Forensic Psychology For Dummies (118 page)
Read Forensic Psychology For Dummies Online
Authors: David Canter
No coaching allowed
A personal experience illustrates how cautious UK barristers are about any form of ‘coaching’ or interaction with a witness. Some years ago I gave evidence about tape recordings, the transcripts of which were read out in court. On the first day I gave evidence it emerged that two of the recordings were very similar. Overnight I realised that I’d inadvertently recorded the same material twice, but the transcribers hadn’t produced identical versions, which is why the material read in court wasn’t absolutely identical. I was to continue to give my evidence the next day, so I tried to speak to the barrister before the court proceedings began to explain the error. But he gently told me that he couldn’t speak to me while I was still giving evidence. So the court never heard why there were two very similar transcripts!
About the only aspect of a juror’s characteristics that does predict an above- chance probability that the person is more likely to convict someone, is the person’s attitude towards the legal system. The more confident people are in the processes of law, the more likely they’re to convict.
The ploys described in the following section for preparing witnesses, and other forms of ‘scientific’ advice on how attorneys should behave, are totally unacceptable in many jurisdictions outside the US. Therefore much of the information in this section relates only to the US.
Selecting juries for scientific trials
A particular challenge to the judge and lawyer as well as for juries, is how they deal with scientific and technical information in areas about which they may have had no formal training. In the US, where legal practice allows extensive selection of jury members, issues arise of how to select a jury that’s most likely to give the desired verdict (from both sides’ point of view). As a consequence, a special area of expertise has grown up to advise attorneys on how to do this, which inevitably raises ethical as well as legal and psychological questions (check out the later sidebar, ‘The Runaway Jury’).
The possibility of jury selection improving the chances of each side giving the verdict wanted, spurred on the study of how jurors make decisions. This information has been included in the commercial practice of providing guidance, usually to the defence, on the selection of juries and has become known as
scientific jury selection.
Employing this expertise is often very expensive and is usually only used in very high-profile cases, such as the trial of O.J. Simpson. In order to decide whether someone available for the jury is going to be acceptable, the attorney can question the person or even use standard questionnaires such as the Juror Bias Scale. This form has 17 questions, such as ‘Anyone who runs from the police is probably guilty’ and ‘Too often juries do not convict someone who’s guilty out of sympathy’ that people have to indicate whether they agree or disagree with. The scale indicates whether the person is likely to be more inclined to support the defence or the prosecution.
For those cases in which the jury is required to determine the sentence after a person is convicted, or levels of compensation in civil proceedings, the significance of a juror’s pre-existing attitudes is particularly important. In the US this issue comes to a head, especially when a jury is required to decide whether a convicted murderer should be executed. A person opposed to the death penalty in principle is often excluded from such a jury.
Coaching witnesses
One of the contributions that psychologists have made to major cases in the US is
witness preparation
, that is, coaching witnesses by reviewing what they’re going to say and how they’ll say it. The aim is to improve their effectiveness in convincing the jury. This is much more common in the US and is somewhat frowned on in the UK (see the ‘No coaching allowed’ anecdote earlier).
The black sheep effect
You may think that jurors would be more lenient to defendants of their own ethnicity, but in fact studies show the opposite may be the case. This tendency is called
the black sheep effect.
The jurors think that the defendant has let down their ethnic group and so should be treated more harshly. Clearly this research has implications for jury selection. Jury selection assisted by psychologists can also be part of a broader range of psychological support, the most intensive of which is the creation of a
shadow jury
. This consists of employing a group of people who closely match the actual jury in terms of age, ethnicity and socio-economic status. This parallel jury then listens to exactly the same evidence as the real jury but is available for comment and discussion on the sense that evidence is making to them. The attorneys can then modify how they present subsequent information to the jury.
