ED 081 685

AU: HOP:TITLEINSTITUTIONPUB CATENOTEAVAILABLE FPCM

DOCUMENT PESUME

SO 006 114

Puckhout, Pobert, Ed.; And Otherssocial Action and the Law. Volume 1. Number 1.Center for Fesponsive Psychology, Brooklyn, N.Y.Mar 7312p.Center for Responsive Psychology, Brooklyn College,Drooklyn, New York 11210 (Subscription rate is $5.00for six issues)

ECPS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29DESCRIPTORS Court Doctrine; Human Services; *Laws; Literature

Reviews; *Newsletters; Psychological Studies; *SocialAction; Social Change; *Social Psychology; *SocialSciences

IDENTIFIERS *Juries

ABSTRACTThis newsletter, published six times a year by an

independent group of psychologists and students unrelated to anylegal agency, is designed to hiing relevant social scienceinformation to the attention of the practioner in the legal,judicial, and correctional fields. Focus in this issue is on thejury. Research findings, reviews, analyses, and opinions arepresented. Two articles on jury selection are included: SocialPsychologists in Action for the Cefense and Can Personality andAttitude Testing Help (SHM)

JUL 173T

1; SOCIAL ACTION & THE LAWc.) J

CENTER FOR RESPONSIVE PSYCHOLOGY 0

NEWSLETTER a

Xarch .1973 BlatilaY_,NO.0,n

,

41

.14

THE CENTER FOR RESPOVSIVE PSYCHOLCOYIS AN ORGANIZATION OF PROFESSIONAL PSYCHODCGISTS AND STUDENTSDEDICATED TO CONSTRUCTIVE SOCIAL CHANGE. THE CENTER'S ACTIVITYINCLUDES RESEARCH, PLACEMENT OF STUDENT VOLUNTEERS IN COMMUNITYAGENCInt SPONSORSHIP OF SPECIAL COURSES AND THE DISSEKINATIONOF SOCIAL SCIENCE INFORMATION IN A FORM USEFUL TO THE COMMUNITY.ONE OF CUR PRINCIPAL AREAS OF CONCEPN IS IN THE ROLE OF SOCIALSCIENCE :n THE LEGAL ANT) JUDICIAL SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED STATES,

EDITORIAL

SOCIAL ACTION AND THE LAW is anewsletter designed to bring relevantsocial...cloaca information to the atten-tion of the practicioner in the legal,judicial and correctional fields. Wewill endeavor to communicate recent re-:march findings in clear, non-technicallanguage in order to aid the practicionerin putting social science to work. Eachissue is devoted to a theme around whichresearch findings, reviews, analyses andopinions are presented. You can expect

C) to find our opinions expressed, espe-cially in our featured "Proposals for

-la- Action and Change... Our opinions arek.f) strictly our own - is are an independent

group of psychologists and students un -filleted to any legal agency.

The sewaletter has been designed toserve a cats' tic function in the socialscience-18ga: area. We need your help,your feedback, your opinions and yourwritings to review. Letters to the °di-

for will be printed if short and not rep-ititious. We are planning several them.issues including EVIDENCE (polygraph,hypnosir, voice-prints, etc.), SOCIALSCIENTISmS AS EXPERT WITNESSES, DETER-RENCE, and others. We wish to be timelyand topical and won't hesitate to switchthemes an events dictate. We welcomeyour suggestions and even your partici.%patio' as a guest editor. Our ideal isto give social science away to the user.Please let us know what you want and ALyou want it.

For our first issue we have focusedon THE JURY as a theme. A great deal ofsocial science research has been done ongroups making decisions, but only recent-ly has research been aimed at real jurorsin real life settings. For the trialattorney, some of the recent research andefforts towards change will have a signi-ficant impact on the future role of juries.

CONTENTS:

Reviews -Articles -Jury Selections Social Psychologists in Action for the Di ensJury Selectian: Can Personality and Attitude Testi ng Help?

Action & Change -

FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY

2

5

11

SOCIAL ACTIONAND TRS LAW

This issue edited byRobert BuckhoutJay GoldenNoreen NortonVincent ReillyRonnie SolomonSteve tag

VCopyright 1973 by theenter for Rooponsive Ps;chology

Brooklyn CollegeBrooklyn, N.T. 11210

Phone (212) 780-5608, 5605

Send $1.00 for additional copiesof this issue postpaid. Forbulk prices call or write theCenter.

REVIEWS

Rosenblatt, JUlia C., "Should thesize of the jury in criminal casesbe reused to six? An examination ofpsychological evidence", The Prose-cutor: Journal of the National Dis-trict Attorney's Association, 1972,Vol. 8 No.4, 309-314

Prof. Rosenblatt ( psycholo-gist and wife of a District Attor-ney) argues for the six person Agriin this article which combines agood legal review with a broad anal-ysis of social psychological re-search on groups. Despite thousandsof experiments on groups, socialscientists to date have not experi-mentally compare* 6 vs 12 personsin reaching juror-like decisions ina real world setting. Prof. Rosenblattis against the lone, individualistic("hanging ") juror or the faction ofjurors who prevent consensus in thelarge jury. In light of the fact thatthe consensus is for conviction in90%, of criminal jury trials, the authoris effectively selecting her evidenceto support the possibility for more

COUNMAVA - hence more conviction' -in the six person jury.

The potential efficiency in selec-tion time and cases - unsupported byevidence - is cited as a major flirterit the Williams vs. Florida, ( 3S9,U.S. 78 C 1970) decision which cranedthe doors for smaller juries. We agreewith the author that nore specific re-search is needed in a real writ con-text, but the drive toward offilencycould become another source of tnjus-tice.

Simon, Rita Jame/1,1)N Jury and the 106-fesseollssesity, Toronto: Little,Brown and Company, 1967, 269 pp.

- Ronnie Solomon

Rita James Simon, studied the pro-cess by which juries reach their ver-dict in insanity trials. For this, shenet up a series of experimental trials,using over one thousand jurors chosenat random from the jury pools of Chicago,St. Louis, and Minneapolis. Xs. Simonhoped to determine how an actual jurydeliberates in addition to finding agylinks between a juror's background andopinions, and his tendency to find adefendant Not Guilty for reason on In-sanity ( NGI ).

Experimental jurors were drawn bylot from actual jury pools as part oftheir mandatory jury duty. They werethen broken into individual juries. Theywere shown either one or two pre-record-ed staged trials. The first was on acharge of breaking and entering and thesecond trial was based on a charge ofincest. Before playing of the tape, thejurors were instructed by the judge totreat this trial with the same care andthought they would give in a real trial.Moreover they were further divided intogroups for additional instruction uponwhich precise definition of "insanity"to use. Approximately one third of thejuries were told to use the traditionalMeNaghten definition; one third were in-formed of the Durham veridoeand theremainder were given no instruction.

Social Action and the Law, Vol, 1

2

TABLE 2

n, Briakfri34 carterin5

et:11°001

CO:Se- -%-rice6t

Percent.125e, 4 Nf6tam:emit/1 k Usxm :TuttAIrrtimaion on ihSitil

Coryt.rolGrou

144.41wat ;en

Durhamf.sirurthn

11:10 5 i 10 0590

306 a 00 300

Table 2 The Percentage of Not *laity byReasozm of Insanity Verdicts under variousiastructioas frog Siments The Jars And the;aims* of Inimaity, 1967

DEAR MIST: I arrerda turor. Vrary day On* Of Mtma& iurort breglilt a NMhonk of honrboa. He and theother male jun" Om acouple of ladle* would MOall day long. I mild neverinwirretand how the hiliffLwow not i nt.4 7411. how hefarkal to smell al.

I shudder *ern I thinkthat such people are decidingtht: Kullt or ismocenyt

10NED

The breaking and entering casedealt with a man with a long historyof psycLotic disorders, institutionalcommitments, and attempted suicides.On the other hand, the defendant on theincest charge appeared to be a stableman with a steady job and high efficiencyrating. The results seen in Table 410,show the differences in the =Ober ofDOI decisions reached by each group.Note that those given no instructionstayed more in line with the decisionsreached by the Durham group).

However NO, Simon failed oomewhatin trying to draw any parralls1 betweenjurors' economic status, education,ayipathies, and his propensity for ac-cepting a MGX plea. Those people witha higher income, education, a more hu-manistic attitude toward mental ill-ness, or a greater sexual permissive-

ness, were no more apt to decide HQI thana person to the contrary. these resultsremained even mars rigid ia the lacestcase, which seem to cross all lines ofbackground and belief.

Perhaps the strongest asset of thisboons: is its chapter showing the actualtranscripts of this: experimental Juries.Fvr anyone studying the profess of jurydeliberations, these are all tee rare. I

trates the deliberate period fro& the timec, foreaan selection, to the final erdiet.At the Baas time, it offers mazy insightsinto the thinking of the individual jurors,as well as the largo degree to which theycan carefully study the evidence and testimony (contrary to popular bellef).111

'Under the McNaghten rule, the defendant is

excused only if he did not know what he wasdoing, or did not know that he was doingwrong.

2In brief, the Durham rule states that a

defendant is summed if his act was theproduct of a mental disease or detest.

grlanger, H.S. "Jury research in Aviaries:

It's past and future ", yaw aud_Setietv lt.-view, 1970, Vol. 4, Ho. 3, 345 -370

This thorough review of legal andscholarly research on juries is probablythe best single source we have eacouatered,especially for an attorney seeking to understand jury competence, composition andpersonality effects. Excellent documentation and historical perspective marks a

study which raises important questions forremearoh and social change.

March, 1973 3

TABLE I

J Acquit;

D

G

E Convict

Total jury

4

YuPer(.cWO.Vlichfriah)

JURY

/ 13.4 / 22 L i1( . 62.0 / 4.4

// X30.3 64.2 5.5

Judge-Jury Agreement

agreement in approximately 25% of thecases (see table 1). Of theTotal Judge disagree-ments, one fifth were artifacts ofthe Study, as these were lkmeg" juries,automatically producing disagreement

163 with the judge, who lacks this option;2) The jury was more lenient in 19% ofthe cases the judge was more lenient iu3% of the cases ( i.e., the juriesshowed a net leniency of 16%). The

83.3 generality of this finding is limbted, however, in that the cases towhich this 16% figure applies were

icacr, selected for jury trial because theywere expected to evoke pro-defendantisentiments; 3) That, with respect toleniency, the juries were not funda-pentally " defendant- prone". Rather,

Table 1 describes the magnitude of judge-jury disagreement in Kelvin and Zeisel'sThe Minoan

Kalven, Harry, Jr. and Zeisel, HansThe American JUry, Chicago: The Uhiv.

of Chicago Press (paperback edition),1971, 559 pp., $5.95 - Steve wog

The American Jame partial re-port of the findings of the ChicagoAiry Project, is unique in both scaleand method. The authors Harry Kalven,Jr.,professor of lam!, and Hans Zeisel, soc-iologist end statistician, have demon-strated the fruitfulness of fusing thetools and perspectives of the legal andsocial science professions.

The subject natter is essentially theextent of agreement between judge and

jury in establishing verdicts. Towardthis end, 3,567 cases were sampled, forwhich 555 judges reported (before theJury came in) how they would have de-cided a case, were there no jury. Alsoreported was information concerninghow the jury actually decided, and whatfactors the judges felt influenced thejury, if there was verdict disagreement.

While the authors touch upon manyaspects Or the judge-- jury decisionalprocess, the essential findings are asfollows: 1) There was judge-jury dis-

the authors conclude that the jury is "non-rule minded;" 4) In only 9% of the caseswas the judge critical of the jury's per-formance.

These findings are further qualifiedin terms of disagreement over conviction,charge, and/or penalty, and for disagree-ment patterns for specific crimes. Also,an in depth discussion is provided ofspecific reasons for judge-jury disagresmentse

In terms of methodology, it is notsurprising that there are malty weakness-es, most of which would prove particu-'arly irksome to the social scientist.Fundamentally, one has no way of knowingwhether the judges who claimed they wouldhave rendered a particular decisionwould actually have done so. Furthermore,in attributing motives to jurors, thejudges have relied upon speculation,rather than upon direct knowledge of de-liberation processes.

From a statistical point of view, wefind that, since some judges reported waymore cases than others, specific biasesNA7 not have been sufficiently counterbal-anced; it must also be noted that the en-tire statistical treatment has been super-ficial, with specific analysis based ontrends,rather than upon more exact statis-tical inference. However, while methodo-logical weaknesses go uncorrected, theyare freely noted and discussed by the

(Continued on Pagel)

March, 1973

IRTIC LES

Jury .:election: Social Psychologistsie k tion for the Defence

- Vincent Reilly

In the wake cf the political trials1 -f ;re oast few years, a number of socialpsrehol-.gistn have gotten involved in help-ing ftefense lawyers to pick jurors. In0., _:ection= on :::octal .::ience and

one Law", Richard Christie explains howithe dofenze lawyers in the Harriburg Oon-lapirac7 7:ial of 1971 were able to use re-soaech material gathered and analyzed bya tcam of psychologists and anti-ear ae-tivizts. This information was gleanedfrom especially written questionaires andphoned interviews with registered votersin the Harrisburg area. The data wereused in four important 'ways: 1) In theirarguments for procedural points, the lawyersper waded the judge to open the jury listto newly registered voters ( thereby low-ering the average age); 2) Previously un-asked questions, e.g., religious affili-ation, were found to be significant andused in voir dire examinations; 3) De-fense lawyers were sensitized to ques-tion 11.1rors with "anti-civil libertar-ian" attitudes more intensively; and4) A sociologist consulted with defenselawyers prior to their decision to per-emptorily challenges potential jurorswith "Questionable composite profiles.

The detailed narrative account ofthis study, "JUry Selection for theHarrisburg Conspiracy Trial" byJay Shulman, etal., is an impressive(40p.) testimony to the effort pro-de-ed by five social scientists and 15volunteer researchers in finning a"Jury that would assume the defendant in-nocent until proven guilty beyond areasonable doubt. Lawyers and psychol-rists on the case feel that thereeni_7. ,s was proven worthwile by the

10 - 2 hung jury ( for acquital) con-sidering the notoriety of the Berriganbrothers in this conservative part ofthe country.116*

In their conclusion, the authorsrecommend that future researchers e-valuate prospective jurors 1) Atti-tudes toward the defendants al-41 theiralleged erimes; 2) AsseLs juror ratinessystematica113, with an eye for Aiscrci:-ancies, i.e. persons -ee.1 rn badon other indicators; i Probe unz-e7a-thetic jurors conee-etivna of their role

tank to distinguish those who deelzwhether the prosecution nas pre:eLtedsufficient evidence or whether the de-feLdents are guilty or irnoeen+ 4) Probethe nuMber of women and thedominance in the composi410e of 4.7e011- 5) Study behavioral cues, non-verbal behavior of prospective ju-rors; 6) use defense lawyers fore-enewledge of test imoey to arise and otherspecial eheracteristics of the trialto anticipate jurors reactions. Theauthors finish with a recommendationthat federal trial rules be revised tonclude the right to an extended voirdire.

In "Psychology and the Angela DavisMary", Wayne Sage outlines the profes-sional concerns and methods of three

black psychologists who aided'the de-fense in jury selection. They began byassessing Angela's personality and an-ticipating her courtroom performance.After identifying her three personalitytraits most likely to influence the4urors, (i.e. her beauty, determinationand friendliness) the psychologists setout to find, by direct courtroom &ear-vaticn, twelve unbiased jurors who wouldreact to the defendent on a rational hu-mor level, rather than on the lee. oiprejudicial emotions (Angela Davis ;,e1:-.:g

ibleck, a communiat, and a militant).Looking for consistent attitudes in the.subtleties of human reaction, they hopedto spot hidden antipathies to theracial characteristics of the two de-fense lawyers, one black and one appar-ently white, and more importantly, the

Social Action and the Law, Vol. 1

"I ley, rile pay anentiew, please! I happen 1,, r. vIn; 1,) s%.av you!"4.1., 4.

jurors reactions to the DA in compari- Association - Edited by Marcia Out-

son. tentag, Dept. of Psychology and So-

The psychologists studied body lan- vial Relations, Harvard Univ., Cam-

guage, the way jurors sat, gestured,made facial expression and other non-

bridge, Mace. 02138

. Schulman, Jay, etal., "Jury selectionverbal cues as well as the subtleties ofinference in juror answers to voir dire

in tko Harrisburg conspiracy trial",January 1973, pre-publication draft

questioning. The inter-juror relations of article tc appear soon in Perchol7were also evaluated before they cordhined on Todcc. For copies, write totheir separate observations and chose Prof. Phillip Shaver, Dept. of Socialtwelve people who were accepted at the Psychology, Columbia University, Newtactically appropriate moment. Tor*, NY

The efforts of these three psy-chologists were rewarded indeed by the Sage, Wayne, "Psychology and the

acquittal of Angela Davis. These rela-tively recent developments representthe values and commitment to the de-fendant by the psychologists involved.

Angela Davis Jury", Hunan Behavior,1973, Vol. 2, No. 1, 56 -61

Papers Available frun the Center-Psychologists have learned much abouthuman behavior from such impaivementand in return they have provided in-

CR-2 Buckhout, R., etal,"A Jury Without Peers". An over-

valuable aid to the defendant. II view of jurors and field studywith real jurors, back up a setof recommendations for change ( Mall

References: Check for $1.00)

1. Christie, Richard, "Some reflectionson social science and the law; The CR-3 Appierto, J., etal, "Decision

Harrisburg conspiracy trial as an ex-I Shifts Among Jurors" A progress re-

ample", Division 8 Neweletter, Daces- port of interest mainly to researchers

ber 1972, The American Psychologicali

( Available free).1

March, 1973

Jury Selection: Can Personality andAttitude Testing Help?

- Jay Golden

In recent years, psychologists in con-junction with lawyers, have been experiment-ing with the use of personality testa (andattitude waesures) to see if they can pre-dict the voting tendencies of jurors. Testswhich meeeure authoritarianism, dogmatism,acquiescence, attitudes toward punishment,degree of interest in manipulating people,etc, have been administered to jurors orcollege atudente faced with a verdict de-cision in real or mock trials. As psychol-ogists we are in the somewhat uncomfortableposition of knowing that some of the find-ings of this research are very impressive,while recognizing that personality teststhemselves have scientific and practicallimitations. Nonetheless, proposals havebeen seriously advanced to give personalitytests and attitude measures to prospectivejurors; with the results being made avail-able to the court, opposinglattorneys anda consulting psychologist.

As Vincent Reilly points out (p.5),prior knowledge of a potential juror'sattitudes and beliefs has proven to bevaluable to defense teams selecting jurorsin criminal cases - valuable in the sensethat the ultimate verdicts were pleasingto the defense. But, in assuming thattest results would be available to bothsides in an adversary process, we canspeculate on whether the added informationwill add some value to the justice system-or whether any benefits would be cancelled,out by its availability to both sides.

The personality test is usually con-structed around a basic "norm" for behavior -a standard for the "average person," aroundwhich "deviant" scores may be interpretedas indicating extreme forms of behavior tobe avoided. For example, if we examine atest which measures "achievement motivation,the assumption behind the test is that tkeaverage person has or should have somelevel of motivation for achievement in acompetitive society. Too low a score im-plies laziness; a very high score suggestsexcessive ambition. Of course, it is ob-vious that such a test has a built-in biastoward conventional middle class, whiteanglo-saxon, protestant values - withinwhich achievement motivation is highly

respected. Thus, a bias toward the WASPvalues is being used to define "normal."This criticism, often raised in connectionwith intelligence tests lay at the basisof the People vs Craig decision whichbanned the use of intelligence tests inselecting jurors.

Recent research on the comparison ofpersonality tests scores vs juror behavior,has focussed on whether jurors are or can beimpartial - especially in trials where adefendant is from a minority group or ispoor. This basic questical vas raised inthe Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968) )"decision in Which the defendant askod fora murder conviction to be set aside because(a) the jury was in favor of the death pen-alty, 5 (b) research shows that those favor-ing the death penalty 'Are' "authoritarianpersona-itiese 6 ,t: A.. ::j h17'nly enthor-itarian personalities tend to be convictionprone. 7 The Supreme :..141 _'led only onfactor (a) in reversing tl...._ ..-riction, cit-ing the inconclusiveness a: ,aaearch on theother factors. Still, t111:' _!::ieion opensthe door for challenge..; TI, poLnAalbiasing effects of a jur rs:: attitudes onhis or her decision-makina.

The reference to autnoriterians8 re-fers to a long tradition of psychologicalresearch on a personality type character-,ized by rigidity, conservatism, depen-dence upon external authority and a re-luctance to give up on what seems certain.The test which measures authoritarian at-titudes is the California "F" scale. Se-veral studies have shown that jurors withhigh scores on this test tend to rendermore guilty Targets and to mandate har-sher punishment. However, one cannot sim-ply ask a psychologist for an authori-tarianisa test of the shelf, since thesetests are quite old1 d valid mainly inlaboratory settings. One similar testcalled the. Legal Attitudes Questionnair(LAQ), appears to be more directly use-full since it is short, is based on legalproblems, and provides three measures ofauthoritarianism iqualitarianism and anti-authoritarianism. Anti-Authoritarians

identified by the LAQ scale have beenshown to be excessively lenient in mockjury trialslawhile high authoritarianstend to be conviction prone. This testseems to be most highly favored as an ac-curate predictor by reeeerchers,

Social Action and thnLaw, Vol. 1

We have been impressed by some of thefollowing highlights of recent research:*Mitchell and Byrne, 1971, in studyinghow high and low authoritarians respondedto a criminal trial, found that the highauthoritarians responded more to prejudi-cial testimony against the defendant andwere not swayed by the judge's instruc-tions to disregard. Low AuthoritarilTswere.moraexmonsive to instructions.Mitchell and Byrne, 1973, found that

authoritarians were more responsive tothe attractiveness and similarity of be-liefs of the lefendant than were egali-tarian jurors.

Vidmar and Crinkle, report that highauthoritarians were motivated to givelonger sentences before ?role to defen-dants of "bad" character.'

The value of personality tests must bedetermined from research in the real worldwith actual jurors before they can be con-sidered for use. Tests which identify cetain types, yield predictions which inter-act with other factors such as judicialinstructions and defendant character. Thusthe interpretation of test scores would begreatly aided by consulting psychologistsskilled in the use of such tests. The useof test questions as a basis for a sharperevil' dire is a much more likely prospect.More probing questions can aid in decidingon challenges and in sensitizing the jurorto his prejudices; certainly more than thejudge's instructions. We think that tes-ting might be a valuable aid to the courtin finding out about juror voting tenden-cies, but we feel that extraordinary stepsmust be taken to protect the privacy ofthe juror. Test data must never be re-;leased to any other agency or indidual.

leased to any other agency or individual.If tests are used,there is no way that

a certain score could be set to automati-cally disqualify a juror. Even a highlyauthoritarian juror cannot be deprived ofhis rights and duty to serve merely be-cause of his personality, however disa-greeable. The tests are not all that re-liable yet, but even if they were, a juryof one's peers may well include some highiely authoritarian people. Another complica-tion arises from the fact that the perso-nality test is notoriously fakeable by per-sons wishing to project the desired image.

In one study it was found that selectedjurors tended to get very high scores ontests which measure acquiescence and so-cial approval seeking. That LS, jurorsmay already be faking their velx_elire

responses in ordersto get on or to getoff of jury duty. Trial attorneys areaware that when jurors :catch other jurorsbeing questioned, they may adjust theiranswers when they take the stand in orderto obtain the desired approval of thecourt.

We conclude with a call for more re-search - while expressing doubt about theofficial court use of personality testsin juror selection.. We strongly recom-mend tests as a basis for structuring amore predictive v-'u dire.

References:

1. Emerson, C. David. Personality TestsFor Prospective Jurors, KentRehY LawJournal, 1968, .16, 832-854.

2. People vs Crain, No. 41750, SuperiorCourt, Alameda County,.California, 1968.3. Witherspoon v. Illinois, U.S., 1968,

88, 1770 -1788.4. Rokeach, M. and Vidmar, N. Testimony

Concerning Possible Jury Bias in a BlackPanther Murder Trial, Journal 9f AppliedLoci delploL, March, 1973.

5. Jurow, G. Y. New Data on the Effectof a Death-Qualified Jury on the GuiltDetermination Process, Harvard LawReview, 1971, 567 -611.

6. Boehm, V. R. Mr. Prejudice, MissSympathy and the Authoritarian Person-ality: An Application of PsychologicalMeasuring Techniques to the Problem of JuryBias. Wisconsin Law Review, 1968, 734..750.

7. Mitchell, H. E. and Byrne, D. TheDefendant's Dilemma: Effects of Jurors'Attitudes and Authoritarianism on JudicialDecisions, Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 1973, .2.j (1), 125129.

8. Adorno, T. et al. The Authoritariap Per-ponality, New York: Harper, 1950.9. Cf references 5,6, and 7. See also Epstein,R. Authoritarianism, Displaced Aggression andSocial Status of the Target. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology. 1965, 2,PP. 585 -589.10. This warning also applies to the ',dogmatism!'scale presented by Rokeach, M. The Open andClosed Mind, New York: Basic Hooke, 1960.

(Continued on Pageto)

March, 1973

REVIEWS, (Cont.), The American Jnrx

authors, Furthermore, the qualifieatiens

one must impose en the oonoluaioas drawndo not overshadow the value arising fromthe bread scope of the data eollested.

It is worth noting that the findingsare smattered throughout the book, *ad thisresults in a certain lack of cohesiveness.It is for this reason that The Arilllict was cited by the Supreme Court in thecase of Spencer v. Texas, both in the ma-jority opinion and in the dissent. It hasalso been cited by the Supreme Court inthe oases of U.S. v. Jackson, Williams v.Florida, and Duncan v. Louisiana, all in-volving in various ways the right to jurytrial itself.

The Amerioan_Jury has its fillings, butremains a unique source of informatioD; the tion to the screeninc function. Minimigagvalue of which remains to be fully twited.111-mappaciam in Jury Trials is an attorney's hand-

`book for selecting a jury and a vital aid toany citizen who seeks to be tried by a juryof his or her peers. II

perspective juror's prejudices, attitudestoward Black Panthers, feelings about the'Terry Mason wyndrome,* aid the usual leveessuch as the police, prior convictions, etc.The thrust of the questions zeroed in eshidden racism - since the voir dire encoura-ges people to say nice things about them-selves - with the hope that the juror mightconfront his feelings sore objectively ifhe were sensitised to then. Thus, even ifa challenge for cause were to fail, the ju-ror would be sensitized enough to niniaizehis arm racism during deliberation.

Along with some sample voir dire trans-cripts, a list of key questions by categoryis presented in the book. SociologistRobert Blauner, who observed the trial, pre-sante an analysis of the voir dire whichlasted for 2 weeks. Blauner affirms thatthe voir dire can be an opportunity to edu-cate the jury on relevant matters in addi-

Ginger, Ann Fagan (Ed.), Ail:ailing Raciallg Jury Trials, California, National Law-yers Guild, 1969, 247 PP.

- Noreen Norton

The Kerner Commission Report statedthat two-thirds of white Americans are ra-cist. This racism may be objective (i.e.open expression of biased attitudes), orsubjective (i.e. open expression of unbia-sed attitudes along with disapproval ofblack neighb)re). This racism, in conjunction with the juror selection systems of

many stateb (e.g. use of voter registrationlists, where poor, the young and minoritiesare under-represented), produces jurieswhich are pre-dominantly white, middleclass, middle aged, male racists. Sincea large proportion of criminal defendantsare young minority group members, a jury ofone's peers is a rarity in practice.

Charles Garry, defense attorney forHuey P. Newton, (charged with the murder ofa policeman), was acutely aware of the difi-culty of finding a jury of non-racist peersin Oakland, California. Be set out to solvethe problem by conducting an extensive voirdire, prepared with the help of social scien-tists Garry's voir dire, reprinted in thebook Minimizing Raoiss in Jury Trial., in-

Copies of NatugasissiimAluisamiami,may be obtained for $10.00 from:The Miekeljohn Library, Box 673, Berkeley,California, 94701. Also available from thisaddress, is the text of the people vs Craig,No. 41750, Superior Court, Alameda County,Calif., decision which eliminated the use ofan intelligence test to select jurors, on thegrounds that it led to the exclusion of mi-nority and low income citizens from juries.

WP

BELO HORIZONTE, Bra-zil (AP) Judge AlfonsoSaores Ferreira vowed hewould never accept a womanjuror for three reasons:Women shouldn't work out-side the home, women are"emotionally fragile," andthe courtroom's toilet isdirty.

Social Action asl the Law, Vol. 1

Blind Justice?1 could never forget that face.- saidthe witness on the stand, and the jiirv.cnnvinccd, found the defendant guiltsas charged. But was the ss ones% cor-rect? Perhaps not. Over the p-ist eightyyears psychologists have discovered thatwhat.a person hears, sees, and remem-bers depends on an extremely widevariety of factors. ranging from the

weather to the syitness's frame of mindat the time, in spite of this knowledge,why does cs ewitness testimony still en-joy such a prominent vosition in innlegal system?

According to psychologist RobertBuckhout, pait of the problem is thatpeople are unaware of the researchfindings in this area. To help rectifythis situaiioo. Dr. Buckhout and hiscolleague, Dr. Eugene Johnson. lc-cently organized the Center for Re-sponsive Psychology at the BrooklynCollege carapus in New link. !lopingto act as a catalyst between the socialsciences and law, the center will trainstudents interested in legal careers inin related fields of psychology,

Although the center has bent inexistence for only a few months, it isalready engaged in research on eye.witness reliability. The enters aim isthe discovery of the conditions or pro-cedures tending to bias a witness\ testi-mony. it is already known, for example,that the layout of the mug shots and thetype of photographs used can influencethe identification made by a witness,

The center plans to mitre thciological impact of the nCourt ruling that ajority, instead of thevote, is all tt, it a jury 4.s..tl% in order torender a verdict of guilty.

In February the center will beginpublishing a newsletter directed atlawyers. It will bring together informa-tion from all fields of social science per-tinent to the practice of law, n

CENTM NOTES

The adjoining article was published inthe Saturday ROTill, of the SCIARC149February, 1973. Mot newsletter mentio-ned is a little late, but... Subscri-ptions to SOCIAL ACTION AND THE LAW areavailable for $5.00 postpaid. Pleasesend cheek to the Center for ResponsivePsychology, Brooklyn College, Brooklyn,New York, 11210.

gYewithass Iilentification -A report entitled "Psychology and theEyksitresso by Robert Buckhout, (No.CR-1) is available from the Center for$1.00. It covers 16 sources of unre-liability identified in the human ob-server, an experiment on identificationwith photographs and the presentationof this type of expert testimony incourt.

Call for Information -For our future issues and our growinglibrary, we are urgently requesting anypublished research articles, legal opin-ions, cases and experiences with eyewit-ness testimony, lie detectectore, PSI,voice prints, experts in court, senten-cing.

Personality Teats, Continued:

11. Ibid. Copies of the Legal AttitudesQuestionnaire (LAQ) are available upon re-quest from the Center For Responsive Psy-chology. We recommend further research tit]:the LAQ,to check its reliability and validity.

12. Mitchell, B.E. & Armes D. Mini-mising the influence of irrelevant fac-tors in the courtroom: The defendant'scharacter, judge's instructions and au-thoritarianism. Unpublished paper, 1971.

13. Mitchell and Byrne, 1973, Ow. Cit.14. Vidmar, N. & Crinklaw, L.D. Retri-

bution and utility as motives in sanc-tioning behavior. Paper presented to theMidwestern Psychological Assn., April,1973.

15. Buckhout, R., it al, A Jury With-out Peers, Report No. CR-2, Center forResponsive Psychology, 1973.

14 ?tarok, 1973

ACTION & CHM

We have scratched the surface of a very complex and vital issue in this newslet-ter and in an article available from the center. We are concerned that Changes beingproposed for the role of the jury in the U.S. judicial system, represent s miaguiAeAapplication of "efficiency" and a manifestation of a deep-seated mistrust of the or-dinary citizen by court officers. The Court system, so marked by professionalism, issuch a generally acknowledged failure, that it is absurd to focus on minimizing therole of the citizen juror, who participates here as he does in few other areas in so-ciety. We trust the citizen! It's as simple as that. Thus, our recommendations areaimed at expanding and enhancing the function of the petit jury, lest it become, likethe grand jury, en impotent, temporary social club of passive, VA"ino followers whoserve merely as a tool of the prosecution.

We call for no change in the size of juries in major crieht-al trials. So fewcases go to a jury trial that the 12 person jury insures that reasonable doubt willbe difficult to overcome unless the case is convincing to 12 people.

The unanimous verdict should be preserved The same reasons apply; efficiencysimply means that the present 90% conviction rate would be increased.

The voir dire examinations should be lengthened rather than reduced; attor-neys as well as judges should be allowed to ask questions. Research and experiencepoint out the danger of and difficulty of identifying prejudicial jurors. The dro-ning of complex philosophical ideas in the judge's instructions do not substitutefor the confrontatio by a skilled attorney who can sensitize if not challenge theprejudiced juror.

Make it possible for more people to be urora. A jury of one's peers is pre-sently a pure fantasy. We recommend gher pay for jurors; a national registry forjury service; the elimination of automatic exemptions from jury duty; the aiming-tion of all competency tents for qualification; the use of bi-lingual court proceed-inga where appropriate; possibly allowing ex-felons to serve as jurors (benefittingboth the ex-felon and the system), aad the establishment of day care facilities formothers of =all children on jury duty.

Allow the jurors to participate actively. At present, the juror is a passiveparty to the trial, who is freq'ntly not allowed to take notes or ask questions. Webelieve that jurors should be encouraged to speak up, to ask questions directly ofwitnescea, to take notes, to visit the scene of the crime and to function as an ac-tive finder of fact. We question the wisdom of pretending that the jury is notforming an opinion , since research clearly shows that most jurors do not changetheir initial vote during deliberation.

Train the jurors. Mai wasted time during a juror's service could be spentin educiaiTiam or her on their duties, basic legal concepts, problems of evidence,elementary group dynamics (especially for the foreperson), and previous jury trials.40 recommend that a series of files be created for use in such A prograti.

Use excess jurors for research2rograms. Cooperation by -he court is vitalif social acientiste are ever to provide useful data based on the study of real.jurors. ty safeguarding the anonymity of participant jurors, many experimentscould be performed with access to parallel juries.

Finally, we must state that we have found jurors to be very conscientiouspeople who take their role seriously - more so perhepn than many court officers.We feel that justice will be better served by increasing the participation andfunction of the jury rather than minimizing it.

Social dation aed the Lashojel. 111

'I

SOCIAL ACTION AND THE LAWCenter for Responsive PsychologyBrooklyn CollogoBrooklyn, Nov York, 11210

NON BOt IT ORGU S B0',IAOL

PAIDBROOKLYN. NP(RMI1 Na 1071