Jurors turn detective behind the beak's back
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/jurors-turn-detective-behind-the-beaks-back/2007/10/20/1192301103468.htmlLiz Porter
October 21, 2007
Advertisement
JURORS can't bear long-winded lawyers. They hate it when prosecution and defence barristers get so caught up in their own verbal boxing matches that they appear to have forgotten about the 12 people in the jury box. And they sometimes visit crime scenes themselves, even though judges expressly forbid it — and would abort the trial if they found out.
Those are just some of the latest findings from an in-depth "Secrets of the jury room" study by Perth barrister and academic Judith Fordham.
Ms Fordham, associate professor in forensic science at Murdoch University, had to get special permission to talk to jurors because legislation in all states forbids them being interviewed. Her study comprised questionnaire interviews of 160 jurors, followed by 80 one-on-one interviews.
The initial focus was jurors' attitudes to complex expert evidence. She wanted to test for the presence of the so-called "CSI effect", in which jurors supposedly uncritically accept expert evidence. Her preliminary results suggested jurors were not being "dazzled by men in white coats".
But her lengthy interviews with jurors revealed such a wealth of information about other aspects of jury behaviour that Ms Fordham is still busy analysing it. Several jurors made detailed confessions about carrying out their own investigations. In one case, involving a car accident, one juror sat down with his own small model car, worked through the scenario presented in court then shared his conclusions with his fellow jurors the next day. Another juror described his visit, at night, to the scene of a hit-run death, explaining that he carried out a small experiment to test his own theory about one aspect of the crime. He also presented his work to his juror colleagues and was miffed that they were unconvinced because his own research hadn't been given as "evidence".
For Ms Fordham, the message from that piece of the research was not that juries are breaking the rules but that they need to be told more.
"The reason that juries are going out and doing their own detective work is that lawyers are not thinking ahead enough about what jurors might want to know. And the court system isn't necessarily making it easy for them to find things out. You can have a 'view' where the jurors pile into a bus and go and look at the scene of the crime. But that is a real hassle — and judges tend to resist. But if (the crime scene) is a public place, jurors will go and have a look for themselves."
Jurors often found fault with with the foreman they had to elect within moments of being chosen on a jury.
"Sometimes they wished they had got to know the person first," said Ms Fordham. "Some jurors said it was more good luck than good management if they chose someone skilled at running a meeting."
Jurors expressed different ideas of reforming the foreman-selection process. Some suggested the use of a trained "facilitator", others suggested some education as soon as the jury was chosen.
"Rather than launching straight into the trial, they wanted an outline of what was to happen, and how to go about deliberations. Sometimes they are in shock (after being chosen) and virtually don't hear the first hour of the trial."
