As depicted in the trial of O.J Simpson, there is a number of political, racial, social and psychological personality or demographic factors that may influence the selection, composition and possible elimination of members of a jury. Normally, trial judges, defense attorneys, prosecutors and plaintiff’s lawyer will want to ensure that jurors are both impartial and fair and that there are minimal chances of conflicts of interest, bias and the possibility of a jury constitution unfairly influencing or shaping the outcome of a case. In this week’s discussion, I will analyze the factors that might include or eliminate potential jurors during jury selection from the perspective of a plaintiff’s attorney in the hypothetical case in question.
According to Costanzo and Krauss (2015), psychological and human personality traits of jurors such as liberalism, authoritarianism, political inclination and natural disposition are likely to be possible grounds for selecting or eliminating jurors from the jury pool. Further, other factors such as an individual juror’s personal or religious and political beliefs, expectations and experiences are potential for inclusion or removal from the membership of a jury. For instance, in the present hypothetical case, a juror with certain beliefs about environmental pollution or who has certain interests in economic outcomes of a case such as this may be eliminated in order to avoid conflict of interest or impartiality.
Moreover, Clark et al. (2007) states that the individual characteristic traits of a jury that are likely to affect the final verdict may be a cause for removal. Further, geographic factors such as where a juror is bred may influence their decision and hence also determine their selection or elimination from the jury. Further, according to this author, other factors such as gender, sex, age, race and extraversion may determine whether a juror is included or excluded from a jury composition in civil or criminal trials. For example, Fowler (2005) also notes that gender has historical role in the US jury selection process for years whereby women have tended to be absent from jury deliberations and service.
Furthermore, Daftary-Kapur, Dumas and Penrod (2010) note that personal biases and predispositions of individual jurors may be a factor to consider in jury selection process. According to the author, where it can be proved on behalf of the defense or plaintiff that a certain member of the jury is likely to be having some engraved prejudice on the defendant or plaintiff and hence affect their decision or verdict, they may be eliminated.
Questions
How can a plaintiff’s attorney ensure that the racial prejudices and composition of a jury do not negatively affect the outcome of a case against their client?
What are your views on the use of peremptory challenges by lawyers as bases for jury exclusion from trial? To avoid misuse of this option, don’t you think an attorney must have a reasonable cause or approval from a judge before they can successfully rely on a peremptory challenge for jury elimination?
References
Clark, J., Boccaconi, M. T., Caillouet, B., & Chaplin, W. F. (2007). Five factor model personality traits, jury selection and case outcomes in criminal and civil cases. Criminal Justice & Behavior Journal, 34(5), 641-660.
Costanzo, M., & Krauss, D. (2015). Forensic and legal psychology:Psychological science applied to the law. New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
Daftary-Kapur, T., Dumas, R., & Penrod, S. D. (2010). Jury decision-making biases and methods to counter them. Journal of Legal & Criminological Psychology, 15(1), 133-154.
Fowler, L. (2005). Gender and jury deliberations: The contributions of social science. William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law, 12(1), 1-48.
