Walden University ScholarWorks Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection 2015 Abstract Uneducated Injustice: A Social Cognitive Approach to Understanding Juror Misconduct and Verdict Errors Melinee Melissa Marie Calhoun Walden University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.edu/dissertations Part of the Criminology Commons, Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons, and the Public Administration Commons This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection at ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact ScholarWorks@waldenu. Walden University College of Social and Behavioral Sciences This is to certify that the doctoral dissertation by Melinee Calhoun has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects, and that any and all revisions required by the review committee have been made.
Review Committee Dr. Richard Worch, Committee Chairperson, Public Policy and Administration Faculty Dr. Lori Demeter, Committee Member, Public Policy and Administration Faculty Dr. Mark Stallo, University Reviewer, Public Policy and Administration Faculty Chief Academic Officer Eric Riedel, Ph.
Walden University 2015 Abstract Uneducated Injustice: A Social Cognitive Approach to Understanding Juror Misconduct and Verdict Errors by Melinee Calhoun MBA, Liberty University, 2008 BA, Valdosta State University, 2005 Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Public Policy and Administration Walden University December 2015 Abstract A continual problem in the adjudication of crime in the United States is the continued occurrence of erroneous convictions and acquittals. This problem impacts the victims of crimes as they endure emotional and mental distress of additional investigations and new trials. Defendants are impacted by errors in verdicts because of the loss of freedom while being factually innocent. These errors may occur because jurors may not be knowledgeable of their role, right and responsibilities.
Without regard to the judge’s minimum instruction, the jury is not provided direction on the purpose and limitations of their roles. Guided by the social cognitive theory, this correlational study examined the incorrect verdicts by jurors in 2 Georgia counties in order to evaluate whether pretrial training has an impact on the incidence of verdict error. An experimental design was used to evaluate the impact of juror training on the occurrence of erroneous convictions and acquittals. The study included 156 participants who were registered voters from Lowndes and Lanier County, Georgia.
The variables training, verdict errors, and juror misconduct were analyzed using t test, Pearson correlation analysis, Levene’s Test of Equality of Variances, and Chi square analysis. The findings indicated a significant inverse relationship between the administration of pre-trial training and the occurrence of verdict error. The results suggest a relationship between the occurrence of juror misconduct and erroneous convictions, which is consistent with impact of behavior on decision making as posited by SCT. The implications for positive social change include recommendations to Lowndes and Lanier County court administrators to consider routine pretrial training that includes information about the role of the juror in criminal trials.
Uneducated Injustice: A Social Cognitive Approach to Understanding Juror Misconduct and Verdict Errors by Melinee Calhoun MBA, Liberty University, 2008 BA, Valdosta State University, 2005 Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Public Policy and Administration Walden University December 2015 Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to my mother, who successfully transitioned from mortal to immortal before having the opportunity to see the completion of my studies, none other than the Late Pastor Velma Moore Calhoun. Acknowledgments I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of my friends and family who played a vital role in keeping me encouraged throughout my doctoral studies, Bishop Otis L. Calhoun (father), Zakiya and Kierra (my daughters), and the Sorors of the best Sorority, Zeta Phi Beta International Sorority, Inc. I also thank my Dissertation Chair, Dr.
Richard Worch, for all of his assistance in this very long dissertation process. Table of Contents List of Tables. iv List of Figures .v Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study.1 Problem of the Study .13 Research Questions and Hypotheses .14 Purpose of the Study .15 Nature of the Study .20 Assumptions, Limitations, Scope, and Delimitations. 28 Significance of the Study .31 Summary and Transition .35 Chapter 2: Literature Review .36 Social Cognitive Theory .40 i Erroneous Convictions and Erroneous Acquittals .49 Impact of Counsel: Prosecutorial and Defense .53 Eyewitness Misidentification and Testimony .64 Impact of Juror Misconduct .72 Methodological Literature Based Description .86 Chapter 3: Research Method .88 Research Design and Approach .99 Role of the Researcher .102 Setting and Sample .112 Protection of Participant’s Rights.
128 ii Research Question 3. 129 Presentation of the Results .133 Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations .135 Interpretation of the Findings.136 Limitations of the Study.140 Implications for Social Change .164 iii List of Tables Table 1. Level of Juror Misconduct Among Participants in Each Training Condition. 12829 iv List of Figures Figure 1.
Frequency of either a Type 1 or Type 2 error for each training condition. Error! Bookmark not defined. Frequency of a Type 1 error for each training condition. Frequency of a Type 2 error for each training condition.
133 v 1 Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study Introduction Uneducated injustice should resonate with anyone, especially those who have been affected by said occurrences. Many people have family, friends or acquaintances who have been accused of engaging in activities that resulted in criminal charges. Sometimes the criminal charges filed lead to the requirement of jury trials. Since the jury system is far from infallible, and over 311 post conviction DNA exonerations have occurred since 1989, it is imperative that inquiry be made into the causes of Type 1 and Type 2 errors and the impact of juror misconduct.
Type 1 and Type 2 errors are otherwise known as erroneous convictions and erroneous acquittals, respectively. In this study, I proposed that the lack of training fosters a higher probability of occurrences of juror misconduct and Type 1 and Type 2 errors. The potential social implications of this study are quite significant. There are several negative impacts that such occurrences have on the political, social, and judicial climates of this nation.
Erroneous convictions and erroneous acquittals have not only financial effects on the system, but they deteriorate the very foundation of the justice system. Background In order to function as efficiently and effectively as possible, the American judicial system relies on several components to fulfill its mission. The criminal judicial system consists of a number of individuals, including the judge, prosecutor and defense attorneys, victims, witnesses, and police officials. Each party plays an important role 2 within the judicial system and its processes.
The American court system is composed of two different court systems, which are the federal and state systems (United States Courts, 2011a). I reside in the state of Georgia, which is the identified location for the study. In the state of Georgia, the court system comprises municipal, magistrate, probate, juvenile, state, and superior courts (Diagram of the Georgia Court System, 2011). English law provides the foundation for the justice system within the United States.
As detailed within The Declaration of Independence, one specific motivator for the declaration “that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown” was due to the King “depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury” (U. Declaration of Independence-Text Transcript, Paragraph 5, 1776). The intent of this research was to focus more intensively on the concept, role, and impact of the jurors and their actions. As demonstrated by the previous statements quoted from the Declaration of Independence, our forefathers sought freedom from allegiance to the British Crown because of the deprivation of the right to a trial by jury, among other reasons.
Considering the importance of the right to a trial by jury and the requirements of due process, it is essential to ensure that the process, functionality, and other elements of such are effective and efficient. Jury duty is regulated by the Jury Selection and Service Act (or Jury Act, 1968), which establishes the criteria for jury selection as well as juror qualifications (Legal Information Institute, 2010). The legal requirements for an individual to be eligible to serve as a juror includes that he or she must 3 be a United States citizen; be at least 18 years of age; reside primarily in the judicial district for one year; be adequately proficient in English; have no disqualifying mental or physical condition; not currently be subject to felony charges; and never have been convicted of a felony [unless civil rights have been legally restored]. (United States Courts, 2011c, p.1) The United States judicial system was established on the notion that the jury is best to determine the truths or facts of a case.
Ultimately, the jury makes the decision of guilty or not guilty; therefore, it is logical to say that the jurors are one of the most powerful players in the courtroom (Blattner, 1995). Common to the various courts is the entity called the jury. Courts system calls jury duty one of the most important and fundamental civic responsibilities that an individual can perform (U. The role of the juror is to be attentive to and consider all the evidence and reach a fair and impartial judgment.
The jurors are to weigh the facts or evidence, determine the law’s validity to the offense, and apply the law appropriately, without regard to any outside factors such as the defendant’s or plaintiff’s status (Standish, 1998). In essence, a juror’s duty is to determine, based solely on the evidence presented during the trial by the defense and prosecuting attorneys, whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt (Bell, 2010). The standard in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt (Rodger, 2011). The responsibilities held by the jury create the problem to be researched in this study.
The problem of this study rests in the court system’s dependence on ill-equipped and improperly trained jurors to administer justice by rendering verdict decisions and the 4 impact that result from this dependence. Ill-equipped and improperly trained jurors may be more apt to engage in behaviors of misconduct and/or render a verdict of error as a result of these behaviors. It is important to understand that the court systems and trial by jury are far from infallible. Errors within the criminal justice system frequently occur (Gould & Leo, 2010).
Two of many errors within the criminal justice system include erroneous convictions and erroneous acquittals, which are otherwise called Type 1 and Type 2 errors, respectively. Within statistics, a Type 1 error is the incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis; therefore, errors made within the criminal justice system are denoted Type 1 when an innocent defendant is convicted. Likewise, a Type 2 error is the failure to reject a false null hypothesis; therefore, errors made within the criminal justice system are denoted Type 2 errors in that an erroneous acquittal occurs when a guilty individual is acquitted of a criminal offense that he or she did commit. The purpose of the research was not only to illustrate the impact of juror misconduct but also to demonstrate the necessity for properly educating and training individuals prior to the initiation of their civic duties.
As it has been shown in the hundreds of juror misconduct cases and subsequent exonerations, Type 1 and Type 2 errors are major injustices. The impact of juror misconduct is possibly more widespread than current research and knowledge base demonstrate. For instance, a juror sits on a murder case but fails to understand various elements of the trial discourse or dialogue and performs his or her own Google research into the topics not understood. The juror’s engagement into 5 individual research and/or investigation would constitute juror misconduct, and subsequently, this misconduct, if not discovered, could result in a verdict of error.