The jury is often hailed as one of the most important symbols of American democracy. Yet much has changed since the Sixth Amendment in 1791 first guaranteed all citizens the right to a jury trial in criminal prosecutions. Experts now have a much more nuanced understanding of the psychological implications of being a juror, and advances in technology and neuroscience make the work of rendering a decision in a criminal trial more complicated than ever before. Criminal Juries in the 21st Century explores the increasingly wide gulf between criminal trial law, procedures, and policy, and what scientific findings have revealed about the human experience of serving as a juror. Readers will contemplate myriad legal issues that arise when jurors decide criminal cases as well as cutting-edge psychological research that can be used to not only understand the performance and experience of the contemporary criminal jury, but also to improve it. Chapter authors grapple with a number of key issues at the intersection of psychology and law, guiding readers to consider everything from the factors that influence the initial selection of the jury to how jurors cope with and reflect on their service after the trial ends. Together the chapters provide a unique view of criminal juries with the goal of increasing awareness of a broad range of current issues in great need of theoretical, empirical, and legal attention. Criminal Juries in the 21st Century will identify how social science research can inform law and policy relevant to improving justice within the jury system, and is an essential resource for those who directly study jury decision making as well as social scientists generally, attorneys, judges, students, and even future jurors.

This book provides a broad understanding of and critical thinking about the contemporary jury system. It fills a void of easily accessible knowledge about how jury trials work and how jury research assists us to formulate new ways to improve the system. Current issues challenging the jury system, such as the impact that technology is having on jury trials, are discussed. Juries in the 21st Century is designed to inform jury practitioners (judges, barristers, instructing solicitors, and forensic experts) about what constitutes best practice for them. It details how other jurisdictions are dealing with issues within their jury systems and allows jury practitioners to understand which practices are based upon fact and which are based on habit, anecdote and other misconceptions. It encourages jury practitioners and law reformers to consider new approaches in order to improve jury communication. Teachers and researchers in law, psychology, criminology and sociology should find this cross-disciplinary book useful as it synthesises the current state of jury research. To curious members of the public who have or would like to serve on a jury, this book will provide you with insight into jury trials and jury room dynamics.

In this timely volume, the authors provide a penetrating analysis of the institutional mechanisms perpetuating the related problems of minorities' disenfranchisement and their underrepresentation on juries.

Rule of law has vanished in America’s criminal justice system. Prosecutors decide whom to punish; most accused never face a jury; policing is inconsistent; plea bargaining is rampant; and draconian sentencing fills prisons with mostly minority defendants. A leading criminal law scholar looks to history for the roots of these problems—and solutions.

Forensic Science in Court explores the legal implications of forensic science—an increasingly important and complex part of the justice system. Judge Donald Shelton provides an accessible overview of the legal aissues, from the history of evidence in court, to "gatekeeper" judges determining what evidence can be allowed, to the "CSI effect" in juries. The book describes and evaluates various kinds of evidence, including DNA, fingerprints, handwriting, hair, bite marks, tool marks, firearms and bullets, fire and arson investigation, and bloodstain evidence. Assessing the strengths and limitations of each kind of evidence, the author also discusses how they can contribute to identifying the "who," "how," and "whether" questions that arise in criminal prosecutions. Author Donald Shelton draws on the depth of his experiences as courtroom prosecutor, professor, and judge, to provide a well-rounded look at these increasingly critical issues. Case studies throughout help bring the issues to life and show how forensic science has been used, both successfully and not, in real-world situations.

When Princeton historian D. Graham Burnett answered his jury duty summons, he expected to spend a few days catching up on his reading in the court waiting room. Instead, he finds himself thrust into a high-pressure role as the jury foreman in a Manhattan trial. There he comes face to face with a stunning act of violence, a maze of conflicting evidence, and a parade of bizarre witnesses. But it is later, behind the closed door of the jury room, that he encounters the essence of the jury experience — he and eleven citizens from radically different backgrounds must hammer consensus out of confusion and strong disagreement. By the time he hands over the jury’s verdict, Burnett has undergone real transformation, not just in his attitude toward the legal system, but in his understanding of himself and his peers. Offering a compelling courtroom drama and an intimate and sometimes humorous portrait of a fractious jury, A Trial by Jury is also a finely nuanced examination of law and justice, personal responsibility and civic duty, and the dynamics of power and authority between twelve equal people.

We, the Jury is the dramatic story of seven jurors, who convicted Scott Peterson of murdering his wife, Laci, and their unborn son, Conner, despite a series of internal battles that brought the first major murder trial of the 21st century to the brink of a mistrial. The Peterson jurors argued and disagreed but eventually bonded to seal the fate of the icy killer who dumped his victims into the bullet-gray waters of San Francisco Bay. The seven jurors of We, the Jury were seven average Americans who never imagined the horrors they would face or the phantoms that would haunt them after they convicted the enigmatic murderer and recommended that he be put to death. This is the story of how the American jury system worked after being battered by critics for the way it functioned in the trials of O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson. Unlike the jurors in those trials, who second-guessed themselves, the Peterson jurors do not question their decisions. It wasn’t one thing that condemned Scott Peterson, it was everything.

This book maps the changes in court advocacy in England and Wales over the last three centuries. Advocacy, the means by which a barrister puts their client’s case to the court and jury, has grown piecemeal and at an uneven pace; the result of a complex interplay of many influences. Andrew Watson examines the numerous principal factors, from the effect on juniors of successful styles deployed by senior advocates, changes in court procedure, reforms in laws determining who and what may be put before courts, the amount of media reporting of court cases, and public and press opinion about the acceptable limits of advocates’ tactics and oratory. This book also explores the extent to which juries are used in trials and the social origins of those serving on them. It goes on to examine the formal teaching of advocacy which was only introduced comparatively recently, arguing that this, and new technology, will likely exert a strong influence on future forensic oratory. Speaking in Court provides a readable history of advocacy and the many factors that have shaped it, and takes a far wider view of the history of advocacy than many titles, analysing the 20th Century developments which are often overlooked. This book will be of interest to general readers, law practitioners interested in how advocacy has developed in courts of yesteryear, teachers of advocacy who want to locate there subject in history and impart this to their students, and to law students curious about the origins of what they are learning.

The development of DNA technology furthers the search for truth by helping police & prosecutors in the fight against violent crime. Most of the individuals whose stories are told in the report were convicted after jury trials & were sentenced to long prison terms. They successfully challenged their convictions, using DNA tests on existing evidence. They had served, on average, seven years in prison. By highlighting the importance & utility of DNA evidence, this report presents challenges to the scientific & justice communities. A task ahead is to maintain the highest standards for the collection & preservation of DNA evidence.

Two centuries ago, American criminal justice was run primarily by laymen. Jury trials passed moral judgment on crimes, vindicated victims and innocent defendants, and denounced the guilty. But since then, lawyers have gradually taken over the process, silencing victims and defendants and, in many cases, substituting plea bargaining for the voice of the jury. The public sees little of how this assembly-line justice works, and victims and defendants have largely lost their day in court. As a result, victims rarely hear defendants express remorse and apologize, and defendants rarely receive forgiveness. This lawyerized machinery has purchased efficient, speedy processing of many cases at the price of sacrificing softer values, such as reforming defendants and healing wounded victims and relationships. In other words, the U.S. legal system has bought quantity at the price of quality, without recognizing either the trade-off or the great gulf separating lawyers' and laymen's incentives, values, and powers. In The Machinery of Criminal Justice, author Stephanos Bibas surveys the developments over the last two centuries, considers what we have lost in our quest for efficient punishment, and suggests ways to include victims, defendants, and the public once again. Ideas range from requiring convicts to work or serve in the military, to moving power from prosecutors to restorative sentencing juries. Bibas argues that doing so might cost more, but it would better serve criminal procedure's interests in denouncing crime, vindicating victims, reforming wrongdoers, and healing the relationships torn by crime.