Abstract How human beings judge others has been the subject of many psychological studies over the years. In this paper, psychology in the legal arena is discussed including jury selection, juror life experiences and how it affects their biases, and the impact of the media on their decisions.
Jury Selection and Its Importance Juries have the all too important task of making life altering decisions dealing with money, freedom, and many times life or death situations. Therefore, serving on a jury is a very serious and important proposition. Unfortunately, in today’s society it appears that many times juries are selected in a rather casual manner. Many individuals called to jury service, especially those with a higher education or in a higher economic echelon, can find ways to escape their civic duty, while those who are less educated and theoretically less qualified for jury service, end up serving on the jury and making critical decisions. A fairly new trend in jury selection is that of trial consulting, which gained notoriety in the mid 1990’s in the O.J. Simpson trial. The application of scientific jury selection (SJS) was first applied in 1971, and has grown tremendously in recent years for those who have the means to employ such methods. The goal of the trial consultant is to find persons to fill the jury seats who optimally will arrive at a decision that will be favorable to their client. The tools used by the trial consultant include “…community surveys, focus groups, mock trials, pretrial investigations of prospective jurors, and voir dire assistance.” (Cleary, 2005, p.3). It appears that in the O.J. Simpson case in the mid 1990’s, the trial consultant hired by his team did an effective job as Simpson was acquitted of all charges. However, there are those that believe the Simpson verdict was an anomaly and the outcome would have been the same with or without a trial consultant. Whatever the means, the selection of a jury should never be taken lightly and jury duty should be mandatory, even for those who believe they are above serving.
The Purpose and Goal of Voir Dire Voir dire is the process by which prospective jurors are questioned so their beliefs and attitudes can be examined to determine whether biases or prejudices exist. (Marder, 2005). There are two (2) types of voir dire in practice: limited and Expansive. Limited voir dire usually entails a small number of questions non-specific to the trial. Jurors are questioned in a group and the questioning is usually done by the judge. On the flip side, an expansive voir dire consists of a large number of questions with a much broader range. The judges along with the attorneys trying the case all question the jurors in an individual sequestered private setting. (Hans & Jehle, 2003). The main purpose of the voir dire process is to determine whether any of the prospective jurors may have a potential bias when determining the outcome of the case. Therefore, the goal is to weed out those jurors who may have some pre-existing prejudice towards issues that may be involved in the case they will hear at trial. All in all, expansive voir dire appears to be much more effective than limited for various reasons. First, jurors are more likely to divulge personal or embarrassing information within an individual setting rather than a group setting. Second, attorneys who are extremely familiar with the case may be able to obtain more relevant information from a potential juror, than a judge who was just assigned the trial. And, finally, the larger and broader range of questions in an expansive voir dire can reveal biases or concerns a prospective juror may not have even been aware of. (Hans & Jehle, 2003). Although an expansive voir dire may be more time consuming and not cost effective, because of its effectiveness in weeding out inappropriate jurors, it should be made a mandatory practice if trials are to be completely fair and unbiased.
The Impact of a Juror’s Life Experience Upon Their Decision Making There is no doubt that a juror’s life experience can have a tremendous influence on their decision making. Therefore, their real life attitudes will influence how jurors will view a case, including the facts, arguments, and ultimately the law they apply. (Heaney). “Interpretive bias” is a psychological term that alludes to the fact that “…jurors view a case through the prism of their experiences and beliefs.” (Gabriel, p.730). This phenomenon appears to be more prevalent in high profile cases as jurors then have a chance to hear, read, and see information reported by the media regarding the case. If a juror has had a negative experience with the police, that juror may be less willing to trust the testimony or actions of the police department in a criminal trial. Other such life experiences with issues such as race, wealth, domestic abuse, celebrity, etc…. can cloud a juror’s thought processes and perceptions regarding the parties involved in the case and the final outcome. Whether Jurors are Guided By Sympathy or a Standard of Social Duty Jurors appear to understand that they should not let sympathy color their judgment when evaluating testimony. (Atlas, 2003). However, jurors are only human and sympathy as well as empathy are emotions the majority of us share. The question of sympathy versus social duty arises when the jury verdict in the Rodney King case is examined. King was stopped by Los Angeles police in the early 1990’s and appeared to have been unduly beaten by the police in a videotape that a bystander captured of the incident. King pressed charges against the police officers who he accused of using excessive force. King, an African American male who had a criminal record, was not a sympathetic character in the eyes of the all white jury. The jury found the policemen to be innocent and public outrage ensued resulting in the Los Angeles riots. Many believed the jury felt sympathy for the police involved, Officers Koon and Powell, because the officers were white and King was a man of color with a criminal record. (Marder, 2005). One juror explained the decision by stating, “’I believe there was excessive use of force, but under the law as it was explained to us we had to identify specific “hits” that would show specific use of force. It had to be beyond a reasonable doubt, and I just couldn’t do that.’” (p.252). Therefore, in the King case it appears the jury applied what they believed to be their social duty as opposed to using applying a sympathy factor. However, in trials where photographs of innocent victims are used, such as those affected by domestic abuse or children who have been harmed, it is impossible to measure whether the natural human response of feeling sorry and empathetic for the victim affects the outcome of the case. As long as human beings, not robots, are used as sitting juries, sympathy and empathy will likely always be emotions that creep into the decision making process in the end.

How Pretrial Publicity Can Affect a Jury There have been many high profile cases throughout the century that have obtained pretrial publicity, including but not limited to that of Fatty Arbuckle, the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, and the Menendez Brothers trial. One of the most famous trials in recent history was that of the former football star, O.J. Simpson, for the double murder of his ex-wife and a waiter. Many call this case the trial of the century, as pretrial publicity was immense. It is unclear if such publicity affected the outcome of the Simpson case, but it can be argued, how it could not, with twenty-four hour news channels, the tabloid press, and talk radio stations all reporting and gossiping about this case months prior to trial. Persons prior to being picked as jurors are bombarded with information about the case that may or may not be legally relevant and in some cases, may or may not be true. Potential jurors cannot turn off their senses and block out all information about the case they may be asked to try, however, through expansive questioning in jury selection it may be possible to weed out those jurors who may be unduly influenced by pretrial publicity.
The Purpose and Importance of the Opening Statement in Trial An opening statement allows an attorney to tell the jury what they will be hearing and seeing in the trial that follows. It should be an overview of evidence that will be presented and what the position of their client is. The importance of an opening statement is great: not only does it give the jury a preview of what they are about to experience, but it can also be used as a psychological tool by a skillful attorney by subtly planting relevant information, agreeable to that attorney’s case of course, subconsciously into the minds of the jurors. As a strategic move, some attorneys decline using an opening statement, while others believe that their case is actually won or lost at this early stage of the game. (Kassin, 1988). First impressions are important, and as the first impression of the trial, the opening statement may make or break the case in the end.
The Persuasiveness of an Expert Witnesses Testimony There is the belief that jurors, as laypersons, can be easily swayed by an educated, persuasive expert witness when a case involves complex or technical issues. Many juries are made up of individuals with no more than a high school education, yet they are supposed to absorb enormous amounts of evidence presented at trial and then have to try to make sense of it all. (Marder, 2005). There are those who believe in complex or technical cases in civil court that judges, not juries, should decides such matters. Another suggested solution might be a specialized jury in which each member has had some training in the area the case will be covering. This jury would not be limited to hearing just one case, but would hear several cases, yet would still be ordinary citizens serving on a jury. (Marder). The argument against such a system is that this type of jury “…could become hardened over time, just like some judges are said to be…” (p.239). There have been studies conducted to the contrary, that jurors are actually assisted in their decision making by expert testimony and that this expert testimony may improve their “…sensitivity….without increasing juror skepticism.” (Penrod & Cutter, 1992, p.6).
The Jury’s Perception of the Individuals Involved in the Trial Although jury’s are supposed to be fair and impartial, many times their perception of a defendant, plaintiff, prosecutor, etc…. can influence their ultimate decision and everyone involved may face potential juror bias. (Hans & Jehle, 2003). As a result, there have been occasions in which juries base their determinations on legally irrelevant factors. (Greene, Johns, & Smith, 2001). As human beings, we are naturally attracted to certain visual stimuli as well as repelled by others. Studies have been conducted that measure a person’s perception of an individual’s face and how it may affect their decision making. Subjects found that “…faces with angular-shaped jaws are perceived as older, stronger, and more dominant than identical faces with more rounded jaws; when large round eyes are added, or when eyebrows are placed relatively high on the forehead, faces take on a more youthful, naïve, submissive, and honest appearance.” (Kassin, 1988, p.102). In another study when subjects were given varying pictures of a defendant in a hypothetical trial, in which the defendant was charged with negligence and in another version the defendant was charged with an intentional crime of deceit. When subjects were given pictures of a defendant with a babyish face, round eyes, and high eyebrows, the subjects perceived him guilty of a negligence crime rather than the intentional misdeed. The opposite occurred when the defendant’s picture was that with features of low eyebrows, small eyes, and a rectangular chin. With this picture the subjects easily found this defendant guilty of intentional deceit. This implies that if a defendant is perceived as unattractive by the jury they are more likely to be convicted or penalized more harshly than a defendant that the jury finds attractive.

Conclusion We are all human beings with built in prejudices and biases, as much as we try keeping them in check. Jury selection and decision making will never be perfect, however expansive voir dire methods and understanding jury perceptions can lead us down the road to a more refined system of creating a jury that is as close to fair and impartial as possible.

WORKS CITED
Atlas, Scott. (2003). Opening Statement: Nobody Does It Better. American Bar Association, Section of Litigation, 29, 2-5.

Cleary, Audrey. (2005). Scientific Jury Selection: History, Practice, and Controversy. Villanova University, 1-17.

Green, Edith, & Johns, Michael, & Smith, Alison. (2002). The Effects of Defendant Conduct on Jury Damage Awards. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 228-237.

Gabriel, Richard. “This Case Is Brought To You By…”:How High-Profile Media Trials Affect Juries. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 33, 725-736.

Hans, Valeri P., & Jehle, Alayna. (2003). Avoid Bald Men and People with Green Socks? Other Ways to Improve the Voir Dire Process in Jury Selection. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 78, 1179-1201.

Heaney, Lois. Jury Selection in the Era of Tort Reform. National Jury Project Publications.

Kassin, Saul M.. (1988). The American Jury On Trial: Psychological Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Marder, Nancy S.. (2005). Jury Process. Los Angeles: Foundation Press.

Penrod, Steven D., & Cutler, Brian L.. (1992). Eyewitnesses, Experts, and Jurors: Improving the Quality of Jury Decisionmaking in Eyewitness Cases. Organizational and Work Psychology, 1-8.