The Scottish Jury Study

The Scottish Jury Study Presented by: Mr. Chalmers Date: 17 March 2022 Outline - Why we did it (research questions) - How we did it (methods and data) - Summary of key findings - Questions and discussion The Scottish jury system is unique - 3 Verdicts (not proven, in addition to guilty and not guilty) - 15 Jurors (12 is typical in most English language jurisdictions) - Simple majority Of 8 out of 15 jurors required to return a verdict (not unanimity or near unanimity) Research questions - What effects do the unique features of the Scottish jury system have on jury reasoning and jury decision-making? - What are jurors' understandings of the not proven verdict, and why might they choose this verdict over another verdict? - The research makes no policy recommendations - It does, however, shed light on other issues: • Memory and understanding of legal tests • Jury deliberations in rape cases Methods - 64 mock juries • Split by trial type (rape/assault), number of verdicts (2/3), number of jurors (12/15), majority required (simple vs. unanimity) - Recruited from public in Glasgow & Edinburgh • Quotas to reflect Scottish population 18-75 (age, gender, working status and education level) - Watched c. 1 hour filmed trial (rape or assault) • Deliberated for up to 90 minutes (filmed and audio-recorded), returned verdict (if able), completed questionnaires before and after deliberating. Limitations - - Fictional trial • Jurors are aware they are role-playing • That said, jurors took it seriously • Cannot control for impact of artificial nature of mock juries Sample size (juries) • Scale of project was substantial • BUT still only 64 juries • Better able to identify significant differences at juror-level - 863 individual jurors - Specific trials • Findings reflect the 2 specific trials used • Intentionally finely balanced to encourage debate, including discussion of NP Summary of jury-level verdicts - Overall, most juries acquitted - 7 guilty, 26 not guilty, 24 not proven, 7 hung - As expected (given sample size), no statistically significant differences in number of juries returning a guilty verdict by trial type, number of verdicts, number of jurors, or majority type - There were, however, significant differences at individual juror level What difference does each feature make? - Jury size • Jurors in 15-person juries were (after deliberation) more likely to favor a guilty verdict than those in 12-person juries • Proportion favoring a guilty verdict:  12-person jurors - 31% before deliberating, 21% after deliberating  15-person jurors - 34% before, 30% after  So bigger shift to acquittal among 12-person jurors  Why? More jurors required to shift position to facilitate verdict in 15person juries – so less motivation to shift? - Majority required • Jurors asked to reach a simple majority were (after deliberation) more likely to favor a guilty verdict than those asked to reach a unanimous verdict • Reflects bigger shift towards acquitting among jurors asked to reach a unanimous verdict  Simple majority jurors: 32% favor guilty verdict both before and after deliberating  Unanimity jurors: 33% favor guilty before deliberating, 20% after  So greater tendency for jurors asked to reach unanimity to shift from a minority to majority view  BUT some evidence to suggest less inclined to shift towards majority for guilty. What difference does each feature make? - Number of verdicts • When not proven was available (a) juries tended to choose it over not guilty and (b) individual jurors were less likely to favor guilty.  26 out of 32 juries where not proven was available acquitted, and 24 out of those 26 returned not proven.  Before deliberating, 28% of jurors who had the not proven verdict available favored guilty, compared with 38% of those who did not.  Difference remained post-deliberation.  Not proven appears to have an impact on individual verdict preferences independent of any impact of group deliberation. Interactions between features - All 3 features are independently and significantly associated with likelihood of individual jurors favoring guilty - The combination of features that produced the most jurors in favor of conviction (after deliberating) was 15-person, simple majority, and two- verdicts. - This is the system that we would have in Scotland if we removed the not proven verdict but changed nothing else - Worth stressing again - juror verdict choices in identical trials vary depending on the design of the jury system Elements of how juries reach decisions - Length of deliberations - Scope of deliberation - Discussion of legal tests and issues - Levels of juror participation - Tone of deliberations - Juror confidence and satisfaction Discussion of legal tests and issues - - - Proof • The standard of proof or the meaning of beyond reasonable doubt • Whether the evidence was believed to have met that standard Corroboration • The meaning of corroboration • Whether the witness's evidence corroborated the complainer's account Trial-specific issues • Rape trial  Did the complainer consent?  Did the accused have a reasonable belief in consent? • Assault trial  General plausibility of the self-defense plea  The tripartite test for self- defense Discussion of legal tests and issues - No statistically significant differences in whether juries discussed specific legal issues by the various conditions: • except that juries which did not have the option of a not proven verdict were more likely to discuss the meaning of the reasonable doubt standard (though did not necessarily have a better understanding of it) • where the meaning of the standard was discussed, jurors did not refer to the definition given by the judge, frequently preferring formulations such as '100% certainty'  but there were occasional references to proof beyond reasonable doubt as being something less than certainty (in line with the judge's definition) - Assault trial • Jurors did not always mention all three elements of the self-defense test, or struggled to recollect them clearly. • - This supports the case for written directions/routes to verdict Corroboration • Less evidence here of misunderstanding, although some jurors in rape trials suggested that the doctor's evidence would have to be unequivocal in order to corroborate (we discuss this later). - Rape trial • Discussion focused primarily on the credibility of the complainer's account rather than the law (we discuss this later). Levels of juror participation - Overall, in 15 person juries (vs. 12 person), there were more: • Participants wanting to contribute but being unable to (13 vs. 2 out of 32) • Dominant jurors: average of 1.8 jurors in 15 person (vs. 1.0)  41% participants in 15 person juries agreed some colleagues 'talked too much' vs. 28% in 12 person • Minimally contributing jurors: average of 2.5 jurors in 15 person (vs. 1.6 in 12 person)  Average influence self-rating of 4.1 in 15 person (scale 1-7) vs. 4.5 (12 person)