Juror Support Programs in Spotlight in British Columbia, Canada
The Times Colonist reports that British Columbia is piloting two jury support programs – one being a peer support program, and the other being a “mental health first aid” training for courthouse sheriffs. The former was developed by the nonprofit juror advocacy group known as the Canadian Juries Commission. CJC’s founder, Mark Farrant, started the nonprofit after serving as a juror and experiencing trauma from the graphic details he was exposed to during the trial. Jurors can find information about the peer support program either on CJC’s website or from a brochure they receive when beginning jury service. The Commission is also finalizing a “mental health first aid” training program to help courthouse sheriffs learn how to spot signs of juror distress. Once the training gets underway, sheriffs will learn how they might approach a troubled juror with self-care strategies.
Do Jurors Mix Fact with Opinion? It's Likely
The latest issue of JD Supra, an online publishing platform for profit and nonprofit legal enterprises, features a piece written by Ken Broda-Bahm, Ph.D., a litigation consultant with Persuasion Strategies. He discusses a recent study conducted by two Canadian researchers finding that despite legal standards and evidentiary protections, the fact/opinion dichotomy is often difficult for jurors to digest. He suggests that what is more salient with jurors is the distinction between “what I agree with” and “what I disagree with.” Further, the study found that when participants received opinions, they were more likely to mischaracterize those opinions as facts when the opinions resonated with what they already believed. The researchers also concluded that opinions inevitably permeate witness testimony, which is likely because opinions help witnesses develop a theory to make sense of the facts.
Popular TV Show Across the Pond Produces Strong Debate About Criminal Juries
The Telegraph columnist Jonathon Sumption reports that a new British television show – “The Jury: Murder Trial” – highlights one of the reasons why jury trials are dying out, in Sumption’s opinion: secrecy. The show films two juries, recruited from ordinary members of the public, deliberating during a reenacted trial based on real events. The defendant had admitted to killing his wife during an argument. At issue was whether it was murder or manslaughter. One jury found for murder, the other, manslaughter. Viewers of “The Jury: Murder Trial” can listen to the jurors’ conversations and hear them sift through the evidence. Sumption writes that the show may help enlighten the public on the “high price we pay for the jury system,” namely, the risk of injustice being carried out behind closed doors, where juror deliberations are protected and remain confidential.
Georgia App. Ct. Rules Trial Court Erred in Removing Holdout Juror
In Nelson v. Georgia, the Georgia Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred by removing a juror who allegedly had stopped participating in the deliberations. The trial court’s inquiry revealed that the jury had reached unanimous verdicts regarding two of the four defendants, but that the holdout juror – Juror White – was not participating in deliberations concerning the remaining two accused. One of the jurors suggested that White could not make a decision “because of the person’s mental state.” Ultimately, the trial court removed White and replaced her with an alternate juror. On review, the Georgia appellate court found that the trial court did not have a sufficient basis for removal. Further, before removing White, the trial court needed to establish that the reason for removal was unrelated to the juror’s view of the evidence. The lower court failed to do so.
Trial Lawyers Wrangle Over Asking About Prospective Jurors' Beliefs on 2020 Election
CNN reports that Special Counsel Jack Smith wants to ask potential jurors in the classified documents case against former president Donald Trump whether they believe the 2020 election was stolen. That inquiry is included in a list of questions prosecutors would like to ask potential jurors. Defense attorneys also submitted their own proposed questions. Lawyers for the defendants object to asking about jurors’ views on the DOJ and FBI, as well as the search of Mar-a-Lago in 2022. Conversely, the special counsel’s office objects to asking jurors if they are registered to vote, if they voted in 2020, and whether they are registered with a political party.