Stacking the Jury

Being judged by a jury of peers is an elusive reality in today's criminal justice system, inasmuch as the selection process has become more rooted in psychological manipulation than propriety. Forensic psychologists, who play an important role in how and why certain people are chosen for duty and others are not, use an inventory of questions that often have nothing at all to do with the case being tried.

Potential jurors endure a formal examination called voir dire that determines the appropriateness of each individual to occupy a jury seat; bias of any kind earns immediate dismissal. These prejudices are often easy to detect while others require deeper inquiry to uncover, an approach that typically re-asks a particular question in several different ways to see if the person trips over the answer. 

In theory, the entire selection process occurs for the single objective of assembling a fair and impartial jury; in reality, it has become a chronic hemorrhage of the legal system that prevents getting a fair community cross-section. Forensic psychologists ask questions that draw out certain responses, which can unfairly orchestrate a jury whose collective presence disrupts any chance of impartiality against the projected ruling.

Indeed, attorneys face quite a tremendous task when it comes to safeguarding a trial outcome against rogue jurors. Not only must they educate the jury about minutiae of the case, but they must also make it perfectly clear in layman's terms. Far too many uncontrolled variables can lead to slip-ups where individual jurors are concerned, so lawyers engage in a strategy called mock or shadow jury that represent the actions, opinions and biases of a real jury before ever reaching trial. Attorneys value these training sessions in order to present their case in a more thorough manner. It also helps them to learn how different people respond in different areas of the country. However, Decaire's assessment doesn't do much to appease suspicion:

The Forensic Psychologist that investigates the social-legal components of the common law court system can provide influential knowledge to both criminal and common law cases…Many believe that a good evaluator can determine, before the case, which jurors are on their side…Since both sides can challenge potential jurors this will not usually stack the jury in the favor of either the defense or prosecution. The result is hopefully a fairly balanced jury. 

All this judicial jockeying and scientific jury selection gives a dubious perspective to the implication of injustice. No matter how exacting the forensic psychologist is when profiling a potential jury, there is simply no surefire way to determine how verdicts in a mock trial (where controlled variables are used) will foretell that of a real trial. Jurors are, after all, ordinary people who may or may not have a vested interest in the case outcome. Is it reasonable to think a mock jury can anticipate how impartial and unprejudiced the real jury will be when it comes to matters of the heart?

Moreover, there's no telling whether any member of a mock or real jury will adhere to the judge's directions when a particularly damning piece of evidence is stricken from the record. There is also no guarantee a juror will not crumble under the pressure of other jurors to make the verdict follow majority. Too many individual quirks exist among people to expect them all to respond in the same manner. Juries may rely upon common sense when it comes to sorting out the facts, but they also fall prey to their often-overwhelming sense of compassion. This reason, more than any other, is likely why so many criminals are treated with leniency despite best efforts from forensic psychologists.