunity. “Corporate routinely violate ethical practice and sacrifice common good for profit making” (Dobson, Jim., & Lybrand, Steven. (2005)) the bias of jurors against large business houses has been the subject matter of much speculation and a lot more needs to be done in order to remedy the situation. It is also believed that bias of jurors stems from racial discrimination and demographical reasons. Since they are long existing stereotypes, it could not be effectively eliminated over a short period of time. The legal profession may take the following steps to reduce the incidence of Jurors bias; They could present their case taking into the account the biases and then try to remedy it, they could question about the past attributes of jurors and assess its impact on the present case, they could use the Spielberg method, in that , for a temporary period, they would present the case as though, during the course of the trial there were no bias, the lawyers could appeal to the conscious mind and find a possible solution, the attorneys could take up the unconscious mind and present his case so that the elements of bias are removed. The lawyers could seek similar situations from the jury and find solutions, by applying modern forensic psychology and principles and through this process, the incidence of jurors bias could be reduced. A lot would depend upon the Attorney concerned in how they are able to present their case. If the lawyer presents the case that results in the jury, voluntarily being convinced about his correctness of his line of thinking, and subscribes to it, then barring unforeseen circumstances like presentation of other evidences, etc, the lawyers would be able to enforce their decision. A lot would depend on how well the jurors are convinced. The lawyer should always present his strongest point first, since it could carry more significance. If the first point is weak and the jury disapproves of it, it would be difficult later on to convince the jury even on the strongest evidence. Therefore the strategy adopted by the attorney would be very significant. Nowadays mock trials take place which are very much like the real ones, with real jury, and court proceedings, in order to establish the process of law. It is believed that through this process, the jury is trying to “predict the outcome before it occurs.” (The Art of Forensic Psychology 2007). The significance of mock trials almost decides the outcome of the final trial, leaving little scope for the process of a fair and just judgment in the future. The question of juror bias needs to be seen from its larger context, and needs to be tackled by effective utilization of the jurisprudential machinery and legal methods. The effectiveness of voir dire would be very effective in tackling the issue of juror bias and now the need for further extension of voir dire also needs to be seriously considered. This would ensure that the parties would get a fair trial. The Courts must give powers to the Trial Attorneys to question the jurors regarding their specific attributes and expectations outside the legal aspects governing the trial procedure. The other important factors relating to jury bias that govern the decision-making abilities of the jurors also need to be considered. Through this process, the “counsel can successfully imbue the jury with the appropriate sense of their power” (Waites, Richard., & Kellerman, Joan. (2007)). The Trade Attorney also needs to inquire with the jurors regarding their past attributes and characteristics which is likely to have a material bearing on the case, and also tactfully elicit information from jurors that would evidence the presence of bias in them. The bias that surface during the interaction needs to be registered and the trial attorney could proceed with the arguments, taking into consideration the bias that may cloud the decision making process. What needs mention, finally, is that the Courts are the final authority in the dispensation of justice and equity and the jurors are only instrumental in their deliverance. Their actions and inactions, resulting from bias or otherwise, should not interfere with the natural process of law in seeking remedy to genuinely aggrieved plaintiffs and hand over just punishment to the proven accused. A miscarriage of law would be deemed a greater offence than the crime itself, since jurors are duty bound to uphold the legal rights and obligations of the citizens and seek the truth, justice and righteousness under all circumstances. Work Cited Wenner, David. & Cusimano, Greg. (1944). Jury Bias. Understanding Jury Bias. Retrieved April 11, 2007, from http://www.jurybias.com/jury_bias_understanding.html The Art of Forensic Psychology. Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (2000-2007). Retrieved April 11, 2007, from http://boards.crimelibrary.com/archive/index.php/t-281016.html Dobson, Jim., & Lybrand, Steven. (2005). Legal Times. Volume XXVIII, No.13. Retrieved April 11, 2007, from http://www.doar.com/documents/Jury_Bias.pdf Overcoming Jury Bias- Page 2. Law Offices of Howard L. Nations P C. (2007). Retrieved April 11, 2007, from http://www.howardnations.com/overcomingjurybias/overcoming2.html#12methods Waites, Richard., & Kellerman, Joan. (2007). The Role and Effectiveness of Jury Selection in eliminating Jury Bias. The Advocates. Retrieved April 11, 2007, from http://www.theadvocates.com/rollofeffectiveness.pdf Read More