Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T10:01:54.725Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Telling tales’: exploring narratives of life and law within the (mock) jury room

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Louise Ellison  and
Vanessa E Munro
Louise Ellison*
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
Vanessa E Munro*
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
*
Louise Ellison, University of Leeds, School of Law, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK. Email: l.e.ellison@leeds.ac.uk. Vanessa E Munro, University of Nottingham, Law, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK. Email: vanessa.munro@nottingham.ac.uk
Louise Ellison, University of Leeds, School of Law, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK. Email: l.e.ellison@leeds.ac.uk. Vanessa E Munro, University of Nottingham, Law, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK. Email: vanessa.munro@nottingham.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Based on a findings of a simulation study in which 160 members of the public observed a mini rape trial re-enactment and were then asked to deliberate in jury groups towards a unanimous verdict, this paper explores the extent to which participants were able, and willing, to understand and apply judicial directions, and the legal tests or criteria contained therein. More specifically, it reflects on whether the additional provision of written directions in the jury room influenced the tone or direction of jurors' discussions, and illustrates the limited recourse made by participants to their contents, as well as their tendency to misinterpret or misapply them when they were relied upon. Having done so, this paper moves on to explore the reasons behind this limited impact, suggesting that fundamental tensions may exist between legal and lay imaginaries, such that jurors are reluctant to jettison their more natural inclinations to reach individual and collective verdicts on the basis of narrative constructions grounded in ‘common sense’ and ‘personal experience’.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , June 2015 , pp. 201 - 225
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Louise Ellison is Professor of Law at the University of Leeds and Vanessa E Munro is Professor of Socio-Legal Studies at the University of Nottingham. We are indebted to the ESRC for funding this research (Ref RES-000-22-4277), to the project's Advisory Group and to all those who participated in the trial reconstructions.

References

1. Ellison, L and Munro, Ve ‘Getting to (not) guilty: examining jurors' deliberative processes in, and beyond, the context of a mock rape trial’ (2010) 30(1) Legal Stud 74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. Elwork, A, Sales, B and Alfini, J ‘Juridic decisions: in ignorance of the law or in light of it?’ (1977) 1 Law & Hum Behav 163 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kramer, G and Koenig, D ‘Do jurors understand criminal jury instructions? Analyzing the results of the Michigan Juror Comprehension Project’ (1990) 23 U Mich J L Reform 401.Google Scholar

3. There is a significant body of research literature that confirms this view. For a general discussion, see eg Moore, A ‘Trial by schema: cognitive filters in the courtroom’ (1989) 37 UCLA L Rev 273.Google Scholar

4. For discussion of the study's findings in relation to the impact of these trial conditions, see Ellison, L and Munro, Ve ‘A special delivery? Exploring the impact of screens, live links and video-recorded evidence on mock juror deliberation in rape trials’ (2014) Soc & Legal Stud, forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. See Zander, M and Henderson, P The Royal Commission of Criminal Justice: Crown Court Study, Research Study no 19 (London: HMSO, 1993)Google Scholar; Kalven, H and Zeisel, H The American Jury (Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1966).Google Scholar

6. Zeisel, H and Diamond, S ‘Convincing empirical evidence on the six member jury’ (1974) 41 U Chi L Rev 281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mills, L ‘Six Member and twelve member juries: an empirical study of trial results’ (1973) 6 J L Reform 671 Google Scholar; Kerr, N and MacCoun, R ‘The effects of jury size and polling method on the process and product of jury deliberation’ (1985) 48 J Pers Soc Psychol 349 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Saks, M and Marti, M ‘A meta-analysis of the effects of jury size’ (1997) 21 Law & Hum Behav 451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. Valentini, A and Downing, L ‘Differential effects of jury size on verdicts following deliberations as a function of the apparent guilt of a defendant’ (1975) 32 J Pers Soc Psychol 655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. Latane, B, Williams, K and Harkins, S ‘Many hands makes light work: the causes and consequences of social loafing’ (1979) 37 J Exp Soc Psychol 822.Google Scholar

9. Kerr and MacCoun, above 6.

10. Braunack-Mayer, A ‘The ethics of participating in research’ (2002) 117(9) Med J Australia 468.Google Scholar

11. Other researchers report similarly high levels of engagement by mock jurors. See eg Goodman-Delahunty, J, Rossner, M and Tait, D ‘Simulation and dissimulation in jury research: credibility in a live mock trial’ in Bartells, L and Richards, K (eds) Qualitative Criminology: Stories from the Field (Annandale, NSW: Federation Press, 2011).Google Scholar

12. See eg Wilson, D and Donnerstein, E ‘Guilty or not guilty? a look at the ‘simulated’ jury paradigm’ (1977) 7 J Appl Soc Psychol 175 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Zeisel, H and Diamond, S ‘The effect of peremptory challenges on jury and verdict: an experiment in a federal district court’ (1978) 30 Stan L Rev 491 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kerr, N, Nerenz, D and Herrick, D ‘Role playing and study of jury behaviour’ (1979) 7 Sociol Method Res 337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. Kassin, Sm and Wrightsman, Ls ‘On the requirements of proof: the timing of judicial instruction and mock juror verdicts’ (1979) 37 J Pers Soc Psychol 1877 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Severance, Lj and Loftus, Ef ‘Improving the ability of jurors to comprehend and apply criminal jury instructions’ (1982) 17 Law & Soc'y Rev 153 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf Reifman, A, Gusick, Sm and Ellsworth, Pc ‘Real jurors' understanding of the law in real cases’ (1992) 16(5) Law & Hum Behav 539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14. Hepburn, J ‘The objective reality of evidence and the utility of systematic jury selection’ (1980) Law & Hum Behav 89 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bonazzoli, M ‘Jury selection and bias: debunking invidious stereotypes through science’ (1998) 18 Quinnipiac L Rev 19 Google Scholar; Ellsworth, P ‘Some steps between attitudes and verdicts’ in Hastie, R (ed) Inside the Juror: The Psychology of Juror Decision-Making (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).Google Scholar

15. Kleinke, C and Meyer, C ‘Evaluation of rape victims by men and women with high and low belief in a just world’ (1990) 14 Psychol Women Q 345 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Foley, L and Pigott, M ‘Belief in a just world and jury decisions in a civil rape trial’ (2000) 30 J Appl Soc Psychol 935 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ugwuebu, D ‘Racial and evidential factors in juror attribution of legal responsibility’ (1979) 15 J Exp Soc Psychol 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. For discussion, see Temkin, J and Krahe, B Sexual Assault and the Justice Gap: A Question of Attitude (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2008).Google Scholar

17. Ellison, L and Munro, Ve ‘A stranger in the bushes or an elephant in the room? Critical reflections on received rape myth wisdom in the context of a mock jury study’ (2010) 13(4) New Crim L Rev 781.Google Scholar

18. Ellison and Munro, above 4.

19. Ellison, L and Munro, V E ‘Better the devil you know? ‘Real rape’ stereotypes and the relevance of a previous relationship in (mock) juror deliberation’ (2013) 14 Int'l J Evidence & Proof 299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20. Zander and Henderson, above 5, p 205.

21. Ibid, p 212. See also L Trimboli Juror Understanding of Judicial Instructions in Criminal Trials, Crime and Justice Bulletin No 119 (NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2008).

22. In Thomas' case simulation study, mock jurors were asked post-trial to identify the two questions the judge explicitly directed them to answer to determine if the defendant had acted in self-defence (did the defendant believe it was necessary to use force and did he use reasonable force?) Only 31% of mock jurors accurately identified both questions. A further 48% correctly identified one of the two questions. The study did not examine how juror understanding of the legal questions affected deliberations. Thomas, C Are Juries Fair? Ministry of Justice Research Series 1/10 (London: Ministry of Justice, 2010) p 36.Google Scholar See also Elwork et al, above 2.

23. Ellsworth, P ‘Are twelve heads better than one?’ (1989) 52 Law & Contemp Probs 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24. See eg Madge, N ‘Summing up – a judge's perspective’ [2006] Crim L Rev 817.Google Scholar

25. Thomas, above 22; Reifman et al, above 12; Heuer, L and Penrod, S ‘A field experiment with written and preliminary instructions’ (1989) 13 Law & Hum Behav 409. A recent post-verdict survey of juries, conducted at Crown Courts in the London area, found that 70% had received written directions. Among this group, every juror reported finding the written directions helpful –CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thomas, C ‘Avoiding the perfect storm of juror contempt’ [2013] Crim L Rev 483.Google Scholar

26. Judicial College Crown Court Bench Book – Directing the Jury (2010), available at http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications-and-reports/judicial-college/Pre+2011/crown-court-bench-book-directing-the-jury (accessed 17 July 2013).

27. See Montgomery, Jw ‘The criminal standard of proof’ (1998) New L J 582.Google Scholar

28. McCauliff, Cma ‘Burdens of proof: degrees of belief, quanta of evidence, or constitutional guarantees?’ (1982) 35 Vand L Rev 1260.Google Scholar See also Zander, M ‘The criminal standard of proof: how sure is sure?’ (2000) 150 New L J 1517.Google Scholar

29. Simon, Rj ‘Judges' translations of burdens of proof into statements of probability’ (1969) 14 Trial Lawyers' Guide 29.Google Scholar

30. For discussion, se R Hastie, above 14; Smith, V ‘Prototypes in the courtroom: law representation of legal concepts’ (1991) 61 J Pers Soc Psychol 857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31. Kaplan, M and Kemmerick, G ‘Juror judgment as information integration: combining evidential and non-evidential information’ (1974) 30 J Pers Soc Psychol 493 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ostrom, T, Werner, C and Saks, M ‘An integration theory analysis of jurors' presumptions of guilt or innocence’ (1978) 36 J Pers Soc Psychol 436; for an alternative account,CrossRefGoogle Scholar see also Schum, D and Martin, A ‘Formal and empirical research on cascaded inference in jurisprudence’ (1982) 17 Law & Soc'y Rev 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32. Devine, D et al ‘Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups’ (2001) 7 Psychol Pub Pol'y & L 622 at 624Google Scholar; see also Vidmar, N and Diamond, S ‘Jury room ruminations on forbidden topics’ (2001) 87 Va L Rev 1857 Google Scholar; see also Smith, V and Studebaker, C ‘What do you expect? the influence of people's prior knowledge of crime categories on fact-finding’ (1996) 20 Law & Hum Behav 517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33. Pennington, N and Hastie, R ‘Explanation-based decision making: the effects of memory structure on judgment’ (1988) 14 J Exp Psychol Learn 521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Bennett, L and Feldman, M Reconstructing Reality in the Courtroom; Justice and Judgment in American Culture (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1981).Google Scholar

34. Pennington, N and Hastie, R ‘Evidence evaluation in complex decision making’ (1986) 51 J Pers Soc Psychol 242 at 254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35. A good story should not only be compatible with the evidential data but it should also be well-structured and correctly describe a general pattern of states and events one expects to come across in the world. Pennington, N and Hastie, R ‘The story model for jury decision making’ in Hastie, R, Penrod, S and Pennington, N Inside the Jury (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983). For further discussion, seeGoogle Scholar Bex, F Arguments, Stories and Criminal Evidence (London: Springer, 2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36. Garfinkel, H Studies in Ethnomethodology (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1967) p 112.Google Scholar

37. Maynard, D and Manzo, J ‘On the sociology of justice: theoretical notes from an actual jury deliberation’ (1993) 11 Sociol Theor 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38. Ibid, at 178.

39. Ellsworth, above 23, at 207.

40. Manzo, J ‘Juror narratives of personal experience’ (1993) 13 Text 267, 274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Manzo, See also J ‘ “You wouldn't take a seven-year-old and ask him all these questions”: jurors' use of practical reasoning in supporting their arguments’ (1994) 19 Law & Soc Inquiry 639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41. One female juror disclosed that she had been the victim of a sexual assault during the deliberations. It is of course possible that other participants had direct experience of sexual violence that was not disclosed.

42. See eg Bowyer, L and Dalton, M ‘Female victims of rape and their genital injuries’ (1997) 104 Br J Obstet Gynaec 617 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Du Mont, J and White, D The Uses and Impacts of Medico-Legal Evidence in Sexual Assault Cases: A Global Review (Geneva: World Health Organization, 2007)Google Scholar; Sugar, N, Fine, D and Eckert, T ‘Physical injury after sexual assault: findings of a large case series’ (2004) 190 Am J Obstet Gynaec 71 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Rothschild, B The Body Remembers: The Psychophysiology of Trauma and Trauma Treatment (New York: WW Norton, 2000). For further discussion of the tenacity of this force requirement in the minds of jurors in the present study,Google Scholar see also Ellison and Munro, above 19; and for similar findings in relation to a previous study, see Ellison, L and Munro, Ve ‘Reacting to rape: exploring mock jurors' assessments of complainant credibility’ (2009) 49(2) Br J Crim 202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43. Mont, J Du, Miller, K and Myhr, T ‘The role of “real rape” and “real victim” stereotypes in the police reporting practices of sexually assaulted women’ (2003) 9 Violence Against Women 467 Google Scholar; Clay-Warner, J and Burt, C ‘Rape reporting after reforms: have times really changed?’ (2005) 11 Violence Against Women 150 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Starzynski, L et al ‘Correlates of women's sexual assault disclosure to informal and formal support sources’ (2005) 20 Violence and Victims 417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

44. Smith, above 30, at 858.

45. Stalans, L ‘Citizen's crime stereotypes, biased recall and punishment preferences in abstract cases: the educative role of interpersonal sources’ (1993) 17 Law & Hum Behav 451 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Finkel, N and Groscup, J ‘Crime prototypes, objective versus subjective culpability, and a commonsense balance’ (1997) 21 Law & Hum Behav 209; in relation to rape, seeCrossRefGoogle Scholar Krahe, B, Temkin, J and Bieneck, S ‘Schema-driven information processing in judgements about rape’ (2007) 21 Appl Cognitive Psych 601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46. Griffiths, L ‘Narrative, truth and trial’ (2013) Geo L J 281, citingGoogle Scholar Pennington, N and Hastie, R ‘A cognitive theory of jury decision making: the story model’ (1991) 13 Cardozo L Rev 519, 528.Google Scholar

47. Conley, R and Conley, J ‘Stories from the jury room: how jurors use narrative to process evidence’ (2009) 49 Stud in L Pol & Soc'y 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Winship, G ‘Jury deliberation: an observation study’ (2000) 33 Group Anal 547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48. Ibid, at 50.

49. Ibid. The story model posits jurors speculating about the facts external to the trial in order to complete the picture. See Pennington and Hastie, above 46, at 527.

50. Conley and Conley, above 47, at 50.

51. Ibid, at 51.

52. Griffiths, above 46, at 310.

53. Ibid, at 281.

54. Ewick, P and Silbey, S The Common Place of Law: Stories from Everyday Life (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998) p 242.Google Scholar See also Ochs, E Living Narrative: Creating Lives in Everyday Storytelling (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002).Google Scholar

55. Bennett and Feldman, above 33, p 7.

56. Conley and Conley, above 47, at 31.

57. For discussion, see Heffer, C ‘Narratives in the trial: constructing crime stories in court’ in Coulthard, M and Johnson, A (eds) Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics (Abingdon: Routledge, 2013).Google Scholar

58. Conley and Conley, above 47, at 38.

59. Griffiths, above 46.

60. Devine et al, above 32, at 699.

61. Ellison, L and Munro, Ve ‘Turning mirrors into windows? Assessing the impact of (mock) juror education in rape trials’ (2009) 49(3) Br J Crim 363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

62. The NSW Law Reform Commission recently concluded that question trails and visual aids (eg computer animations) could potentially be of considerable value in assisting juries to understand the issues they need to decide and to apply the law to the facts of cases. NSW Law Reform Commission Jury Directions (Sydney, NSW: NSW Law Reform Commission, 2012). For further discussion, seeGoogle ScholarPubMed Brewer, N, Harvey, S and Semmler, C ‘Improving comprehension of jury instructions with audio-visual presentation’ (2004) 10 Appl Cognitive Psych 765 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Semmler, C and Brewer, N ‘Using a flow-chart to improve comprehension of jury instructions’ (2002) 9 Psychiat Psychol & L 262. The New Zealand Criminal Bench Book also contains example of question trails for use by judges.CrossRefGoogle Scholar New Zealand Institute of Judicial Studies Criminal Jury Trials Bench Book (Lambton Quay, NZ: New Zealand Institute of Judicial Studies, 2006).Google Scholar