Decision-Making in the Dark: How Pre-Trial Errors Change the Narrative in Criminal Jury Trials

Transcript

1 Chicago-Kent Law Review Volume 90 Issue 3 Juries and Lay Participation: American Perspectives and Global Trends Article Decision-Making in the Dark: How Pre-Trial Errors Change the Narrative in Criminal Jury Trials Kara MacKillop Duke Law School Center for Criminal Justice and Professional Responsibility Neil Vidmar Duke Law School Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Kara MacKillop & Neil Vidmar, Decision-Making in the Dark: How Pre-Trial Errors Change the Narrative in Criminal Jury Trials, 90 Chi.- Kent L. Rev. 957 (2015). Available at: This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago-Kent Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. For more information, please contact dginsberg@kentlaw.iit.edu.

2 Overthepastdecadeandahalf,agreatdealofattentionhasright fullybeengiventotheissueofwrongfulconvictions.in2003,jimdwyer, Peter Neufeld and Barry Scheck published, an eye opening treatise on the reality of wrongful convictions in the United States.Intheyearssince,morethan1400innocentpersonshavebeen exonerated, and a very diverse research community of attorneys, aca demics, social scientists, and activists has developed in response to the realizationofflawsinourcriminaljusticesystem.in2012,brandongar rett squantitativelyevaluatedthefirst250dna exonerations and exposed clear patterns of error within those cases. DanSimon s followedwithaunionofthesepatternsandtheirrelationshipwithestab lished psychological principles. This strong foundation has led to an explosion of interest in identifying, analyzing and resolving the issues raisedinwrongfulconvictioncases. The Innocence Project, founded in 1992 by Scheck and Neufeld in cooperationwiththebenjaminn.cardozoschooloflaw,hasexpanded to many dozens of Innocence Network organizations throughout the world.thedukewrongfulconvictionsclinic,inoperationforjustover fiveyears,recentlymarkeditsfifthexonerationinthestateofnorthcar olina. In addition, the Clinic is currently working seven innocence peti RethinkingtheStudyofMiscarriagesofJustice:DevelopingaCriminology ofwrongfulconviction

3 CHICAGOKENTLAWREVIEW tionsfiledandinlitigation,andadditionalcasesareinvariousstagesof investigation. Inanefforttobetterunderstandandremedytheerrorsoccurringin thesewrongfulconvictioncases,thedukeclinic sresearchteamiswork ingtodeveloparootcauseanalysismethodologyintendedtoidentifythe policies,procedures,andlegaldoctrinesthatcontributetotheseerrors andtodevelopstrategiesforimprovingthecriminaljusticeprocess.be causethejusticesystemreliesonindividualsandthedecisionstheymake asthecoreofitsfunction,itisnecessarytoconsiderthevariousrolesof responsibility and evaluate their decisionmaking processes in order to identify the root causes of wrongful outcomes. Here, we illustrate this processwithaconsiderationofthejury sroleinreachingwrongfulver dicts. ACognitiveTheoryofJurorDecisionMaking:TheStory Model How Many False Convictions Are There? How Many Exonerations Are There? availableat

4 PRETRIALERRORS exrel. Batson SeeTheNorthCaro linaracialjusticeact:anessayonsubstantiveandproceduralfairnessindeathpenaltylitigation

5 CHICAGOKENTLAWREVIEW Id. Id.seealsoTheImpactofJuryRace intrials availableat supra The Story Model for Juror Decision Making in ModelsofJuryDecisionMaking:ACriticalReview supra

6 PRETRIALERRORS Id. JurorDecisionMakingModels:TheGeneralizationGap Id. ExplanationBasedDecisionMaking:EffectsofMemory StructureonJudgment Id. Id. supra Id. Id

7 CHICAGOKENTLAWREVIEW Explaining the Evidence: Tests of the Story Model for JurorDecisionMaking IdSexualHarassmentStories:TestingaStoryMediated ModelofJurorDecisionMakinginCivilLitigation CommonsenseRapeJudgments:AnEmpathyComplexityTheory ofrapejurorstorymaking Cognition and Juror Decision Making in When Prior Knowledge and Law Collide: Helping Jurors Use the Law

8 PRETRIALERRORS A.andIssues Brady Bradyv.Maryland Brady Brady Brady United States v. Bagley Brady Id. Id.Brady

9 CHICAGOKENTLAWREVIEW Brady Brady Brady Brady Brady Brady Id. Seeid.KylesseegenerallyBrady supra

10 PRETRIALERRORS Brady and Brady Stricklerv.Greene Brady Brady UnitedStatesv.Agurs Brady Brady Brady Agurs Strickler Id Id Id. Id.

11 CHICAGOKENTLAWREVIEW Brady Napue v. Illinois NapueBrady Brady Napue Brady Napue BradyNapue Id. supra Napue Id. Napue

12 PRETRIALERRORS B.AdmissibilityIssues Brady FederalRulesofEvidence 1975 FRE Original Enactment Legislative History Page StudyingtheExclusionaryRuleinSearchandSeizure Seegenerally

13 CHICAGOKENTLAWREVIEW Id. Id. Id. Id. Seegenerally Id.

14 PRETRIALERRORS Brady See NardonevUnitedStates

15 CHICAGOKENTLAWREVIEW A.Armstrong s HarmlessError Issues Brady

16 PRETRIALERRORS Brady

17 CHICAGOKENTLAWREVIEW

18 PRETRIALERRORS BradyNapue Brady Brady Brady BradyBrady Brady Brady Brady Brady Brady

19 CHICAGOKENTLAWREVIEW BradyGiglio B.J.L.Hardee sjuryexperiencewithadmissibilityissues BradyNapue and JusticeorInjustice

20 PRETRIALERRORS

21 CHICAGOKENTLAWREVIEW would only

22 PRETRIALERRORS all

23 CHICAGOKENTLAWREVIEW BradyGiglio, Miranda

24 PRETRIALERRORS Brady Brady supra

25 CHICAGOKENTLAWREVIEW Brady want supra