Writer: Caroline Clark
Editor: Leo Olmos
October 15, 2023
Jury trials, the cornerstone of the justice system, embody the democratic ideals on which our legal system is founded. The jury system harnesses the collective wisdom and diversity of perspectives of citizens, allowing a balanced approach to dispensing justice. It’s natural to question the mechanisms by which the jury arrives at a verdict that ultimately determines a person's fate. But beyond the evidence, legal statutes, and courtroom theatrics, there exists a complex intersection between psychological factors that mold the course of trials. We trust juries to make decisions on facts and fairness of the case; however, jurors are inherently human, subject to the same cognitive biases, emotional currents, and deliberation as the rest of us.
Cognitive biases can distort the way jurors perceive evidence and ultimately impact the verdict. Confirmation bias, for instance, can lead jurors to seek out evidence that affirms their preexisting beliefs and discount information contrary to one’s preformed opinions, which can distort their interpretation of the tangible facts within the case. Dual-process models of cognition propose that people can process information either rapidly, through a heuristic or experimental system of automatic responses, or effortfully, through a systemic or rational system, which can be applied to jurors. The availability heuristic can lead jurors to overvalue information that is easily recalled or vivid, even if it is not relevant to the case at hand. Biases like these can alter the perception of evidence and affect the fairness and procedural regularity of the trial.
The process of deliberation is a critical juncture where psychology is on full display. This includes jurors engaging in a discussion after hearing prosecutors and defendants present their arguments and inherently making a decision in support of the final verdict. Psychological archetypes shape the outcome of every trial as individual personalities, communication styles, and assertiveness all come into play to shape the outcome that not only reflects the evidence but the complexities of the trial itself. In settings like these, the psychology of decision-making is vital as it’s the undercurrent that shapes the trial’s trajectory. Acknowledging the psychological factors is a small step towards a more transparent and impartial justice system. If you ever find yourself in the jury room, I invite you to recognize how these insights might affect your perceptions and, inherently, the way you view our nation’s justice system as understanding the psychology of decision-making is not simply a matter of justice; it’s a matter of empathy and critical self-reflection.
Emotions often run high in the courtroom as jurors may feel sympathy for victims or anger towards a defendant, but emotional reasons can alter a juror’s interpretation of the concrete evidence and henceforth, influence their decisions on the trial. Logical reasoning and impartial judgment may take a backseat as fear and compassion take over. Emotions and moods of the juror can impact their judgments by influencing the type of information processing in which they engage, by inclining them to construe the evidence in a way that is compatible with their moods, and by giving them indications towards the appropriate verdict. This is not to say that jurors simply act on their emotions, as many sources of evidence suggest that jurors additionally use attentive systematic processing approaches. Jurors typically evaluate expert testimony in a reasonably logical and methodical manner, defying critics’ claims that they are incapable of understanding the scientific and technical evidence. Posttrial interviews reveal that jurors make an effort to assess the caliber of the experts’ arguments and deliberate over the nature of their testimony, which can be applied to the use of systematic processing.
References
Bornstein, B.H., & Greene, E.(2011). Jury decision making: implications for and from
psychology. Association of Psychological Science, 20(1), 63-67. https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1712&context=blr
Vidmar, N., & Diamond, S. (2001). Juries and expert advice.
Brooklyn Law Review, 66(4), 1121-1180. https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1712&context=blr
Comments