Class Notes (838,384)
Canada (510,870)
York University (35,470)
Psychology (4,109)
PSYC 3310 (80)

Ch. 8 Jury Selection & Research.pdf

6 Pages
Unlock Document

PSYC 3310
Gwen Jenkins

Ch. 8: Jury Selection & Research Thursday, May 17, 201:00 PM - Courtsin Canada ○ Canadian jury system founded in English traditions ○ Stare Decisis model-- "let the decision stand" ○ Provincial/territorial court-- "Summary" offenses, small civil, family, traffic, bylaw ○ Superior court-- Divorce, appeals, large civil, "indictable" offenses [1st level of appeal]  [In Canada, you can only appeal if there was a procedural error, not simply if you don't like the verdict] ○ Administrative Tribunals-- E.g., human rights, environmental workers' compensation, policy development Typesof Offenses: "Indictable" - Three types: Indictable, summary, hybrid ○ Indictable = most serious ○ Examples: high treason/treason, terrorism, sabotage, forgery, murder, robbery, breaking and entering ○ Trier of Fact: Usually jury, but accused (Prosecutor must be willing) can often choose judge or jury ○ Penalties vary: most severe offence = life in prison (i.e., high treason), other offenses = "imprisonment not to exceed…" ○ [Held in Superior Court] Types of Offenses: "Summary" - Summary = least serious - Examples: Causing disturbance, trespassing at night, taking a motor vehicle without owner's consent - Trier of Fact: Judge [never a jury] - Penalties: fine < $2,000 and/or 6 months in jail Typesof Offenses: "Hybrid" - Most offenses defined by CCC are hybrid offenses, Crown/Prosecution chooses to pursue as - Most offenses defined by CCC are hybrid offenses, Crown/Prosecution chooses to pursue as summary, hybrid, or indictable - Examples: Impaired driving, assault, theft under $5,000 - Trier of Fact: Accused can choose judge or jury if pursued as hybrid or indictable - Penalties: Vary depending on whether summary, hybrid, or indictable Expert Testimony - Judge: The "gatekeeper" ○ Controls which information is presented in court ○ Before expert testimony admitted, must be subjected to test - Canada: R. v. Mohan (1994) [ON TEST] ○ ["R" stands for Regina = The Queen] ○ [Since "R" comes first, we know it's a prosecution case. If "Mohan" came first, it would be an appeal] ○ Expert psychiatrist was to testify that Mohan did not belong to profile of pedophile (first three assaults) or sexual psychopath (fourth assault). ○ Ruling:  Expert's group profiles not reliable enough  Expert evidence not necessary (would not help)  Value of testimony outweighed by potential for misleading jury ○ Established 4 criteria for admission of expert testimony:  (1) Relevant  (2) Necessary-- expert has specialist knowledge to explain/clarify evidence  (3) Absence of exclusionary rule (i.e., procedure)  (4) Qualified expert-- accepted in scientific community - In addition to Mohan criteria, evidence should: ○ Go beyond "common sense", and ○ Should not replace juror's role (ultimate opinion) - Note: Expert witness vs. fact witness JurySelectionin Canada - Jury selection different to US ○ Litigation consulting/jury "manipulating" not seen in Canada - Charter of Rights & Freedoms-- right to fair trial - Supreme Court tries to ensure juries are unbiased ○ Random samples from electoral role (>19 years, Canadian citizen, resident of jurisdiction) ○ Disqualifications:  Police officers, lawyers, conviction in last 5 years, employee of Ministry of Attorney General, etc. ○ Competency (i.e., must be able to understand proceedings, evidence, etc.) JurySelectionProcess:Voir Dire"to tell the truth" - Questioning process by which lawyers can remove (deselect) or "challenge" potential jurors SelectionProcess - Information limited to name, sex, age, occupation - Information limited to name, sex, age, occupation - Process: ○ (1) Present: Crown, Defense, accused, Judge, staff, potential jurors ○ (2) Court clerk reads charges, asks accused to plead "guilty" or "not guilty" ○ (3) If accused pleads not guilty, expected duration of trial is announced ○ (4) Potential jurors' names drawn at random ○ (5) If present, move to front of court (15-20) ○ (6) Crown/Defense may "challenge" or accept juror ChallengingPotential Jurors: - Preemptory challenges (s. 634, CCC) ○ 20 each side: high treason, 1st degree murder ○ 12 each side: indictable offences > 5 year sentence ○ 4 each side: less serious offences ○ [Can be dismissed for any reason, doesn't have to be legal] - Challenge for Cause (s. 638, CCC): no limit on quantity, long process ○ Judge questions potential juror ○ Two "sworn-in" jurors decide potential juror's partiality ○ [Cause must have legal basis] Reason's for Challenginga Juror 1. Juror already formed opinion (e.g., juror related to accused, stereotypes/prejudice, case relevant to jury pool community) 2. Identity of juror is not listed name 3. Juror has been convicted of a serious offense 4. Juror not a Canadian citizen 5. Juror physically unable to perform duties 6. Juror does not speak an official language of Canada Juror Dismissal aftercase has begun - Conflict of interest (e.g., R. v. Gill, 1995) - Unethical behavior (e.g., speaking with press, bribery) - As long as "at least 10 jurors", trial may proceed JuryFunctions - Main function: to apply the law to admissible evidence & render a verdict - In addition 1. To use wisdom of 12, rather than 1, to reach a verdict 2. To act as the conscience of the community
More Less

Related notes for PSYC 3310

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.