Study Guides (380,000)
CA (150,000)
UTSG (10,000)
PSY (800)
Final

PSY328H1 Study Guide - Final Guide: Peremptory Challenge, O. J. Simpson, Precedent


Department
Psychology
Course Code
PSY328H1
Professor
William Huggon
Study Guide
Final

This preview shows pages 1-3. to view the full 65 pages of the document.
PSY328 SUMMER FINAL NOTES
SONYA DHILLON
1
LECTURE 6
Jury Decision Making
Canada VS US: from lecture 5
In Canada, most cases are judged without a jury
In Canada, there is a presumption that jurors are not biased and can be
impartial
In the US there is a presumption that jurors are inherently biased and must
be challenged
In US, because of the system/rules, they are assumed to be biased
information that may bias jury people can effect them because of rules
In Canada, jurors do not make decisions regarding sentencing except
sometimes for 2nd degree murder, they can suggest it
Challenge for Cause
Legal mechanism in place to challenge jurors as to whether they would be
impartial with respect to a particular issue
Particular issues: racial bias, sexual orientation, religion, anything that has
an air of reality of prejudice within the community
Has to be proved to the judge or they won’t allow challenge for cause
Once its been proven once, you don’t have to prove it again because of
stare decisis - precedence
Must establish a reasonable inference of potential bias in the population
Its in the community where the trial is taking place
Judge decides whether a challenge is warranted and has final approval of any
questions to be put to the jury
Defendant is _____, and you as their lawyer think that there’s an air of
reality that there’s potential bias and you ask for challenge for cause and
you give judge results from questionnaire that shows prejudice and the
judge doesn’t prove it then defendant will definitely appeal!
R v. Williams: native defendant, not allowed challenge for cause appealed and
other judge allowed it
Canada and USA Challenge for Cause - pretrial
In the US, there are long and personal challenges done by the lawyers and
adjudicated by the trial judge often involving jury consultants
Pretrial
Can ask huge questionnaires
OJ Simpson Void’ ire’s lasted 8 months
In Canada, the only information available to the lawyers is name, address,
occupation, demeanor and physical appearance
Our isn’t really a pretrial, its just a screening
Simplicity vs efficiency

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

PSY328 SUMMER FINAL NOTES
SONYA DHILLON
2
Challenge for cause
Jurors themselves responsible for decision as to whether the potential juror
is biased in Canada
Other peers in the jury panel determine bias regulating yourself
make it more salient
(Whereas it’s the judge in American system) person of authority
Challenge for cause
Allowed on grounds of pretrial publicity
Usually may be an adjournment, change of venue, but its along the
lines of “have you heard about this case”
Sexual orientation
HIV status
Mental Disability
Drug involvement
Political or moral attitudes
Police credibility
Race or minority group status
what are the biases if there are biases are you able to tell me about it?
even if not prejudice, you can talk about it people feel uncomfortable
sometimes there is stigma
Impartiality
R. v. Parks (1993) goes along really well with social psychology
Its not just if the prejudice is there, but do you have the ability to ignore it or
not
Ability to ignore:
personal reasons
external motivations 2 biggest motivations: correct and looked upon
as good by our peers
Partiality has TWO components:
Attitudinal
prejudice
Behavioural
discrimination
R. v. Parks (1993), 24 C.R (4th) 81
Air of reality
Ontario Court of Appeals took judicial notice that . . .“there is a realistic
possibility that a juror will be influenced in the performance of his or her
judicial duty on the basis of racial bias”
Supreme Court of Canada reiterates this precedent in R. v. Williams (1998)

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

PSY328 SUMMER FINAL NOTES
SONYA DHILLON
3
Challenge for Cause
Select first two “triers”
On the basis of the potential juror’s answer to the challenge for cause
question(s), the trier decides whether the potential juror is acceptable or
unacceptable to sit on the upcoming trial
2 people randomly selected, asked if biased or not, and are selected to
be triers
2 triers, judge, lawyers, audience
potential juror asked question by lawyer, and 2 triers deliberate and
say if they allow them or not
triers will not be jurors in the trial
then 1st trier leaves, 2nd trier and 1st jury member are now the 2
deliberators for the new person that comes in to be deliberated on
lawyer can use preemptory challenge triers can agree or disagree
Legally, having a bias does not necessarily indicate you are partial
Or impartial
There are 2 components to impartiality attitude and behaviour
Problem: people want to look good in front of this huge audience
motivation to be liked and not look bad in front of peers
Doesn’t actually matter if they’re lying or not, because they’re
saying it to not look bad they will try really hard to decide the
case only on the evidence at hand bias disappears
Swearing in Triers don’t need to know the quotes for exam;
Do you swear that the evidence to be given by you to this court shall be the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?”
“Do you swear that you will well and truly try whether one of the jurors stands
acceptable or unacceptable to try the accused, and a true verdict give according to
the evidence, so help you God?”
Call first potential juror: 2 potential triers sitting there
Challenge Potential Juror
“Do you swear that the evidence to be given by you to this court and triers sworn in
this challenge shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help
you God?”
R. v. Parks: The Challenge for Cause Question
“ As the presiding judge will tell you, in deciding whether or not the prosecution has
proven the charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, a juror must
judge the evidence of the witnesses without bias, prejudice, or partiality (preamble).
Would your ability to judge the evidence in this case without bias, prejudice, or
partiality, be affected in any way by the fact that the accused is Black? (actual
question)
-are you prejudice and can you not be?
-asking you point blank very salient
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version