Despite several efforts to delay the case involving hush money payments to a porn star, Donald Trump becomes the first former US president to go on trial on criminal charges on April 15, 2024.
Educating mock jurors about what kinds of statements are appropriate − or not − led to more critical assessments of forensic testimony and improved the quality of their decisions.
In the end, we must accept there are flaws in jury processes. But finding alternatives has proved difficult, hence the reluctance of governments to abandon the status quo.
Ben Livings, University of South Australia and Rick Sarre, University of South Australia
The dangers of allowing extraneous “research” are twofold. First, such evidence is not subject to the rules of admissibility. Second, it isn’t subject to the rigours of cross-examination.
Finding out what goes on behind jury decisions and the biases that influence them is hugely important if the criminal justice system is to work properly.
How does pretrial publicity affect jury verdicts? What kind of verdicts are made when the jury is racially diverse? An expert on juries answers questions raised in the wake of the Chauvin verdicts.
As the Harvey Weinstein trials start, a psychology scholar explains why jurors may be biased on the question of consent. While the situations examined in these studies are not equivalent to sexual assault, they illustrate a pervasive psychological bias.
A hung jury does not necessarily undermine a verdict in a subsequent trial – it more likely means some of the jurors from the first trial agreed with the final verdict.
Because judges have a secondary audience when issuing jury directions - appeal court judges - the language used has become too wordy and confusing. It needs to change.
Stereotypes can undermine the fairness of criminal trials, but research can help us understand and counter the effect of stereotypes through law reform.