UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The selection of juries for criminal trials in Canada Trainor, Niall A. 1983

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1983_A8 T72.pdf [ 5.36MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095730.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095730-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095730-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095730-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095730-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095730-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095730-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095730-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095730.ris

Full Text

Selection of Juries for Criminal T r i a l s in Canada by N i a l l A. Trainor B.A., The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1979 A Thesis Submitted in P a r t i a l Fulfilment•of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in The Faculty of Graduate Studies (Department of Anthropology and Sociology) We accept th i s thesis as conforming to the required standard The University of B r i t i s h Columbia October 1983 © N i a l l A. Trainor, 1983 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head o f my department or by h i s o r her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f fffifl/Wfy^fyv /fy^yf t The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 DE-6 (3/81) i i A b s t r a c t As p a r t of the j u r y s e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s l a w y e r s i n Canada a r e p e r m i t t e d t o e x c l u d e a s i g n i f i c a n t number of persons from s e r v i n g on j u r i e s . In t h i s t h e s i s i t i s argued t h a t the norms of the l e g a l system o b l i g a t e l a w y e r s t o choose j u r o r s who would f a v o u r t h e i r c l i e n t s ' i n t e r e s t s . Thus, defence c o u n s e l s h o u l d s e l e c t those j u r o r s who seem t o fa v o u r the accused' i n t e r e s t i n p e r s o n a l freedom, and Crown, c o u n s e l those who seem t o fa v o u r the s t a t e ' s i n t e r e s t i n law and o r d e r . F u r t h e r , i t i s argued t h a t a t t r i b u t i o n s of j u r o r b i a s a r e based on s t e r e o t y p e s , s o c i a l s t a t u s , and s i m i l a r i t y t o the acc u s e d . W h i l e by no means c o n c l u s i v e , the r e s u l t s of t h i s r e s e a r c h p r o v i d e some support f o r t h e s e c o n t e n t i o n s . Crown c o u n s e l appear t o use s t e r e o t y p e s d e a l i n g w i t h o c c u p a t i o n s and w e a l t h i n o r d e r t o s e l e c t j u r o r s w i t h more c o n s e r v a t i v e t e n d e n c i e s . Defence c o u n s e l , on the o t h e r hand, seemed t o choose more l i b e r a l - m i n d e d j u r o r s u s i n g s t e r e o t y p e s about o c c u p a t i o n s , w e a l t h , and p r i o r j u r y e x p e r i e n c e . A l s o , d e f e n c e c o u n s e l seemed t o p r e f e r low s t a t u s p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s on the assumption t h a t they would f a v o u r the accu s e d . F i n a l l y , defence c o u n s e l appeared t o p r e f e r j u r o r s who are s i m i l a r t o the acc u s e d , b e l i e v i n g them t o be b i a s e d i n h i s or her f a v o u r . In l i g h t of the s e f i n d i n g s i t i s argued t h a t the f u n c t i o n s t h a t a r e a t t r i b u t e d t o the j u r y need r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n . A l s o , the wisdom of r e s t r i c t i n g l a w y e r s ' a c c e s s t o i n f o r m a t i o n about p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s i s c a l l e d i n t o q u e s t i o n . i i i Table of Contents Abstract i i L i s t of Tables iv Chapter One - An Introduction to the Problem of Jury Selection 1 Chapter Two - The Sociology of Jury Selection 18 Chapter Three - Research Methods 32 Chapter Four - Research Results 44 Chapter Five - Discussion and Conclusions 69 Cases 88 Bibl iography 89 Appendix A - Letter of Introduction 99 Appendix B - Pilot-Study Interview Schedule 101 Appendix C - Operationalization of Condition One 104 Appendix D - Operationalization of Condition Two 106 Appendix E - Operationalization of Condition Three... 108 Appendix F - Operationalization of Condition Four 110 Appendix G - Post-Experiment Interview Schedule 112 Appendix H - S t a t i s t i c a l l y I n s i g n i f i c a n t Results 116 T a b l e s i v Ta b l e I P r o p o r t i o n of J u r o r s A c c e p t e d by Crown Counsel by J u r o r s ' E t h n i c i t y by C o n d i t i o n 117 Ta b l e I I P r o p o r t i o n of J u r o r s A c c e p t e d by Defence Counsel by J u r o r s ' E t h n i c i t y by C o n d i t i o n 52 T a b l e I I I P r o p o r t i o n of J u r o r s A c c e p t e d by Crown Counsel by J u r o r s ' Gender by C o n d i t i o n • 118 T a b l e IV P r o p o r t i o n of J u r o r s A c c e p t e d by Defence Counsel by J u r o r s ' Gender by C o n d i t i o n 118 Ta b l e V P r o p o r t i o n of J u r o r s A c c e p t e d by Crown Counsel by J u r o r s ' O c c u p a t i o n by C o n d i t i o n 54 T a b l e VI P r o p o r t i o n of J u r o r s A c c e p t e d by Defence Counsel by J u r o r s ' O c c u p a t i o n by C o n d i t i o n 55 Table V I I P r o p o r t i o n of J u r o r s A c c e p t e d by Crown Co u n s e l by J u r o r s ' Wealth by C o n d i t i o n 57 Ta b l e V I I I P r o p o r t i o n of J u r o r s A c c e p t e d by Defence Counsel by J u r o r s ' Wealth by C o n d i t i o n 58 T a b l e IX P r o p o r t i o n of J u r o r s A c c e p t e d by Crown Counsel by J u r o r s ' P r i o r E x p e r i e n c e by C o n d i t i o n 119 V Table X Proportion of Jurors Accepted by Defence Counsel by Jurors' Prior Experience by Condition 60 Table XI Proportion of Jurors Accepted by Crown Counsel by Jurors' Physical Stature by Condition 119 Table XII Proportion of Jurors Accepted by Defence Counsel by Jurors' Physical Stature by Condition 120 Table XIII Proportion of Jurors Accepted by Crown Counsel by Jurors* Age by Condition 62 Table XIV Proportion of Jurors Accepted by Defence Counsel by Jurors' Age by Condition 63 Table XV Proportion of Jurors Accepted by Crown Counsel by Jurors' Social Status by Condition 120 Table XVI Proportion of Jurors Accepted by Defence Counsel by Jurors' Social Status by Condition 64 Table XVII Proportion of Jurors Accepted by Crown Counsel by Jurors' S i m i l a r i t y to the Accused by Condition 121 Table XVIII Proportion of Jurors Accepted by Defence Counsel by Jurors' S i m i l a r i t y to the Accused by Condition 66 1 Chapter One An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o the Problem of J u r y S e l e c t i o n In t h i s t h e s i s an attempt i s made t o account f o r the c h o i c e of j u r o r s made by Crown and defence c o u n s e l i n the s e l e c t i o n of j u r i e s f o r c r i m i n a l t r i a l s i n Canada. A number of c o n s i d e r a t i o n s suggest t h a t t h i s i s an i m p o r t a n t and t i m e l y s u b j e c t f o r l e g a l p r a c t i t i o n e r s and s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s a l i k e . These w i l l be examined i n t h i s c h a p t e r . F i r s t , the j u r y i s a s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n t h a t e n j o y s c o n s i d e r a b l e s u p p o r t i n Canada because i t i s assumed t o p e r f o r m c e r t a i n h i g h l y v a l u e d l e g a l and s o c i a l f u n c t i o n s . The Law Reform Commission of Canada (1980:5-17), f o r i n s t a n c e , s t a t e s t h a t the j u r y a c t s t o p r o t e c t . t h e community from u n j u s t and o p p r e s s i v e laws by r e f u s i n g t o e n f o r c e them. I t a l s o s u g g e s t s t h a t the j u r y a c t s as the c o n s c i e n c e of the community by d e p a r t i n g from the s t r i c t a p p l i c a t i o n of a r u l e of law i n those c a s e s where enforcement would l e a d t o an u n j u s t r e s u l t . The commission a l s o argues t h a t the j u r y r e p r e s e n t s the d i v e r s e e x p e r i e n c e of the community, and i s , t h e r e f o r e , an e x c e l l e n t f a c t - f i n d e r . F i n a l l y , i t a rgues t h a t t h rough the j u r y the community p a r t i c i p a t e s i n and, t h e r e f o r e , l e g i t i m i z e s the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of j u s t i c e . However, f o r a number of reasons i t can be argued t h a t the j u r y i s not r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the community and, t h u s , may not p e r f o r m some of the f u n c t i o n s a t t r i b u t e d t o i t . Among the s e reasons i s the f a c t t h a t l a w y e r s a r e p e r m i t t e d t o e x c l u d e a s i g n i f i c a n t number of p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s from j u r y d u t y . 2 Section 562 of the Criminal Code provides that defence counsel in Canada may exclude a limited number of potential jurors without having to supply an explanation to the court for doing so - these are c a l l e d 'peremptory challenges'. The Act states: 562. (1) An accused who i s charged with high treason or f i r s t degree murder is e n t i t l e d to challenge twenty jurors peremptorily. (2) An accused who is charged with an offense, not being high treason or f i r s t degree murder, for which he may be sentenced to imprisonment for more than five years i s e n t i t l e d to challenge twelve jurors peremptorily. (3) An accused who is charged with an offense that is not referred to in subsection (1) or (2) is e n t i t l e d to challenge four jurors peremptorily. A similar right is granted to Crown counsel in section 563: 563. (1) The prosecutor i s e n t i t l e d to challenge four jurors peremptorily, and may dir e c t any number of jurors who are not challenged peremptorily by the accused to stand by u n t i l a l l the jurors have been c a l l e d who are available for the purpose of t r y i n g the indictment. (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the prosecutor may not direct more than forty-eight jurors to stand by unless the presiding judge for sp e c i a l cause to be shown, so orders. (3) The accused may be c a l l e d upon to declare whether he challenges a juror peremptorily or for cause before the prosecutor is c a l l e d upon to declare whether he requires the juror to stand by, or challenges him peremptorily or for cause. These provisions of the code are q u a l i f i e d by section 561 for jury t r i a l s in the T e r r i t o r i e s ; by section 564 for mixed language j u r i e s ; by section 565 for t r i a l s involving more than one accused; and by section 566 for l i b e l cases. 3 In a d d i t i o n t o t h e s e r i g h t s , e i t h e r p a r t y may c h a l l e n g e any number of p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s f o r cause. T h i s i s p r o v i d e d f o r i n s e c t i o n 567 of the C r i m i n a l Code as f o l l o w s : 567. (1) A p r o s e c u t o r or an accused i s e n t i t l e d t o any number of c h a l l e n g e s on the ground t h a t (a) the name of the j u r o r does not appear on the p a n e l , but no misnomer or m i s d e s c r i p t i o n i s a ground of c h a l l e n g e s where i t appears t o the c o u r t t h a t the d e s c r i p t i o n g i v e n on the p a n e l s u f f i c i e n t l y d e s i g n a t e s the person r e f e r r e d t o . (b) a j u r o r i s not i n d i f f e r e n t between the Queen and the accused. (c) a j u r o r has been c o n v i c t e d of an o f f e n c e f o r which he was sentenced t o death or a term of imprisonment e x c e e d i n g t w e l v e months. (d) a j u r o r i s a l i e n . (e) a j u r o r i s p h y s i c a l l y unable t o p e r f o r m p r o p e r l y the d u t i e s of a j u r o r , or ( f ) a j u r o r does not speak the o f f i c i a l language of Canada t h a t i s the language of the accused • or the o f f i c i a l language of Canada i n which the accused can best g i v e t e s t i m o n y or both o f f i c i a l l anguages of Canada, where the a c c u s e d i s r e q u i r e d by reason of an o r d e r under s e c t i o n 462.1 t o be t r i e d b e f o r e a judge and j u r y who speak the o f f i c i a l language of Canada t h a t i s the language of the accused or the o f f i c i a l language of Canada i n which the accused can b e s t g i v e t e s t i m o n y or who speak both o f f i c i a l languages of Canada, as the case may be. (2) No c h a l l e n g e f o r cause s h a l l be a l l o w e d on a ground not mentioned i n s u b s e c t i o n ( 1 ) . C h a l l e n g e s t o j u r o r s d i f f e r from o t h e r f a c t o r s t h a t a f f e c t the e x t e n t t o which the j u r y can be s a i d t o r e p r e s e n t the community because l a w y e r s a r e a l l i e d w i t h p a r t i s a n i n t e r e s t s . As an a l t e r n a t i v e , t h e n , t o the argument t h a t the j u r y r e p r e s e n t s 4 the community, i t may be argued that the jury represents the narrower interests of lawyers. Thus, the f i r s t consideration that stimulates my interest in the influence that Crown and defence counsel exert over the jury selection process is the question of the extent to which the ideal of representativeness is subverted by the selection process, and the implications that this would have for the functions that are attributed to the jury. A second motivation for doing this research stems from i t s relevance to a matter of s o c i a l p o l i c y . One of the more contentious issues among j u r i s t s today is the question of how much access to information about prospective jurors should be allowed to t r i a l lawyers. By developing an explanation for how lawyers make use of the information that i s available to them I intend to aid in the solution of this important, timely, and complex problem. In Canada, either lawyer may examine a prospective juror only after he or she establishes prima facie evidence supporting a challenge for cause. In other words, he or she must issue a challenge for cause and substantiate i t to the s a t i s f a c t i o n of the Court before he or she is allowed to question a potential juror. Correspondingly, the opposing lawyer may only cross-examine a prospective juror who has been properly challenged. This r e s t r i c t i o n on a lawyer's access to personal information about an individual has i t s origins in B r i t i s h common law ( c f . R. v. Dowling) but there are several authoritative decisions in Canada on this point as well. Two in par t i c u l a r are Regina v. Makow (1974) and Regina v. Hubbert (1975). In Regina 5 v. Makow (1974:522) the B r i t i s h Columbia Court of Appeal ruled: . . . an accused does not have an unfettered right to challenge for cause and examine or cross-examine the juror. There must be a prima facie case that the juror i s not i n d i f f e r e n t . In Regina v. Hubbert (1975:290) , the Ontario Court of Appeal concurred in thi s view, adding: We state c a t e g o r i c a l l y that the questioning of prospective jurors by counsel, without challenge for cause having been made, and whether sworn or unsworn, is not permitted in Ontario. While a lawyer in Canada may not question a prospective juror, except as provided, he or she does, nevertheless, have other sources of information about the i n d i v i d u a l . These are: (1) the jury panel l i s t which indicates the person's name, address, and occupation; (2) observation of the prospective jurors in the courtroom prior to and during the selection process; (3) conversations with colleagues and court o f f i c i a l s ; and (4) public records. Private investigation i s another potential source of information concerning the prospective juror, but i t is generally considered too expensive. It may also have negative consequences for the lawyer who engages in thi s procedure given the attitude of the Courts toward protecting the fairness of the t r i a l and the privacy of jurors. From the panel l i s t , i t may be possible to discern the individual's e t h n i c i t y , gender, occupational prestige, approximate l e v e l of education, and approximate l e v e l of wealth. From observations of prospective jurors in the courtroom, 6 physical appearance and style of dress may provide clues about a person's e t h n i c i t y , gender, age, and wealth. In some j u r i s d i c t i o n s where several juries are chosen from the same panel at one time, a lawyer may observe whether or not certain individuals were chosen for other j u r i e s . Also, he or she may overhear a conversation between prospective jurors that may be of some signi f i c a n c e . Indices, such as a union badge or chamber of commerce pin, could suggest a person's p o l i t i c a l persuasion. Religious commitment might be inferred from a cross worn as a pin or on a chain. Jewellery may be used to indicate a person's l e v e l of wealth. Colleagues, court clerks and s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e r s may be able to inform counsel about whether or not p a r t i c u l a r panel members have served on previous juries and what the outcome of that case was. Public records such as the c i t y directory, and r e s t r i c t e d documents such as police f i l e s , may be used to make inferences about particular jurors. Other sources of information, such as newspapers, t e l e v i s i o n , and radio, provide information about the community in which a prospective juror resides. Some of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the community may be attributed to the i n d i v i d u a l . The bulk of information that is available to counsel concerns the prospective juror's status c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; attributes which define his or her s o c i a l roles and s o c i a l rank. In t h i s research I w i l l be examining how lawyers make use of th i s information in the selection process and the implications that these strategies have for issues related to the question of lawyers' access to information about potential jurors. 7 The u t i l i t y of l i m i t i n g l a w y e r s ' a b i l i t y t o q u e s t i o n p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s i s one such i s s u e . I t seems t h a t the r e s t r i c t i o n on a l a w y e r ' s a b i l i t y t o q u e s t i o n p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s e x i s t s because i t i s assumed t o thwart a t t e m p t s t o o b t a i n a j u r y t h a t f a v o u r s h i s or her c a s e . E v i d e n c e of t h i s can be found i n Regina v. Makow (1974:519) where the Court s a i d : From what I am a b l e t o l e a r n of the American p r o c e d u r e i t would appear t h a t what e v o l v e s i s an attempt t o s e c u r e a j u r y s y m p a t h e t i c t o the p o i n t of view of the person d o i n g the e x a m i n i n g . Counsel seek a j u r y w i t h a c e r t a i n view of the law. . . i n our j u r i s d i c t i o n an accused i s e n t i t l e d t o an i n d i f f e r e n t j u r y not a f a v o u r a b l e one. Our c o n c e p t of a f a i r t r i a l e x c l u d e s a j u r y t h a t w i l l a p p l y i t s own views of the law. A l s o , i n Regina v. Hubbert (1975:290) the Court s a i d : There i s an i n i t i a l p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t a j u r o r not d i s q u a l i f i e d by the s t a t u t e under which he i s s e l e c t e d , w i l l p e r f o r m h i s d u t i e s i n accordance w i t h h i s o a t h . . . I t i s i m p o r t a n t t o c o n s i d e r the purpose of c h a l l e n g e f o r cause. I t i s t o e l i m i n a t e from the j u r y as sworn those p e r s o n s who come w i t h i n the f i v e c a t e g o r i e s l i s t e d i n s . 5 6 7 ( l ) of the Code, and save as t o a j u r o r whose name i s not on the p a n e l , t o r e q u i r e t h a t the t r u t h of the c h a l l e n g e be d e c i d e d by two t r i e r s chosen from the p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r ' s p e e r s . C h a l l e n g e f o r cause i s not f o r the purpose of f i n d i n g out what k i n d of j u r o r the person c a l l e d i s l i k e l y t o be - h i s p e r s o n a l i t y , b e l i e f s , p r e j u d i c e s , l i k e s or d i s l i k e s . In t h i s r e s e a r c h I s h a l l examine the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t l a w y e r s have o t h e r means of d e c i d i n g which j u r o r s w i l l f a v o u r t h e i r c a s e . I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h e s e a t t r i b u t i o n p r o c e s s e s would a l l o w f u t u r e r e s e a r c h t o a s s e s s the v a l i d i t y of the assumption t h a t r e s t r i c t i n g l a w y e r s ' q u e s t i o n i n g of p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s p r e v e n t s them from b e i n g a b l e t o s e l e c t b i a s e d j u r o r s . 8 In addition to the question of whether or not t h i s r e s t r i c t i o n produces an intended effect on lawyers' choices, I wonder i f there are not other unintended consequences that follow from.it. By not permitting the examination of prospective jurors the legal system may be accused of taking away with one hand what i t has granted with the other. Section 567 of the Criminal Code s p e c i f i e s that either counsel may challenge for cause those jurors who, for example, are physically unable to perform the duties of a juror. However, the jurors may not be questioned in order to ascertain, for instance, how well they see or hear. S i m i l a r l y , the Act presumably ensures that a lawyer may challenge those who do not understand the language in which the t r i a l is to be conducted, yet a lawyer may not question the prospective jurors in order to determine their l e v e l of comprehension. Perhaps most important of a l l though i s the fact that the law gives both counsel the right to exclude those jurors who are not ind i f f e r e n t between the Crown and the accused, but the lawyer is denied the opportunity to question the prospective jurors about their b e l i e f s and prejudices. In th i s thesis I hope to identify some of the strategies that lawyers have developed in order to cope with such l i m i t a t i o n s . Future research may then be able to assess the adequacy of such strategies, and determine whether or not this r e s t r i c t i o n renders section 567 of the Criminal Code i n e f f e c t i v e . A related problem arises in connection with the u t i l i t y of peremptory challenges. Both the Law Reform Commission of B r i t i s h Columbia (1982:8) and the Law Reform Commission of Canada (1980:54) have said that the u t i l i t y of peremptory challenges i s 9 t h a t they p r o v i d e the appearance of j u s t i c e . However, i f i t i s r e a s o n a b l e t o assume, as the C o u r t s have done, t h a t r e s t r i c t i n g l a w y e r s ' a b i l i t y t o q u e s t i o n p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s p r e v e n t s them from p e r c e i v i n g which j u r o r s would be f a v o u r a b l e t o t h e i r v i e w s , i t would a l s o seem r e a s o n a b l e t o c o n c l u d e t h a t the p e r c e p t i o n of i m p a r t i a l j u r o r s , and those who would be p r e j u d i c e d a g a i n s t t h e i r c a s e , would be s i m i l a r l y impeded. T h i s s u g g e s t s t h a t the r e s t r i c t i o n on c o u n s e l s ' a b i l i t y t o q u e s t i o n p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s may n u l l i f y the u t i l i t y of peremptory c h a l l e n g e s . T h i s r e s e a r c h , t h e r e f o r e , i n v i t e s r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of q u e s t i o n i n g as a means of i n f e r r i n g p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s ' i m p a r t i a l i t y a g a i n s t whatever a t t r i b u t i o n p r o c e s s e s t h a t might c u r r e n t l y be used. A t h i r d c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h a t m o t i v a t e s my i n t e r e s t i n the s u b j e c t of j u r y s e l e c t i o n i s i t s importance t o s o c i o l o g i c a l knowledge. In p a r t i c u l a r , I am i n t e r e s t e d i n whether or not c e r t a i n s o c i o l o g i c a l c o n c e p t s can be a p p l i e d t o the e x p l a n a t i o n of l a w y e r s ' c h o i c e s . These c o n c e p t s a r e : o r g a n i z a t i o n a l norm, s t e r e o t y p e , s o c i a l s t a t u s , and s i m i l a r i t y . Canadian l a w y e r s c h o i c e s are made w i t h i n the c o n t e x t of the Canadian l e g a l system. As such, the norms of t h a t system a r e l i k e l y t o a f f e c t t h e i r b e h a v i o u r . I t can be argued t h a t , i n the Canadian system, t h e r e are norms r e q u i r i n g defence and Crown c o u n s e l t o r e p r e s e n t competing i n t e r e s t s . In o t h e r words, defence c o u n s e l i n Canada a r e supposed t o r e p r e s e n t the accused p e r s o n ' s i n t e r e s t i n p e r s o n a l freedom, and Crown c o u n s e l , the s t a t e ' s i n t e r e s t i n law and o r d e r . A p r o b a b l e consequence of l a w y e r s b e i n g i n f l u e n c e d by t h e s e norms i s t h a t i n j u r y 10 s e l e c t i o n the c h o i c e of defence c o u n s e l w i l l be o p p o s i t e t o those of Crown c o u n s e l and v i c e v e r s a . G i v e n t h a t the b u l k of i n f o r m a t i o n l a w y e r s have about p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s c o ncerns t h e i r s t a t u s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , i t can be argued t h a t these w i l l a f f e c t l a w y e r s ' c h o i c e s . S t a t u s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s have two d i m e n s i o n s , r o l e and rank, i n t h a t they d e f i n e an i n d i v i d u a l ' s b e h a v i o u r a l p a t t e r n s as w e l l as s i g n i f y h i s or her s o c i a l p o s i t i o n r e l a t i v e t o o t h e r s . Both a s p e c t s a r e examined i n t h i s t h e s i s . F i r s t , i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the n o t i o n of r o l e s i t i s p r e d i c t e d t h a t l a w y e r s use s t e r e o t y p e s i n the s e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s ; c o n s e n s u a l l y h e l d g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s about s o c i a l r e a l i t y . For example, some l a w y e r s may b e l i e v e t h a t t r u c k d r i v e r s would be f a v o u r a b l e t o the accused i n an a s s a u l t case because they b e l i e v e t h a t t r u c k d r i v e r s f a v o u r v i o l e n c e . P r e v i o u s l i t e r a t u r e on j u r y s e l e c t i o n , which w i l l be re v i e w e d l a t e r i n t h i s c h a p t e r , a r t i c u l a t e s a number of s t e r e o t y p e s t h a t l a w y e r s may use. In o r d e r t o det e r m i n e whether or not the concept of the s t e r e o t y p e can be a p p l i e d t o the e x p l a n a t i o n of j u r y s e l e c t i o n , an attempt i s made t o determine how w e l l t h e s e views account f o r l a w y e r s ' c h o i c e s i n f o u r h y p o t h e t i c a l j u r y s e l e c t i o n s . Second, w i t h r e s p e c t t o the n o t i o n of rank, i t i s argued t h a t because the s o c i a l o r d e r p r o v i d e s more rewards t o persons of h i g h rank, l a w y e r s a re more l i k e l y t o b e l i e v e h i g h s t a t u s persons f a v o u r law and o r d e r and low s t a t u s persons do n o t . Thus, i t i s more l i k e l y t h a t l a w y e r s w i l l assume t h a t h i g h s t a t u s p e r s o n s w i l l f a v o u r the Crown and low s t a t u s persons w i l l f a v o u r the d e f e n c e . T h i s n o t i o n i s t e s t e d i n t h i s r e s e a r c h . 11 A f i n a l a t t r i b u t i o n process that is considered concerns the effect of s i m i l a r i t y between potential jurors and the accused. A recurrent proposition in s o c i a l psychological l i t e r a t u r e i s the notion that individuals w i l l assume that persons who are similar in some respects are similar in other ways too. In this thesis this idea is applied to lawyers. It is argued that the more similar a juror i s to the accused, the more l i k e l y lawyers are to assume that he or she shares the accused person's views with respect to how the behaviour in question should be judged. In other words, jurors who are similar to the accused w i l l be assumed to be biased in favour of the accused. This notion is also tested in t h i s research. Despite the importance of jury selection as a s o c i a l , legal and s o c i o l o g i c a l problem, very l i t t l e research has been done on the subject. The bulk of l i t e r a t u r e , which i s written by American j u r i s t s , i s speculative and has not been v e r i f i e d . However, a review of this l i t e r a t u r e is useful because i t provides insights into the problem. F i r s t , there i s some evidence to suggest that lawyers attempt to select biased j u r i e s . According to Adkins (1968:37): The attorney, in most instances, prefers a jury which is prejudiced, or at least, leaning in favour of his cause. The party, bluntly, wants to win and anything less is not true j u s t i c e . Blauner (1975:448) says: Despite i t s theoretical function, the v o i r - d i r e is in r e a l i t y a contest between the two adversaries toward the goal of selecting the jury that is most favourable to his side. 1 2 Somewhat less d i r e c t , Goldstein (1935:152) states: A jury should be demanded in every instance where the natural sympathies of the jury w i l l favour the c l i e n t . A second feature of previous l i t e r a t u r e i s that i t mentions several stereotypic views concerning potential jurors. These I sh a l l consider in some d e t a i l . Ethnic, r a c i a l , and national stereotypes are mentioned frequently in the l i t e r a t u r e . Rothblatt (1966:18) contends that: It has often been said that persons of I t a l i a n , I r i s h , Jewish, Latin American and Southern European extraction are more desirable as jurors than people of B r i t i s h , Scandinavian, or German extraction. The l a t t e r are presumably the law-abiding, conservative and s t r i c t e r races, with more r i g i d standards of conduct. Katz (1969:39) also believes that lawyers have certain attitudes about ethnic groups. He says: Concerning ethnic groups, lawyers generally feel that: Latins are emotional, Orientals, conservative and don't recognize pain and suffering; Jewish, sentimental and l i b e r a l , but in a serious crime, just as w i l l i n g to hang the defendant as anyone else; and Central European or Nordic are conservative. Goldstein (1935:156) also a r t i c u l a t e s views similar to those already mentioned. He argues that the I r i s h , Jewish, I t a l i a n , 1 3 Fr e n c h , S p a n i s h , and those of S l a v i c e x t r a c t i o n tend t o respond t o an e m o t i o n a l argument. On the o t h e r hand, the N o r d i c type of j u r o r , the Englishman, S c a n d i n a v i a n and German are more r e s p o n s i v e t o law and or d e r arguments and a p p e a l s f o r law enforcement. K e n n e l l y (1965:88) argues a g a i n s t the view t h a t n a t i o n a l i t y i n d i c a t e s whether a person would be l e n i e n t . He s a y s : I do not b e l i e v e t h a t n a t i o n a l i t y i s as im p o r t a n t as some would say. There a r e i n d i f f e r e n t p e o p l e i n a l l n a t i o n a l i t i e s and t h e r e a r e warm and compassionate p e o p l e l i k e w i s e i n people of a l l n a t i o n a l i t i e s . A c c o r d i n g t o p r e v i o u s l i t e r a t u r e , sex s t e r e o t y p e s a l s o d i s t i n g u i s h p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s . Of women j u r o r s G o l d s t e i n (1935:158) s t a t e s : In t h o s e j u r i s d i c t i o n s where women a r e a c c e p t e d as j u r o r s , most t r i a l l a w y e r s f e e l they s h o u l d be p l a c e d i n the c a t e g o r y of the e m o t i o n a l type of j u r o r . . . Women j u r o r s a r e c o n s i d e r e d as good j u r o r s i n t h a t they u s u a l l y pay more a t t e n t i o n t o the e v i d e n c e , a r e s e r i o u s , and s t r i v e t o do t h e i r d u t y . R o t h b l a t t (1966:18) m a i n t a i n s t h a t : Women j u r o r s a r e d e s i r a b l e i f the defendant happens t o be a handsome young man. S i n c e the j u r y tends t o t r y the a t t o r n e y as w e l l , a woman j u r o r i s c a l l e d f o r i f you f i t t h a t d e s c r i p t i o n . Women a r e somewhat d i s t r u s t f u l of o t h e r women. . . The e l d e r l y grandmother type i s a l s o u s u a l l y d e s i r e d over a younger women. . . An a l l - m a l e j u r y i s p r e f e r r e d where the defendant i s a woman. 1 4 Katz (1968:39) suggests that lawyers generally believe that: With a female defendant, i t i s probably better to have a male juror i f your c l i e n t i s a t t r a c t i v e ; in a rape case, i f the victim is a t t r a c t i v e , women jurors might be more sympathetic to the defendant and not believe rape. Kennelly (1965:88) takes exception to the view that women are more sympathetic than men. In choosing jurors, occupational stereotypes are also apparently used by lawyers. Katz (1968:39), for instance, argues that housewives make better jurors for the defence than professional women do. Adkins (1968:37) believes that bankers are more favourable from the prosecution's standpoint because they are unsympathetic and apt to convict. Rothblatt (1966:19), in assessing the d e s i r a b i l i t y of individuals from the defence point of view, argues the following: Generally, r e t i r e d police o f f i c e r s , m i l i t a r y men and their wives are undesirable. They have adhered to a s t r i c t l i n e of conduct throughout their l i v e s . They believe that i f a man i s arrested he i s probably g u i l t y . . . . salesmen, actors, a r t i s t s , and writers are desirable. They have enjoyed wide and varied experiences, have witnessed the good and bad in people and are prone to forgive an indiscretion in another. . . bankers, bank employees, members of management, and low salaried white-collared workers are generally undesirable. They have been trained to either take or give orders, are forced to toe the l i n e , and usually expect others to do the same. Wealth i s another status attribute that writers have said lawyers take into account. Adkins (1968:19), for example, argues 1 5 that while the r i c h believe that persons and their property should be protected by law, the poor believe that the law exists to serve the interests of the r i c h . Katz (1968:39) suggests that most lawyers subscribe to the view that the middle and low economic groups are more sympathetic to the accused than the high economic group. Prior jury experience has also been thought to affect future juror behaviour. Both Goldstein (1935:153) and Rothblatt (1966:19) maintain that new jurors are more l i k e l y to follow the judge's instructions concerning reasonable doubt than those jurors with prior experience. Goldstein adds that a person with prior jury experience is hardened to persons' suffering. Previous l i t e r a t u r e also suggests that the physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a juror can affect whether he or she is accepted. Adkins (1968:37), for instance, says: Fat people are said to be j o v i a l ; a f a i r complexion evidences a.warm heart and a sense of humanity; people with l i g h t hair are sympathetic; people with thin, sharp faces are self-opinionated and stubborn. Rothblatt (1966:18) believes that: Generally speaking, the heavy, round-faced j o v i a l looking person is the most desirable. The undesirable juror i s often the s l i g h t underweight and delicate type. . . The at h l e t i c - l o o k i n g juror is - hard to categorize. Usually he i s hard to convince; but once convinced he w i l l go a l l the way for you. Age seems to be of less significance to lawyers although Adkins (1968:37) argues that the elderly are more sympathetic. 16 Writers on the subject of jury selection also l i s t some q u a l i f i c a t i o n s to the generalizations that are made about prospective jurors. For instance, Katz (1968:39) argues that ethnic minorities are generally sympathetic to the accused unless he or she is a d i s c r e d i t to the same race. Conversely, Goldstein (1935:156), using the following illuminating example, argues that while some races are generally s t r i c t , they are more sympathetic to members of their own race. He says: In one instance a German banker was being prosecuted for embezzelment and larceny. The prosecutor in charge of the case, keeping in mind the instruction to secure as many English, German, and Scandinavian jurors as possible, lost sight of the fact that the defendant was a German. When the jury was selected there were six Germans on the jury. No one was surprised to learn that a l l the Germans voted for a c q u i t t a l . In t h i s chapter I have attempted to define the problem of interest to t h i s thesis; to outline i t s s o c i a l , l e g a l , and s o c i o l o g i c a l relevance; and to discuss the previous l i t e r a t u r e on jury s e l e c t i o n . I began by stating that an attempt would be made to account for lawyers' choices of jurors for criminal t r i a l s in Canada. It was pointed out that the jury is thought by many to perform certain valuable s o c i a l functions, such as protecting the community from unjust laws, but that these were ca l l e d into question because of lawyers' extensive power to affect the representativeness of the jury. Second, a number of legal policy issues were considered, a l l of which relate to the question of lawyers' access to information about prospective 1 7 j u r o r s . I t was suggested t h a t c u r r e n t r e s t r i c t i o n s on l a w y e r s ' a c c e s s t o i n f o r m a t i o n , because they a re so s e v e r e , may undermine the j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r h a v i n g j u r y s e l e c t i o n . T h i r d , the s o c i o l o g i c a l importance of t h i s t h e s i s was n o t e d . I t was argued t h a t the c o n c e p t s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l norm, s t e r e o t y p e , s o c i a l rank, and s i m i l a r i t y c o u l d be u s e f u l l y a p p l i e d t o the e x p l a n a t i o n of l a w y e r s ' c h o i c e s . In the f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r I s h a l l d e v e l o p the s o c i o l o g i c a l r e l e v a n c e of t h i s t h e s i s f u r t h e r . The p r e v i o u s l y mentioned c o n c e p t s w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l , germane t h e o r e t i c a l and r e s e a r c h m a t e r i a l w i l l be r e v i e w e d , and s e v e r a l hypotheses put f o r w a r d . In c h a p t e r t h r e e the methodology used t o t e s t t h e s e p r e d i c t i o n s w i l l be o u t l i n e d . In c h a p t e r f o u r the r e s u l t s of t h i s r e s e a r c h w i l l be p r e s e n t e d and f u l l y a n a l y s e d . In c h a p t e r f i v e the i m p l i c a t i o n s of these r e s u l t s f o r the q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d i n t h i s t h e s i s s h a l l be d i s c u s s e d , q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d i n t h i s t h e s i s s h a l l be d i s c u s s e d . 18 Chapter Two The S o c i o l o g y of J u r y S e l e c t i o n In the p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r i t was argued t h a t the c o n c e p t s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l norm, s t e r e o t y p e , s t a t u s rank, and s i m i l a r i t y c o u l d be extended t o the e x p l a n a t i o n of l a w y e r s ' c h o i c e s of j u r o r s f o r c r i m i n a l t r i a l s i n Canada. In t h i s c h a p t e r t h i s argument i s deve l o p e d f u r t h e r by e l a b o r a t i n g on each of these n o t i o n s and d e f i n i n g more p r e c i s e l y t h e i r c o n n e c t i o n w i t h l a w y e r s ' c h o i c e s . The term ' o r g a n i z a t i o n ' i s used by s o c i o l o g i s t s t o d e s c r i b e an a b s t r a c t e n t i t y i n which peop l e a re c o o r d i n a t e d through a d i v i s i o n of l a b o u r i n the p u r s u i t of some g o a l or s e t of g o a l s . C o o r d i n a t i o n of e f f o r t e v o l v e s through a p r o c e s s c a l l e d ' f o r m a l i z a t i o n ' i n which s o c i a l norms are d e v e l o p e d and r e f i n e d . These norms a r e f o r m a l and i n f o r m a l r u l e s t h a t s p e c i f y how g i v e n p e o p l e a r e t o a c t i n g i v e n c i r c u m s t a n c e s . I t can be argued t h a t among the norms g o v e r n i n g i n d i v i d u a l s i n the Canadian l e g a l system, t h e r e i s one t h a t r e q u i r e s defence c o u n s e l t o r e p r e s e n t the i n t e r e s t s of the a c c u s e d , and another t h a t r e q u i r e s Crown c o u n s e l t o r e p r e s e n t the i n t e r e s t s of the s t a t e . F u n d a m e n t a l l y , each p l a y s an a d v e r s a r i a l r o l e . While Crown c o u n s e l a t t e m p t s t o promote the s t a t e ' s i n t e r e s t i n law and o r d e r , the defence t r i e s t o pursue the c l i e n t ' s i n t e r e s t i n p e r s o n a l freedom. A p r o b a b l e consequence of t h i s arrangement i s t h a t t h e i r c h o i c e s of j u r o r s w i l l be a n t i t h e t i c a l , t o o . Crown c o u n s e l i s more l i k e l y t o p r e f e r the c o n s e r v a t i v e , l a w - a b i d i n g , s t r i c t e r j u r o r . Defence c o u n s e l , on the o t h e r hand, i s more l i k e l y t o want the l i b e r a l , t o l e r a n t , more l e n i e n t s o r t . 19 Choosing j u r o r s who might be f a v o u r a b l e t o one's case n e c e s s i t a t e s the use of a p r o c e s s t h rough which i n f e r e n c e s of j u r o r b i a s a r e made. As the b u l k of i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t l a w y e r s have about p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s c o n c e r n s t h e i r s t a t u s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , i t i s argued t h a t l a w y e r s may use s t e r e o t y p e s i n j u r y s e l e c t i o n . The concept of s t e r e o t y p e was d e v e l o p e d by Lippmann (1922) who, i n a l a r g e l y p o l i t i c a l t h e s i s , argued t h a t t e c h n o l o g i c a l development and r o l e s p e c i a l i z a t i o n c r e a t e d an atmosphere w i t h i n which the i n d i v i d u a l c o u l d no l o n g e r m a i n t a i n a g e n e r a l , i n c l u s i v e p e r s p e c t i v e on c u r r e n t e v e n t s . T h i s , he argued, l e a d s t o the d i s t o r t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r c e p t i o n s , g o a l s , and d e s i r e s . Lippmann c l a i m e d t h a t i n o r d e r t o cope w i t h r a p i d change and e x p a nsion of i n f o r m a t i o n about the w o r l d around him or h e r , the i n d i v i d u a l makes use of s t e r o t y p e s : c o n s e n s u a l l y h e l d , but f a u l t y , g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s about s o c i a l r e a l i t y . W h i l e Lippmann i s the acknowledged source of the term ' s t e r e o t y p e ' , i t was Katz and B r a l y ' s (1933) work on s t e r e o t y p i n g t h a t spawned a major t r a d i t i o n i n s o c i a l r e s e a r c h . They i n t r o d u c e d the s t e r e o t y p e c h e c k l i s t ; r espondents peruse a l i s t of a d j e c t i v e s and i n d i c a t e which ones a p p l y t o the t a r g e t group i n q u e s t i o n . In t h e i r s t u d y , f o r example, u n i v e r s i t y u n d e rgraduates d e s c r i b e d Negroes as l a z y , h appy-go-lucky, and s u p e r s t i t i o u s . S i n c e K a t z and B r a l y ' s work was p u b l i s h e d , v e r i t a b l e tomes of r e s e a r c h have been produced, u s i n g a s i m i l a r methodology, i n which the s t e r e o t y p e s t h a t one group employs about a n o t h e r have been a s c e r t a i n e d . In an a t t r i b u t i o n p r o c e s s i n v o l v i n g the use of s t e r e o t y p e s , the s t a t u s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a p o t e n t i a l j u r o r would d e f i n e h i s 20 or her membership i n v a r i o u s s o c i a l c a t e g o r i e s about which l a w y e r s have c e r t a i n s t e r e o t y p e s . These s t e r e o t y p e s may then a l l o w the lawyer t o make an i n f e r e n c e as t o whether or not the p a r t i c u l a r j u r o r i s l i k e l y t o f a v o u r h i s or her c a s e . For i n s t a n c e , l a w y e r s may s t e r e o t y p e w e a l t h y p e r s o n s as b e i n g unsympathetic t o the needs of the poor. Where the accused i s a t h i e f who was f o r c e d t o s t e a l i n o r d e r t o support h i s or her f a m i l y , a p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r who appears t o be w e a l t h y may thus be r e g a r d e d as more l i k e l y t o be b i a s e d i n f a v o u r of the Crown. In the p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r , l i t e r a t u r e on j u r y s e l e c t i o n was r e v i e w e d . W h i l e not n e c e s s a r i l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the v i e w s of o t h e r l a w y e r s , the views of a few commentators suggested a number of s t e r e o t y p e s t h a t l a w y e r s might employ. In a p i l o t s t u d y , some of t h e s e were v e r i f i e d by l o c a l l a w y e r s . On the assumption t h a t t h e s e s t e r e o t y p e s may be shared by o t h e r l a w y e r s , the f o l l o w i n g hypotheses c o n c e r n i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p between j u r o r s ' s t a t u s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and l a w y e r s ' c h o i c e s may be put f o r w a r d . H y p o t h e s i s 1: Crown c o u n s e l a r e more l i k e l y t o a c c e p t German, B r i t i s h , C h i n e s e , and S c a n d i n a v i a n p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s than I r i s h , J e w i s h , I t a l i a n , or L a t i n p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s . H y p o t h e s i s 2: defence c o u n s e l are more l i k e l y t o a c c e p t I r i s h , J e w i s h , I t a l i a n , and L a t i n p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s than German, B r i t i s h , C h i n e s e , or S c a n d i n a v i a n p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s . 21 H y p o t h e s i s 3: i f the acc u s e d i s a man, Crown c o u n s e l are more l i k e l y t o a c c e p t male p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s than female p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s . H y p o t h e s i s 4: i f the accused i s a man, defence c o u n s e l a r e more l i k e l y t o a c c e p t female p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s than male p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s . H y p o t h e s i s 5: Crown c o u n s e l a r e more l i k e l y t o a c c e p t p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s who a r e m i l i t a r y p e r s o n n e l , bank employees, or members of management than those who a r e salesman, a c t o r s , or a r t i s t s . H y p o t h e s i s 6: defence c o u n s e l a re more l i k e l y t o ac c e p t p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s who a r e salesmen, a c t o r s , or a r t i s t s than those who are m i l i t a r y p e r s o n n e l , bank employees, or members of management. H y p o t h e s i s 7: Crown c o u n s e l a re more l i k e l y t o a c c e p t p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s who appear t o be wea l t h y than those who do not appear t o be w e a l t h y . H y p o t h e s i s 8: defence c o u n s e l a r e more l i k e l y t o ac c e p t p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s who do not appear t o be wealthy than those who do appear t o be w e a l t h y . H y p o t h e s i s 9: Crown c o u n s e l a re more l i k e l y t o a c c e p t p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s w i t h p r i o r j u r y e x p e r i e n c e than those w i t h o u t p r i o r j u r y e x p e r i e n c e . 22 H y p o t h e s i s 10: defence c o u n s e l a r e more l i k e l y t o acc e p t p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s w i t h no p r i o r j u r y e x p e r i e n c e than those w i t h p r i o r j u r y e x p e r i e n c e . H y p o t h e s i s 11: Crown c o u n s e l a r e more l i k e l y t o a c c e p t t h i n p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s than t h o s e who are f a t . H y p o t h e s i s 12: defence c o u n s e l a r e more l i k e l y t o acc e p t f a t p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s than those who are t h i n . H y p o t h e s i s 13: Crown c o u n s e l a r e more l i k e l y t o a c c e p t young p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s than o l d p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s . H y p o t h e s i s 14: defence c o u n s e l a r e more l i k e l y t o acc e p t o l d p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s than young p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s . In a d d i t i o n t o d e f i n i n g r o l e s from which i n d i v i d u a l s can d e v e l o p s t e r e o t y p e s , s t a t u s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a l s o i n d i c a t e a p e r s o n ' s s o c i a l rank; h i s or her p l a c e i n the s o c i a l o r d e r r e l a t i v e t o o t h e r s . S o c i a l s t a t u s i s det e r m i n e d i n two ways. F i r s t , s t a t u s can be a s c r i b e d i n which case i t i s a s s i g n e d on the b a s i s of i n t r i n s i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as r a c e , age, and gender. Second, s t a t u s can be a c h i e v e d . In t h i s case i n d i v i d u a l s r e c e i v e i t because they p e r f o r m r o l e s t h a t a r e regarded as s o c i a l l y more i m p o r t a n t than o t h e r s . O c c u p a t i o n s , f o r example, 23 s e r v e t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e p e o p l e i n t h i s way. People of h i g h e r s o c i a l s t a t u s r e c e i v e g r e a t e r rewards because of t h e i r rank, r e g a r d l e s s of whether t h e i r p o s i t i o n i s a s c r i b e d or a c h i e v e d . These rewards might be p r e s t i g e , t h a t i s , the r e s p e c t , d e f e r e n c e and re v e r e n c e of o t h e r s . Or, i t might be a more t a n g i b l e reward such as income. In view of t h i s , p e r s o n s of h i g h e r s o c i a l s t a t u s a r e more l i k e l y t o be seen t o fav o u r the r u l e s of the system t h a t m a i n t a i n t h e i r r e l a t i v e advantage over o t h e r s . In c o n t r a s t , i t i s more p r o b a b l e t h a t those of lower s o c i a l s t a t u s a r e seen t o o b j e c t t o the r u l e s of the system t h a t s u s t a i n s t h e i r r e l a t i v e d i s a d v a n t a g e . T h i s n o t i o n , i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t defence c o u n s e l p r e f e r l e n i e n t j u r o r s and Crown c o u n s e l p r e f e r s s t r i c t j u r o r s , g i v e s r i s e t o the f o l l o w i n g h y p otheses: H y p o t h e s i s 15:.Crown c o u n s e l a r e more l i k e l y t o a c c e p t p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s of h i g h s o c i a l s t a t u s than those of low s o c i a l s t a t u s . H y p o t h e s i s 16: defence c o u n s e l a r e more l i k e l y t o a c c e p t p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s of low s o c i a l s t a t u s than those of h i g h s o c i a l s t a t u s . A t h i r d a t t r i b u t i o n p r o c e s s t h a t I want t o c o n s i d e r c o n c e r n s the concept of s i m i l a r i t y . A p r o p o s i t i o n common t o s e v e r a l a r e a s of s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y i s t h a t i f persons a r e seen t o be s i m i l a r i n some r e s p e c t s , they w i l l be assumed t o be s i m i l a r i n o t h e r r e s p e c t s a l s o . When t h i s n o t i o n i s a p p l i e d t o the problem of e x p l a i n i n g l a w y e r s ' c h o i c e of j u r o r s , i t can be 24 argued t h a t l a w y e r s w i l l assume t h a t i f a p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r i s s i m i l a r t o the accused i n some r e s p e c t s , the two are a l s o more l i k e l y t o have s i m i l a r views about the p r o p r i e t y of the be h a v i o u r i n q u e s t i o n . In o t h e r words, j u r o r s who a r e s i m i l a r t o the accused w i l l be assumed by c o u n s e l t o i d e n t i f y more c l o s e l y w i t h the accused. Support f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t persons who are seen t o be s i m i l a r i n some r e s p e c t s w i l l be assumed t o be s i m i l a r i n o t h e r s comes from a v a r i e t y of s o u r c e s . The r e s e a r c h on s t e r e o t y p i n g s u p p o r t s t h i s n o t i o n by p o i n t i n g out t h a t persons who be l o n g t o the same s o c i a l c a t e g o r i e s a r e b e l i e v e d t o have o t h e r f e a t u r e s i n common as w e l l . For r e v i e w s of these s t u d i e s see, f o r example, Brigham (1971), D u i j k e r ( i 9 6 0 ) and E h r l i c h (1973). Another body of l i t e r a t u r e , o f t e n r e l a t e d t o s t e r e o t y p i n g , a l s o a r t i c u l a t e s t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n . T h i s i s the r e s e a r c h on p r e j u d i c e and i n t e r g r o u p r e l a t i o n s . The c l a s s i c e x p e r i m e n t a l work i n t h i s a r e a was conducted by S h e r i f et a l . (1961). S u b j e c t s were a d o l e s c e n t males of a p p r o x i m a t e l y the same age and s o c i a l background and were i n i t i a l l y s t r a n g e r s t o one a n o t h e r . The boys were a s s i g n e d t o one of two groups - the e a g l e s or the r a t t l e r s - and brought t o g e t h e r a t a s e c l u d e d summer camp. In phase one of the ex p e r i m e n t , i n - g r o u p i d e n t i f i c a t i o n was c r e a t e d by h a v i n g each group p e r f o r m c e r t a i n independent t a s k s eg. b u i l d i n g a b r i d g e and p r e p a r i n g a meal. In the second phase i n t e r - g r o u p c o n f l i c t was c r e a t e d through the p l a y i n g of games such as b a s e b a l l and tug-o-war. The r e s e a r c h e r s r e p o r t e d t h a t as a r e s u l t of t h i s c o n f l i c t each group dev e l o p e d n e g a t i v e a t t i t u d e s toward the o t h e r . These f e e l i n g tended t o endure, f o r 25 more than a day l a t e r the boys m a n i f e s t e d d e r o g a t o r y a t t i t u d e s of the o t h e r group which were measured by s o c i o m e t r i c c h o i c e s , s t e r e o t y p e r a t i n g of the i n - g r o u p and out-group, and performance e v a l u a t i o n s . In the t h i r d phase the two groups were brought t o g e t h e r a g a i n , o n l y t h i s time they were t o engage i n c o o p e r a t i v e r a t h e r than c o m p e t i t i v e t a s k s ; eg. tug-o-war a g a i n s t a bus r a t h e r than each o t h e r . The r e s e a r c h e r s r e p o r t e d t h a t the p o l a r i t y of a t t i t u d e s p r e v i o u s l y o b s e r v e d g r a d u a l l y d i m i n i s h e d d u r i n g the t h i r d phase of the e xperiment and the boys developed c r o s s - g r o u p f r i e n d s h i p s . The r e s e a r c h e r s c o n c l u d e d t h a t the p e r c e p t i o n of d i v e r g e n t i n t e r e s t s enhanced i n - g r o u p i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and out-group r e j e c t i o n . Thus, when the group g o a l s were d i s s i m i l a r , the boys assumed t h a t they had l i t t l e i n common w i t h out-group members. However, when the s i m i l a r i t y of g o a l s was i n t r o d u c e d they assumed t h a t out-group members were more s i m i l a r t o t h e m s e l v e s . Dudycha (1942) and Meenes (1943), who d e a l w i t h s t e r e o t y p i c e v a l u a t i o n s of Germans and Japanese, a l s o p r e s e n t a s i m i l a r argument. More r e c e n t l y , H e n r i T a j f e l (1978) and h i s c o l l e a g u e s have a t t e m p t e d t o d e v e l o p t h i s a r e a of i n q u i r y . At a more g e n e r a l l e v e l , c o n s i s t e n c y t h e o r i e s i n s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y have a r t i c u l a t e d the p r o p o s i t i o n t o o . These t h e o r i e s are founded on o b s e r v a t i o n s made by H e i d e r (1944, 1946) i n which he noted t h a t p e o p l e t e n d t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e i r f r i e n d s have the same a t t i t u d e s as they do. H e i d e r went on t o d e f i n e c e r t a i n c o g n i t i v e e n t i t i e s - p, o, and x, s t a n d i n g f o r p e r s o n , o t h e r , and t h i n g , and p, o, and q s t a n d i n g f o r person and two o t h e r s . In a d d i t i o n , he d e f i n e d two d i f f e r e n t types of r e l a t i o n s 26 a f f e c t i v e and u n i t r e l a t i o n s . A f f e c t i v e r e l a t i o n s r e f e r to l i k e s and d i s l i k e s . U n i t r e l a t i o n s a r e those of s i m i l a r i t y , c l o s e n e s s , and o wnership. R e l a t i o n s are s a i d t o be b a l a n c e d i f they a r e a l l p o s i t i v e or n e g a t i v e . Together these elements combine t o form a c o g n i t i v e u n i t , i . e . , p, o, and x, or p, o, and q, a r e r e l a t e d by a f f e c t i v e or u n i t r e l a t i o n s t h a t are e i t h e r b a l a n c e d or imbalanced. I f a l l c o g n i t i v e e n t i t i e s are s i m i l a r the r e l a t i o n s a r e b a l a n c e d ; i f a l l c o g n i t i v e e n t i t i e s are d i s s i m i l a r then the r e l a t i o n s a r e b a l a n c e d ; but i f o n l y some of the c o g n i t i v e e n t i t i e s are s i m i l a r then the r e l a t i o n s a r e imbalanced. H e i d e r argued t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s p r e f e r b a l a n c e d r e l a t i o n s t o imbalanced ones. C a r t w r i g h t and H arary (1956) and Newcomb (1953) d e v e l o p e d f o r m a l i z e d v e r s i o n s of b a l a n c e t h e o r y t h a t p e r m i t i t s a p p l i c a t i o n t o a wider v a r i e t y of c i r c u m s t a n c e s . F e s t i n g e r (1957) d e v e l o p e d the t h e o r y of c o g n i t i v e d i s s o n a n c e . He argued t h a t once an i n d i v i d u a l made a d e c i s i o n , o t h e r c o g n i t i o n s t h a t i m p l i e d the wrong c h o i c e had been made c r e a t e d p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e n s i o n c a l l e d d i s s o n a n c e . H i s own r e s e a r c h , f o r example, showed t h a t a f t e r b u y i n g a p a r t i c u l a r make of c a r i n d i v i d u a l s p r e f e r r e d t o read more a d v e r t i s e m e n t s f o r t h a t v e h i c l e than f o r competing makes. L i k e o t h e r c o n s i s t e n c y t h e o r i e s , F e s t i n g e r ' s d i s s o n a n c e t h e o r y m a i n t a i n s t h a t imbalance of r e l a t i o n s among c o g n i t i o n s i s n e g a t i v e l y v a l u e d . These c o n s i s t e n c y t h e o r i e s s u pport the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t p e rsons who are s i m i l a r t o one a n o ther i n some r e s p e c t s w i l l be assumed t o be s i m i l a r i n o t h e r ways a l s o , i n t h a t each argues t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s p r e f e r t o m a i n t a i n a c o n s i s t e n t image of the 27 w o r l d around them. Res e a r c h on s o c i a l comparison and d i s t r i b u t i v e j u s t i c e a l s o f a v o u r s the p r o p o s i t i o n . Homans (1961) argues t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s i n exchange r e l a t i o n s h i p s expect t h a t rewards w i l l be p r o p o r t i o n a l t o c o s t s , and t h a t p r o f i t s s h o u l d be p r o p o r t i o n a l to i n v e s t m e n t s . E q u a t i n g an i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r s o n a l a t t r i b u t e s (such as age) w i t h i n v e s t m e n t s , Homans argues t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s who p e r c e i v e themselves t o be s i m i l a r t o one another e x p e c t t h a t t h e i r rewards s h o u l d a l s o be s i m i l a r . He (Homans, 1961:76) s t a t e s t h a t , " i n e f f e c t Person asks h i m s e l f : 'Am I g e t t i n g as much as o t h e r men i n some r e s p e c t l i k e me would get i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n some r e s p e c t l i k e mine?'. . . And i f d i s t r i b u t i v e j u s t i c e f a i l s anger r i s e s . " Other l i t e r a t u r e a l o n g the same l i n e s d e a l s w i t h the concept of r e l a t i v e d e p r i v a t i o n . Here an i n v i d i o u s comparison i s made between the i n d i v i d u a l and some r e f e r e n c e group. The term ' r e l a t i v e d e p r i v a t i o n ' was o r i g i n a l l y d e v e l o p e d t o e x p l a i n c e r t a i n a n omolies i n the f i n d i n g s of an e x t e n s i v e r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t about World War I I s o l d i e r s ( S t o u f f e r e t a l . , 1949). F i r s t , the a u t h o r s of the study d i s c o v e r e d t h a t b l a c k s o l d i e r s p r e f e r r e d t o be s t a t i o n e d i n the so u t h e r n r a t h e r than n o r t h e r n U n i t e d S t a t e s . T h i s , of c o u r s e , i s somewhat of a paradox g i v e n the h i s t o r y of r a c i a l p r e j u d i c e t h a t has p r e v a i l e d i n the s o u t h . A second p e c u l i a r f i n d i n g was t h a t a l t h o u g h the a c t u a l chance of advancement was q u i t e h i g h i n the A i r Corps and q u i t e low i n the M i l i t a r y P o l i c e , r espondents f e l t t h a t a s o l d i e r w i t h a b i l i t y had a g r e a t e r chance of promotion i n the M i l i t a r y P o l i c e . 28 In o r d e r t o account f o r these f i n d i n g s i t was argued t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s compare themselves t o a r e f e r e n c e group of s i m i l a r o t h e r s . I f they n o t i c e i n t h i s comparison t h a t they a r e i n some way d i s a d v a n t a g e d , then they f e e l r e l a t i v e l y d e p r i v e d . I t i s f u r t h e r assumed t h a t such a s t a t e i s n e g a t i v e l y v a l u e d by the i n d i v i d u a l . Thus, f o r example, i f b l a c k s o l d i e r s compare themselves w i t h o t h e r b l a c k s l i v i n g i n the n o r t h they f e e l r e l a t i v e l y d e p r i v e d because of the l i m i t a t i o n s imposed by army l i f e . In t h i s r e s e a r c h d e a l i n g w i t h s o c i a l comparison and d i s t r i b u t i v e j u s t i c e I f i n d support f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n i n the f o l l o w i n g form: i n d i v i d u a l s assume t h a t persons who a r e s i m i l a r t o t h e m s e l v e s i n some ways s h o u l d be s i m i l a r i n o t h e r ways t o o . L i k e t h e s e o t h e r a r e a s of s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y , I too propose t h a t i f i n d i v i d u a l s a re seen t o be s i m i l a r i n some r e s p e c t s , they w i l l be assumed t o be s i m i l a r i n o t h e r ways a l s o . When a p p l i e d t o the problem of j u r y s e l e c t i o n , t h i s n o t i o n s u g gests t h a t p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s who are s i m i l a r t o the accused w i l l be assumed by l a w y e r s t o share s i m i l a r views as the accused about how the b e h a v i o u r i n q u e s t i o n s h o u l d be judged. T h i s , i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the n o t i o n t h a t defence and Crown c o u n s e l p r e f e r the o p p o s i t e s o r t of j u r o r s t o one a n o t h e r , suggests the f o l l o w i n g h y p o t h e s e s : 29 H y p o t h e s i s 17: the g r e a t e r the degree of s i m i l a r i t y between the accused and a p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r , the l e s s l i k e l y the person i s t o be a c c e p t e d by Crown c o u n s e l . H y p o t h e s i s 18: the g r e a t e r the s i m i l a r i t y between the accused and a p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r , the more l i k e l y the person i s t o be a c c e p t e d by defence c o u n s e l . Two c o n d i t i o n s t h a t are l i k e l y t o a f f e c t the v a l i d i t y of the hypotheses t h a t have so f a r been d e v e l o p e d i n t h i s t h e s i s a r e the n a t u r e of the a l l e g e d c r i m e and the n a t u r e of the d e f e n c e . Crimes can be p l a c e d i n t o one or the o t h e r of two c a t e g o r i e s : consensus c r i m e s or c o n f l i c t c r i m e s . Consensus c r i m e s are a l l of those v i o l a t i o n s of the law where condemnation of the b e h a v i o u r i n q u e s t i o n by the p o p u l a t i o n i s seen t o be f a i r l y unanimous. Examples of consensus c r i m e s i n c l u d e murder, rape, and f o r c i b l e c o n f i n e m e n t . C o n f l i c t c r i m e s , on the o t h e r hand, are ones over which the p o p u l a t i o n i s d i v i d e d i n i t s condemnation. They i n c l u d e p o s s e s s i o n of s t o l e n p r o p e r t y , g a m b l i n g , and s o l i c i t i n g . In c a ses i n v o l v i n g consensus c r i m e s l a w y e r s a r e more l i k e l y t o assume t h a t p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s a r e l e s s i n c l i n e d toward l e n i e n c y . Thus, f a c t o r s t h a t o t h e r w i s e suggest t h a t a person would be b i a s e d i n f a v o u r of a c q u i t t a l would have l e s s of an e f f e c t on l a w y e r s ' c h o i c e s i n these c a s e s . By c o n t r a s t , the n a t u r e of a c o n f l i c t c r i m e s u g g e s t s t h a t some j u r o r s w i l l be l e n i e n t w h i l e o t h e r s w i l l be s t r i c t . Thus, i n t h e s e c a s e s , f a c t o r s t h a t i n d i c a t e a p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r ' s b i a s e s a r e l i k e l y t o 30 have a g r e a t e r impact on l a w y e r s c h o i c e s . I t i s p o s s i b l e t o c a t e g o r i z e d e fences t h a t a r e put f o r w a r d i n c r i m i n a l t r i a l s i n t o one of two t y p e s . F i r s t , i n some cases i t w i l l be argued t h a t a r e a s o n a b l e doubt e x i s t s as t o whether the accused i s the person who committed the a l l e g e d c r i m e . T h i s i s o f t e n r e f e r r e d t o as the defence of ' i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ' . Second, i n o t h e r c a s e s defence c o u n s e l may argue t h a t the b e h a v i o u r of the accused was j u s t i f i e d . For i n s t a n c e , i n a rape case the a c c u s e d might argue t h a t the c o m p l a i n a n t had c o n s e n t e d ; i n a murder case the defence might be t h a t the accused a c t e d i n s e l f -d e f e n c e . In c a s e s where the defence i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the a c c u s e d , i t i s more l i k e l y t h a t the p o t e n t i a l b i a s of p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s w i l l seem l e s s i m p o r t a n t than i n cases where the defence i n v o l v e s some form of j u s t i f i c a t i o n . Thus, a l l of the p r e v i o u s l y mentioned hypotheses a r e more l i k e l y t o be v a l i d i n c a ses where the de f e n c e of j u s t i f i c a t i o n r a t h e r than i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s used. In t h i s c h a p t e r an attempt was made t o argue t h a t the c o n c e p t s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l norm, s t e r e o t y p e , s o c i a l s t a t u s , and s i m i l a r i t y c o u l d be extended t o the e x p l a n a t i o n of l a w y e r s ' c h o i c e of j u r o r s f o r c r i m i n a l t r i a l s i n Canada. F i r s t , I argued t h a t the norms of the l e g a l system i n Canada r e q u i r e defence c o u n s e l t o r e p r e s e n t the i n t e r e s t s of the accused and Crown c o u n s e l the i n t e r e s t s of the s t a t e . I t was f u r t h e r argued t h a t a consequence of t h i s i s t h a t l a w y e r s a r e l i k e l y t o s e l e c t those j u r o r s who they b e l i e v e a r e b i a s e d i n f a v o u r of t h e i r c a s e . Second, w i t h t h i s n o t i o n i n mind, I argued t h a t l a w y e r s might use s t e r e o t y p e s i n the s e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s g i v e n t h a t the bulk of 31 i n f o r m a t i o n about p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s t h a t i s a v a i l a b l e t o them c o n c e r n s t h e i r s t a t u s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . From a review of l i t e r a t u r e on j u r y s e l e c t i o n , a few c l u e s as t o what th e s e s t e r e o t y p e s might be gave r i s e t o s e v e r a l t e n t a t i v e h y p o t h e s e s . T h i r d , the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t j u r o r s ' s o c i a l s t a t u s a f f e c t e d l a w y e r s ' c h o i c e s was a l s o examined. I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t h i g h s t a t u s p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s , because law and or d e r works i n t h e i r i n t e r e s t , would be seen t o be b i a s e d i n f a v o u r of the Crown. F o u r t h , the concept of s i m i l a r i t y was e x p l o r e d . I t was argued t h a t p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s who a r e s i m i l a r t o the accused are more l i k e l y t o be seen t o be b i a s e d i n h i s or her f a v o u r . F i n a l l y , I argued t h a t a l l of the hypotheses t h a t had been put fo r w a r d were more l i k e l y t o be v a l i d i n t r i a l s of c o n f l i c t c r i m e s , and/or where the defence i n v o l v e s some form of j u s t i f i c a t i o n , than i n consensus c r i m e s and/or where i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the accused i s the defence i s s u e . 32 Chapter Three Research Methods In the previous chapters the problem of explaining lawyers' choices of jurors for criminal t r i a l s in Canada was introduced and a number of propositions were considered. As part of the development of this problem a pilot-study was undertaken. Following these exploratory interviews, the problem evolved into i t s present form, incorporating 18 hypotheses. In order to test these predictions a f i e l d experiment was conducted. In this chapter I s h a l l provide the d e t a i l s of the methods of each study. Pilot-Study Methods Subjects for the pilot-study were eight lawyers from the Vancouver area selected because they were known to have f a i r l y extensive jury t r i a l experience. A l e t t e r that included an explanation of the purpose of the study and a request for an interview was sent to each respondent (see Appendix A). Later, each was contacted by telephone and appointments were arranged. Interviews l a s t i n g from half an hour to as long as two hours were conducted. Where permitted, these interviews were recorded; in a l l cases notes were taken. Each interview began with a restatement of the central purpose of the research, a guarantee that a l l information obtained would be held in confidence, and an opportunity for the respondent to raise any questions. Following this an interview schedule was administered (see Appendix B). 33 Because of the e x p l o r a t o r y n a t u r e of t h i s phase of my r e s e a r c h , an attempt was made t o conduct n o n - d i r e c t i v e i n t e r v i e w s . I encouraged the r e s p o n d e n t s t o s t r u c t u r e t h e i r own answers and t o f r e e l y e x p r e s s t h e i r views on the s u b j e c t of j u r y s e l e c t i o n . T h i s was a c c o m p l i s h e d t h r o u g h s e v e r a l means. F i r s t , I t r i e d t o make my q u e s t i o n s as g e n e r a l as p o s s i b l e . Second, the l a w y e r s were asked t o p o i n t out those o c c a s i o n s where the q u e s t i o n s asked suggested a c o n c e p t i o n not shared by them. T h i r d , i n r e s p o n d i n g to s u b j e c t s , f r i e n d l y but non-committal prompts were used. T y p i c a l remarks were: " G e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g t h e n , you f e e l t h a t . . . " or " I s t h e r e a n y t h i n g you want t o add to t h a t ? " or "Could you e l a b o r a t e on t h a t f o r me p l e a s e ? " and, f r e q u e n t l y , "Uh huh?" F o u r t h , I t r i e d t o c r e a t e a p e r m i s s i v e atmosphere i n o r d e r t o reduce a n x i e t y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s e l f -d i s c l o s u r e . In t h e s e ways I hoped t o encourage the respondents to f r e e l y e x p r e s s t h e i r a t t i t u d e s and b e l i e f s about j u r y s e l e c t i o n . The f l e x i b i l i t y t h a t i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h i s s o r t of i n t e r v i e w o f t e n c o m p l i c a t e s d a t a a n a l y s i s g i v e n t h a t t h e r e i s c o n s i d e r a b l e p o t e n t i a l f o r l a c k of u n i f o r m i t y i n the d a t a . I t may be, f o r example, t h a t not a l l s u b j e c t s w i l l speak about the same i s s u e s , or t h a t responses need t o be i n t e r p r e t e d i n some way i n o r d e r t o f a c i l i t a t e c o m p a r i s o n s . F o r t u n a t e l y , i n t h i s r e s e a r c h the low number of c a s e s m i t i g a t e s t h i s weakness. In a d d i t i o n , because of the e x p l o r a t o r y n a t u r e of t h i s phase i n my r e s e a r c h , I was p r i m a r i l y concerned w i t h the h e u r i s t i c v a l u e of the d a t a . Thus, i t was s u f f i c i e n t f o r my purposes t h a t I was 34 a b l e t o determine which views about j u r y s e l e c t i o n were c o n s e n s u a l l y h e l d by c o n s i d e r i n g each q u e s t i o n a c r o s s the a r r a y of i n t e r v i e w s . I t was a l s o p o s s i b l e t o a s s o c i a t e d i f f e r e n c e s of one s o r t w i t h d i f f e r e n c e s of another i n o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h rough c o r r e l a t i o n s . F i n a l l y , I t r i e d t o determine whether j u r y s e l e c t i o n c o u l d be e x p l a i n e d i n ways o t h e r than t h o s e p r o v i d e d by l a w y e r s t h e m s e l v e s . F i e l d Experiment Methods The hypotheses were t e s t e d i n a f i e l d e x p e r i m e n t . A l t h o u g h a random sample of respondents was d e s i r e d , because of the inadequacy of p u b l i c d i r e c t o r i e s and the l a c k of a c c e s s t o c o u r t r e c o r d s , i t was not p o s s i b l e t o d e f i n e the s a m p l i n g frame of a l l l a w y e r s who do j u r y s e l e c t i o n s f o r c r i m i n a l t r i a l s i n Canada. Moreover, c o n t a c t i n g and i n t e r v i e w i n g l a w y e r s from o u t s i d e of the lower m a i n l a n d would have been too c o s t l y . C o n s e q u e n t l y , a s t r a t i f i e d judgment sample of 20 defence and 20 Crown c o u n s e l from the Vancouver a r e a was chosen. I asked s i x c l o s e c o n t a c t s i n the l e g a l p r o f e s s i o n t o p r o v i d e the names of defence and Crown c o u n s e l whom they judged t o be t y p i c a l of t h o s e d o i n g j u r y s e l e c t i o n i n Vancouver. From among the s e names, the f i r s t 20 defence and the f i r s t 20 Crown c o u n s e l who were w i l l i n g t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the r e s e a r c h were i n c l u d e d i n the s t u d y . Because of the manner i n which the sample was s e l e c t e d , the p o s s i b i l i t y of s y s t e m a t i c b i a s b e i n g i n t r o d u c e d cannot be r u l e d o u t . The r e s e a r c h d e s i g n of t h i s study i s somewhat i n v o l v e d . W ith r e s p e c t t o the c o n d i t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s - n a t u r e of the c a s e , n a t u r e of the d e f e n c e , and type of lawyer - a s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d 35 2 X 2 X 2 f a c t o r i a l design was employed. However, to have treated the independent variables in this fashion would have resulted in the creation of several thousand experimental treatments. This was judged to be impractical because of the number of subjects that would be required and the d i f f i c u l t y and expense that would be involved in gathering and analysing the data. In l i e u of a f a c t o r i a l design, I decided to combine juror attributes randomly in order to create 50 treatments equivalent to a jury panel comprised of 50 potential jurors. S i m i l a r i t y and status were then measured for each of these. While th i s method avoids the p r a c t i c a l problems associated with a f a c t o r i a l design, i t creates the additional problem of not being able to determine the independent e f f e c t s of intercorrelated treatment variables. The procedures used to create the treatments are as follows. F i r s t , for each status c h a r a c t e r i s t i c every category was numbered s e r i a l l y eg. age, which consists of fiv e categories, was numbered from 1 to 5. Second, numbered pieces of paper corresponding to these s e r i a l numbers, and of equal size, shape, and colour, were prepared and placed in separate containers. Thus, each container represented a status c h a r a c t e r i s t i c and contained s e r i a l l y numbered squares of paper which represented the categories of each a t t r i b u t e . Third, one piece of paper was drawn from each container and the categories of the attributes that these numbers represented were recorded on a card. Fourth, the pieces of paper were then replaced and the procedure was repeated u n t i l 50 cards had been completed in th i s manner. Thus, each card resembled the following: 36 1. IRISH 2. MALE 3. MANAGER 4. AVERAGE BUILD 5. 40-50 YEARS OLD 6. HIGH WEALTH 7. NO PRIOR JURY EXPERIENCE O p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of V a r i a b l e s The dependent v a r i a b l e , a c c e ptance or r e j e c t i o n of p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s , was o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d by h a v i n g r e s p o n d e n t s s o r t a deck of c a r d s d e s c r i b i n g the p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s i n t o two p i l e s : those whom they would a c c e p t as j u r o r s and those whom they would not f o r one of 4 h y p o t h e t i c a l t r i a l s . The s t a t u s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s , which c o n s t i t u t e the independent v a r i a b l e s f o r hypotheses 1 t h r o u g h 14, were o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d by means of the d e s c r i p t i o n s of the 50 p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s . Once the r a n d o m i z a t i o n p r o c e d u r e s were completed, the c a r d s d e t a i l i n g the c o m b i n a t i o n s of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were a l t e r e d so t h a t each v a r i a b l e was o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d as f o l l o w s : (1) e t h n i c i t y was o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d by the name t h a t appeared on each c a r d ; (2) gender was o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d by the word 'male' or 'female'; (3) the o c c u p a t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s of i n t e r e s t were o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d by i n d i c a t i n g each person's occupat i o n ; 37 (4) physical appearance was operationalized by the words 'thin', 'fat', or 'average build' used to describe individuals; (5) age was operationalized by indicating each individual's age category - either 20-30, 30-40, 40-50, 50-60, or 60-70; (6) wealth was operationalized by using as indicators: (a) address - either on the west or east side of Vancouver, (b) dress - either expensive or inexpensive clothing, and (c) job t i t l e - either a highly paid position within the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n or a low paying position within the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ; and (7) prior jury experience was operationalized by indicating that persons either had or did not have prior jury experience. Thus, the above i l l u s t r a t i o n would have been altered as follows Name: Address: Occupat ion: Sex: Age: Appearance: Prior Jury Experience: O'Malley, Thomas West 14th Avenue, Vancouver, B.C. Construction Manager male 40-50 years old average build, expensive clothing no The operationalization of status rank, the independent variable for hypotheses 15 and 16, was achieved in the following way. F i r s t , occupational prestige scores that were developed by Pineo and Porter (1973) were assigned to each of the prospective jurors according to their occupational t i t l e . Second, the range 38 of scores was divided into three equal sized categories - low, medium, and high - which were then used as a scale of s o c i a l status. In one respect, however, I am not e n t i r e l y s a t i s f i e d with th i s choice of indicator. P a r t i c u l a r l y because of the way in which attributes of prospective jurors are combined in t h i s research, ranks of several of these individuals w i l l not be balanced. In other words, many prospective jurors w i l l appear to be higher on one status dimension than on another eg. female bank manager. Several pieces of l i t e r a t u r e have argued that t h i s inconsistency creates uncertainty as -to how persons with rank imbalance should be treated eg. Hughes (1944). Research, however, has so far been unable to establish how individuals resolve the uncertainty. Therefore, I did not know how much weight to give to each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c in order to determine the status rank of the prospective juror that the lawyer w i l l respond to. Since research has not resolved the issue, and because a solution to the problem i s beyond the scope of t h i s thesis, my use of occupational prestige scores may not be r e l i a b l e in some cases. The degree of s i m i l a r i t y between the prospective juror and the accused, the independent variable for hypotheses 17 and 18, was operationally defined by the number of attributes held in common by the two. For example, i f the accused and prospective juror have the same et h n i c i t y , gender, and age the degree of s i m i l a r i t y between them is 3. 39 The cases on which the l a w y e r s ' c h o i c e s were p r e d i c a t e d p r o v i d e d a means of c r e a t i n g the f o u r e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s needed t o t e s t the e f f e c t s of the n a t u r e of the case and the n a t u r e of the defence on the o t h e r h y p o t h e s i z e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Of the 20 cases a s s i g n e d t o each s t r a t u m : (1) f i v e were the case of a consensus crime where the defence would c o n t e s t the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the accu s e d ; (2) f i v e were the case of a consensus c r i m e where the defence would argue l e g a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n ; (3) f i v e were the case of a c o n f l i c t c r i m e where the defence would c o n t e s t the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the accu s e d ; and (4) f i v e were the case of a c o n f l i c t c r i m e where t h e • defence would argue l e g a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n . O p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of each of t h e s e treatment c o n d i t i o n s was a c h i e v e d by means of case d e s c r i p t i o n s (see Appendix C, D, E, and F ) . A p a r t from s a t i s f y i n g my p r i m a r y o b j e c t i v e of v a r y i n g the n a t u r e of the crime and the n a t u r e of the d e f e n c e , I a l s o wanted these case summaries t o be c r e d i b l e t o l a w y e r s . That i s , I d i d not want my m a t e r i a l t o p r e s e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t seemed unu s u a l or u n b e l i e v a b l e . In o r d e r t o a c h i e v e t h i s two members of the l e g a l p r o f e s s i o n were c o n s u l t e d when p r e p a r i n g t h e s e m a t e r i a l s . 40 Control of Variables The law allows a variable number of challenges to be made depending on the seriousness of the offence. It was important to control for th i s variable since the number of challenges available may relax or tighten the c r i t e r i a on which choices are based. Accordingly, subjects were informed that they could accept or reject as many of the prospective jurors as they wished, irrespective of what the law currently says regarding challenges and whether or not they accepted more or less than the usual number of persons comprising a jury. As a control for unknown variables, within each stratum subjects were randomly assigned to the 4 conditions. This was achieved in the following way. F i r s t , subjects and conditions were numbered s e r i a l l y . Second, the s e r i a l number of one of the conditions was then randomly selected. Third, beginning with th i s number, case types were assigned to lawyers sequentially. Given that the assignment of s e r i a l numbers was arbit r a r y and that the starting point for assignment of case types to lawyers was randomly chosen, one can be more confident that the lawyers in a p a r t i c u l a r condition are similar in a l l other respects to the lawyers in other conditions. This feature i s , however, attenuated by the fact that there i s only a small number of lawyers in each condition. Other variables that were controlled for were the status c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the accused. While there i s no pa r t i c u l a r reason to believe that these variables w i l l a f f e c t the res u l t s , i t was desirable to reduce the number of sources of systematic v a r i a b l i t y to a minimum. Thus, the attributes used to describe 41 the accused were randomly chosen from the same l i s t used in constructing descriptions of prospective jurors, and were held constant across a l l four conditions. In other words, the same randomly chosen accused was used in each case. Procedures I n i t i a l contact with subjects for the experiment was made by l e t t e r that b r i e f l y described the purpose of the research and s o l i c i t e d the respondent's p a r t i c i p a t i o n (see Appendix A). Appointments for interviews were arranged later by telephone. Interviews were conducted i n d i v i d u a l l y in the privacy of lawyers' own o f f i c e s . Each began with an explanation of the purpose of the research, a guarantee that the information obtained would be held in confidence, and s p e c i f i c instructions regarding the a c t i v i t i e s about to be performed. After determining that respondents f u l l y understood the instructions, they were handed an assigned case summary to read (see Appendices C, D, E, and F ) . While subjects were doing t h i s , two envelopes were placed in front of them. On one was printed 'CONTENT' and on the other 'CHALLENGE or STAND ASIDE', which are the words used in court to indicate, respectively, acceptance and rejection of a prospective juror. After subjects had read the case summary they were given a deck of 50 cards bearing the descriptions of the prospective jurors and asked to sort them into two p i l e s . Next to the envelope marked 'CONTENT' they were asked to place a l l those cards describing prospective jurors that they would accept for jurors i f they were acting in the 42 case j u s t read, i r r e s p e c t i v e of how many persons are u s u a l l y chosen f o r a j u r y . Next to the envelope marked 'CHALLENGE or STAND ASIDE' they were asked to p l a c e a l l those who they would p r e f e r to c h a l l e n g e p e r e m p t o r i l y or stand a s i d e , i r r e s p e c t i v e of the number of c h a l l e n g e s or stand a s i d e s they would normally be allowed. When t h i s a c t i v i t y was completed, each p i l e of cards was p l a c e d i n the a p p r o p r i a t e envelope to be coded l a t e r . A f t e r the experiment had concluded, a post-experimental i n t e r v i e w schedule was administered, (see Appendix G). T h i s was done f o r two reasons. F i r s t , through the respondents' s u b j e c t i v e views, the v a l i d i t y of the r a t i o n a l e behind each hypothesis could be assessed. In order to accomplish t h i s , I asked the s u b j e c t s open-ended and closed-ended q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e i r general approach to j u r y s e l e c t i o n and the s p e c i f i c c h o i c e s they had made durin g the experiment. Second, i t was a l s o d e s i r a b l e to obtain some feedback from the s u b j e c t s concerning the research methods used. T h i s served as a check on the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of the measures. A n a l y s i s of Data The a n a l y s i s of data obtained from the experiment r e q u i r e d f i r s t that the i n f o r m a t i o n obtained be coded i n t o machine readable form. Once coding of the data was completed, i t was t r a n s f e r r e d to a computer dis k f i l e . F o l l o w i n g t h i s a r e l i a b i l i t y check was performed i n order to i d e n t i f y e r r o r i n the database r e s u l t i n g from coding or keypunching mistakes. T h i s procedure e n t a i l e d generating a 10 per cent random sample of 43 c a s e s and p e r f o r m i n g a v i s u a l i n s p e c t i o n of each i n o r d e r t o e s t i m a t e the l e v e l of e r r o r p r e s e n t . Because no e r r o r was found i t was assumed t h a t the r e s t of the database was a l s o c l e a n . Once these o p e r a t i o n s had been performed, a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e was used t o t e s t the h y p o t h e s e s . R e s u l t s found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .01 l e v e l a re r e p o r t e d i n the f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r . S t a t i s t i c a l l y i n s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g s appear i n appendix H. The purpose of t h i s c h a p t e r was t o d e s c r i b e the methods of the p i l o t - s t u d y and f i e l d experiment used i n t h i s r e s e a r c h . F i r s t , I o u t l i n e d the methods t h a t were f o l l o w e d i n the p i l o t -s t u dy and the r a t i o n a l e f o r t h e i r use. The p i l o t - s t u d y c o n s i s t e d of e i g h t e x p l o r a t o r y i n t e r v i e w s . Second, I examined the methods used i n the f i e l d experiment and p r o v i d e d e x p l a n a t i o n s and d e s c r i p t i o n s of the p r o c e d u r e s t h a t were performed. T h i s study i n v o l v e d t e s t i n g of 18 hypotheses u s i n g d a t a o b t a i n e d by h a v i n g 20 defence and 20 Crown c o u n s e l choose j u r o r s f o r h y p o t h e t i c a l c r i m i n a l t r i a l s . 44 Chapter Four Research Results In the previous chapter I outlined the methods used to study the problem of explaining lawyers' choices of jurors for criminal t r i a l s in Canada. Two approaches were developed. F i r s t , a pilot-study in which eight lawyers were interviewed was conducted. Second, a f i e l d experiment involving 20 defence counsel and 20 Crown counsel was performed. In thi s chapter I w i l l report on and discuss the results of both of these sets of interviews. Pilot-Study Results The purpose of the pilot-study was to aid in the development of the research problem. Most of the propositions that are tested in thi s thesis were developed only after this i n i t i a l ground work was completed. Open-ended interviews were conducted during a two week period with eight lawyers who practice in the Vancouver area; two Crown counsel, four criminal defence counsel, and two c i v i l t r i a l lawyers, who were included because i t was f e l t that they would be able to provide a unique perspective of jury selection given their dual roles as advocate for either the p l a i n t i f f or defendant. As outlined in the previous chapter, each respondent was asked a series of general questions. In addition, follow-up questions were asked during the course of the interviews. Overall, Crown counsel seemed to be quite d i f f e r e n t from defence counsel in their approach to jury selection. They expressed much less of an interest in the composition of the 45 jury than did defence counsel. During the course of interviews lawyers for both sides attributed this difference to differences in the roles of each type of lawyer. Crown counsel perceived that their role i s to protect the fairness of the t r i a l rather than to secure a conviction. Defence counsel, on the other hand, stated that i t was their function to take f u l l advantage of the law in order to secure the best possible outcome for their c l i e n t , i . e . , to select jurors who would favour the accused. A l l respondents confirmed that status c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are used to make inferences about prospective jurors and that these inferences form the basis of selection decisions. The status c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that were t y p i c a l l y mentioned were the prospective juror's age, occupation, economic standing (inferred from occupation, place of residence, and appearance), s o c i a l status (inferred from occupation), education (inferred from occupation), gender, and ethnicity (inferred from name and appearance). When defence counsel were asked to explain which c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of prospective jurors affected their decision to challenge someone, they confirmed the notion that stereotypes are used. Germans and Scandinavians were seen to be more s t r i c t than other n a t i o n a l i t i e s . In rape cases, women were seen to be unsympathetic toward the victim and, therefore, an asset to the defence. Where the accused is an a t t r a c t i v e female, defence counsel indicated some preference for male jurors on the assumption that they would be influenced by the c l i e n t ' s appearance. Concerning occupations, they f e l t that management was more incl i n e d toward law and order than labour. Actors and 46 a r t i s t s were seen to be l i b e r a l - m i n d e d and i m a g i n a t i v e . Thus, i t i s assumed that they are more l i k e l y to be a b l e to a p p r e c i a t e the concept of reasonable doubt, i . e . , they can v i s u a l i s e other s c e n a r i o s besides those o f f e r e d by the Crown. Bank personnel were seen to be d u l l , unimaginative and, thus, incapable of a p p r e c i a t i n g the concept of reasonable doubt. In property o f f e n c e s , the wealth of a p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r was a l s o thought by defence counsel to i n d i c a t e j u r o r b i a s . J u r o r s of low wealth were b e l i e v e d to be more sympathetic to the accused than persons of high wealth. In o f f e n c e s a g a i n s t persons, i t was f e l t that those of low wealth are more l i k e l y to come from v i o l e n t environments and, t h e r e f o r e , would be more l i k e l y to look upon such crime as t r i v i a l and commonplace. The p h y s i c a l appearance of p rospective- j u r o r s i s c o n s i d e r e d by defence counsel to be q u i t e important, although none was able to expand on t h i s to any degree. V a r i o u s mannerisms, such as where the i n d i v i d u a l looks during the s e l e c t i o n process, whether the person smiles or frowns, and whether he or she appears nervous, were mentioned. Fat people are thought to be l a z y . Consequently, they are regarded as f a v o u r a b l e to the accused because they are seen to be more l i k e l y to a c q u i t the accused i n order to dispense with the t r i a l q u i c k l y . On the other hand, they are a l s o seen to be more l i k e l y to cave i n to a m a j o r i t y v e r d i c t a g a i n s t the accused. Another t r a i t that was mentioned by defence counsel during these e x p l o r a t o r y i n t e r v i e w s was l e n g t h of h a i r . P a r t i c u l a r l y i n drug r e l a t e d o f f e n c e s , men with long h a i r are thought to be sympathetic to drug use while men with short h a i r are not. In a l l cases, young j u r o r s seem to be p r e f e r r e d by 47 defence counsel on the assumption that their values are more l i b e r a l than those of older persons. Crown counsel were asked which c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of prospective jurors affected their decision to stand someone aside. It was assumed that stand asides are used to achieve the same purpose as peremptory challenges. Although they claimed to be unselective, i t seemed as though Crown counsel did not want to appear to be prejudiced toward certain types of jurors. With probing, however, i t was learned that indeed they use stereotypes too. Paradoxically though, unlike defence counsel who seem to prefer an offensive strategy characterized by accepting those who would favour their case, Crown counsel appear to maintain a defensive posture, characterized by modest attempts at countering defence counsel's strategy by standing aside those who appear to be biased in favour of the accused. For instance, where defence counsel attempts to obtain a jury composed of a certa i n ethnic group, Crown counsel w i l l stand aside members of that group u n t i l such time as defence counsel is forced to accept others. Especially for sex offences, Crown counsel prefer a mixed jury so that i f defence counsel t r i e s to obtain a jury composed of only one gender, Crown counsel w i l l counter t h i s by standing persons of that gender aside u n t i l defence counsel accepts a s u f f i c i e n t number of the others. Some jurors of low wealth might be stood aside because they are seen to be sympathetic to the accused. In drug related offences, men with long hair are sometimes stood aside on the assumption that they may favour the accused. In cases where the evidence is quite complex, Crown counsel prefer jurors from professional 48 occupations such as doctors, engineers, and business managers, on the assumption that they are more i n t e l l i g e n t and, therefore, better able to understand what is going on in the courtroom. They argue that i f jurors cannot understand the evidence or the legal issues involved in a case, they are more l i k e l y to acquit the accused. Some jurors apparently confuse lack of understanding with reasonable doubt. These kinds of manipulations of the composition of the jury are viewed by the Crown as attempts to ensure that the jury i s f a i r . In addition to thi s use of the right of stand aside, they also seem to use their power for more obviously non-partisan reasons. For example, persons for whom jury duty is l i k e l y to be too great a hardship the sick, the elde r l y , the self-employed are also stood aside. Those people who have recently sat on a jury Crown counsel prefer to stand aside as a courtesy for having already served. Physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are seen to be important in that i f prospective jurors are lame; or so fat that they would be uncomfortable in the jury box; or so thin that they seem f r a i l , then Crown counsel is l i k e l y to stand them aside, not only because jury duty would be a hardship for them, but also because they are less l i k e l y to pay attention during the t r i a l . Crown counsel seem to prefer middle aged jurors on the assumption that the young would not take the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y seriously enough, and old jurors may be too f r a i l or senile to s i t through a t r i a l . When asked whether the nature of the case affected their choice of jurors, only defence counsel agreed. They indicated that in c o n f l i c t crimes, the leniency of prospective jurors 49 becomes a more salient c r i t e r i o n for jury se l e c t i o n . They argued, for instance, that in assault cases i t is easier to t e l l who would favour the accused and who would not than i t i s in murder cases. Generally speaking, in an assault case men are seen to be more sympathetic than women and labourers more sympathetic than management. For murder cases, however, these d i s t i n c t i o n s are apparently harder to make. Both defence and Crown counsel agreed that their choices were affected by the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the accused. For their part, defence counsel seemed to concern themselves with such questions as whether the accused is a t t r a c t i v e and whether persons of the same race, sex, age, or socio-economic status are l i k e l y to be prejudiced in his or her favour. Crown counsel shared these concerns, but to a lesser degree. These findings suggested that lawyers from both the Crown and the defence attempt to promote their c l i e n t ' s interests through the selection of jurors. However, this tendency was less pronounced in Crown counsel. Moreover, i t was observed that the status c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of prospective jurors were implicated in these strategies through a t t r i b u t i o n processes which focus on the perceived leniency and s t r i c t n e s s of potential jurors. These processes involved attributions based on stereotypes, status rank, and s i m i l a r i t y to the accused. 50 F i e l d Experiment Results Overall, there is a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t difference (F=571.8, p<.01) in the number of jurors selected by counsel. Defence counsel accepted 33 per cent of the jury panel while Crown counsel chose f u l l y 80 per cent. Despite the 47 per cent difference in acceptance rates, however, in terms of the ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s of interest to this research, differences between the jurors accepted by defence counsel and those accepted by Crown counsel were small. Further, the main eff e c t of the experimental conditions (nature of the case/nature of the defence) was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t for defence counsel (F=10.7, p<.0l) and Crown counsel (F=56.8, p<.01). For defence counsel the acceptance rates were 28, 34, 24, and 46 per cent respectively. 1 For Crown counsel the corresponding rates were 74, 57, 94, and 94 per cent. Notwithstanding these findings, the only s i g n i f i c a n t interaction occurred between the experimentalconditions and jurors' occupation. In other words, while the number of jurors chosen in each condition varied, except with respect to occupation, no systematic differences between them were detected. 'Condition one i s the case of a consensus crime where the defence issue is i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the accused, condition two i s the case of a consensus crime where the defence issue i s j u s t i f i c a t i o n of the accused' behaviour, condition three is the case of a c o n f l i c t crime where the defence issue i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the accused, and condition four i s the case of a c o n f l i c t crime where the defence issue involves j u s t i f i c a t i o n of the accused' behaviour. 51 Hypothesis 1. states that Crown counsel are more l i k e l y to accept B r i t i s h , German, Chinese, and Scandinavian prospective jurors than those who are I r i s h , Jewish, Latin, or I t a l i a n . Analysis of variance, however, showed no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the acceptance rates of each ethnic category (see Table I, Appendix H). Further, no s i g n i f i c a n t interaction between the ethnicity of jurors and condition was noted. In sum, the n u l l hypothesis, that there are no differences in the acceptance rates of jurors by eth n i c i t y , cannot be ruled out as far as Crown counsels' choices are concerned. In addition, one cannot discard the n u l l hypothesis that experimental condition has no effect on the relationship between jurors' e t h n i c i t y and Crown counsels' choices. Hypothesis 2 states that defence counsel are more l i k e l y to accept I r i s h , Jewish, Latin, or I t a l i a n prospective jurors than those who are B r i t i s h , German, Chinese or Scandinavian. The differences in the acceptance rates for each ethnic category were found to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , although the interaction of jurors' ethnicity and condition was not. Table II below reveals that while the differences in acceptance rates are s i g n i f i c a n t , they do not accord with what was predicted. The only remarkable difference appears to be in the proportion of Chinese jurors chosen. In conditions one, two, and three, the proportion of Chinese accepted i s somewhat lower than the average of other ethnic categories. On the basis of these re s u l t s , both the n u l l hypothesis, that jurors' ethnicity has no effect on defence counsels' choices, and hypothesis 2 are rejected. The n u l l hypothesis, that condition has no effect on 52 the relationship between jurors' e t h n i c i t y and defence counsels' choices, however, is not ruled out. Table I I. Proportion of Jurors Accepted by Defence Counsel by Jurors' E t h n i c i t y by Condition Experimental Condition Case Case Case Case Jurors' One Two Three Four Et h n i c i t y B r i t i s h 0.33 0.37 0.23 0.50 (30) (30) (30) (30) German 0.23 0.40 0.27 0.63 (30) (30) (30) (30) Scandinavian 0.20 0.32 0.32 0.52 (25) (25) (25) (25) Chinese 0.17 0.14 0.06 0.40 (35) (35) (35) (35) Jewish 0.30 0.37 0.27 0.33 (30) (30) (30) (30) Lat in 0.33 0.43 0.33 0.53 (30) (30) (30) (30) I t a l i a n 0.23 0.40 0.17 0.34 (35) (35) (35) (35) I r ish 0.43 0.31 0.29 0.43 (35) (35) (35) (35) Main Ef f e c t s Jurors' E t h n i c i t y - F = 2.9 ,' p<0.01 Condition - F=10.7 p<0.0l Two-Way Interaction - F=0.79, p=0.73 Hypothesis 3 states that Crown counsel are more l i k e l y to accept male prospective jurors when the accused i s also a man. The findings (see Table II I , Appendix H) show no s t a t i s t i c a l l y 53 s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the acceptance rates of male and female prospective jurors for choices made by Crown counsel. As well, no s i g n i f i c a n t interaction of jurors' gender and condition was observed either. Consequently, the n u l l hypothesis, that there is no difference in the acceptance rates of male and female prospective jurors, cannot be ruled out as far as Crown counsels' choices are concerned. In addition, one cannot reject the n u l l hypothesis that the experimental condition has no effect on the relationship between jurors' gender and Crown counsels' choices. Hypothesis 4 states that, where the accused is a man, defence counsel is more l i k e l y to accept female prospective jurors. The findings (see Table IV, Appendix H) of the test of t h i s hypothesis were not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . Thus, the n u l l hypothesis, that there i s no difference in the acceptance rates of male and female prospective jurors for defence counsels' choices, cannot be discarded. Also, one cannot reject the n u l l hypothesis that condition has no effect on the relationship between jurors' gender and defence counsels' choices. Hypothesis 5 states that Crown counsel are more l i k e l y to accept prospective jurors who are m i l i t a r y personnel, members of management, or bank employees than those who are salesmen, actors, or a r t i s t s . The main effect of jurors' occupation on Crown counsels' choices, and the interaction of jurors' occupation with condition, were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . Results, as presented in Table V below, i l l u s t r a t e that, o v e r a l l , there is a small (8.6 per cent) difference in the 54 acceptance rates in accordance with the prediction. However, by condition this relationship breaks down with no clear pattern emerging in the data. Table V. Proportion of Jurors Accepted by Crown Counsel by Jurors' Occupation by Condition Exper imental Condition Case Case Case Case Jurors' One Two Three Four Occupation Bank Employee 0.82 0.52 1 .00 0.97 (40) (40) (40) (40) Manager 0.83 0.63 0.92 0.97 (60) (60) (60) (60) M i l i t a r y 0.86 0.57 1 .00 0.91 (35) (35) (35) (35) Salesperson 0.76 0.47 0.89 0.89 (55) (55) (55) (55) Musician/Actor 0.51 0.60 0.89 0.91 (35) (35) (35) (35) Author/Artist 0.48 0.68 0.96 0.96 (25) (25) (25) (25) Main Effects Jurors' Occupation - F=2.82, p=0.0l Condition - F=56.8, p<0.0l Two-Way Interaction - F=2.4, p<0.0! In conclusion, the n u l l hypothesis, that jurors' occupation has no effect on Crown counsels' choices, is rejected. Substantively, however, the differences observed were small and not e n t i r e l y consistent with hypothesis 5. In addition, the n u l l hypothesis, that condition has no effect on the relationship 55 between Crown counsels' choices and jurors' occupation, i s rejected. Hypothesis 6 states that defence counsel are more l i k e l y to prefer prospective jurors who are salesmen, actors, or a r t i s t s , than those who are m i l i t a r y personnel, members of management, or bank employees. The findings, as presented in Table VI below, show that the main effect of jurors' occupation and the interaction of jurors' occupation with condition are s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . Table VI. Proportion of Jurors Accepted by Defence Counsel by Jurors' Occupation by Condition Experimental Condition Case Case Case Case Jurors' One Two Three Four Occupation Bank Employee 0.25 0.30 0.10 0.10 (40) (40) (40) (40) Manager 0.33 0.25 0.12 0.28 (60) (60) (60) (60) M i l i tary 0.06 0.11 0.17 0.46 (35) (35) (35) (35) Salesperson 0.29 0.53 0.38 0.69 (55) (55) (55) (55) Music ian/Actor 0.37 0.43 0.37 0.57 (35) (35) (35) (35) Author/Artist 0.36 0.40 0.32 0.76 (25) (25) (25) (25) Main Effects Jurors' Occupation - F=15.4, p<0.0l Condition - F=11.7, p<0.0! Two-Way Interaction - F=2.87, p<0.0l 56 These results demonstrate that, o v e r a l l , the acceptance rate of salesmen, actors, and a r t i s t s averaged 45.6 per cent. The corresponding figure for m i l i t a r y personnel, members of management, and bank employees was only 21.1 per cent. Thus the difference in the acceptance rates of the two groups, which i s in the predicted di r e c t i o n , i s f u l l y 24.5 per cent. Moreover, except in Case One, where the acceptance rate for managers i s higher than predicted, the results for each condition are consistent with t h i s trend. In order to assess the effect of the nature of the case and the nature of the defence on hypothesis 6, the magnitudes of the differences in acceptance rates by occupational grouping (military personnel, managers, and bank employees versus salesmen, actors, and a r t i s t s ) were compared by condition. For the four conditions these epsilon values were 12.7, 23.3, 22.6, and 40.0 per cent respectively. Comparing the value obtained for Case One (consensus c r i m e / i d e n t i f i c a t i o n issue) with that obtained for Case Three ( c o n f l i c t c r i m e / i d e n t i f i c a t i o n issue) one observes that in Case Three there i s a larger difference in the acceptance rates of the two groupings. The same result i s obtained when the value for Case Two (consensus c r i m e / j u s t i f i c a t i o n issue) i s compared with that of Case Four ( c o n f l i c t c r i m e / j u s t i f i c a t i o n issue). This finding suggests that in consensus crimes the occupation of a juror has less of an impact on defence counsels' choices. S i m i l a r l y , where the nature of the case i s held constant, the findings show that jurors' occupation has a greater effect on defence counsels' choices. The difference observed in Case Two i s greater than in Case One, 57 and greater in Case Four than in Case Three. In sum, the n u l l hypothesis, that jurors' occupation has no effect on defence counsels' choices, is rejected. Further, the nu l l hypothesis, that condition has no effect on the relationship between defence counsels' choices and jurors' occupations is also ruled out. Substantively, however, there i s l i t t l e strength to the observed tendencies. Hypothesis 7 states that Crown counsel are more l i k e l y to accept prospective jurors who appear to be wealthy. The difference between the acceptance rates of wealthy and not wealthy prospective jurors was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . The interaction of jurors' wealth and condition, however, was not. As Table VII below i l l u s t r a t e s , the differences in acceptance rates, while in the predicted d i r e c t i o n , are rather small. By condition these epsilon values are 11,8, 2, and 6 per cent respect i v e l y . Table VII. Proportion of Jurors Accepted by Crown Counsel by Jurors' Wealth by Condition Experimental Condition Case Case Case Case Jurors' One Two Three Four Wealth Low 0.69 0.54 0.93 0.91 (140) (140) (140) (140) High 0.80 0.62 0.95 0.97 (110) (110) (110) (110) Main Effects Jurors' Wealth - F=8.2, p<0.0l Condition - F=55.5, p<0.0l Two-Way Interaction - F=0.64, p=0.59 58 One may conclude, then, that the nu l l hypothesis, that jurors' wealth has no effect on Crown counsels' choices, can be rejected, but that the substantive differences, while consistent with hypothesis 7, are n e g l i g i b l e . Moreover, because the interaction of condition and jurors' wealth was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , the n u l l hypothesis, that condition has no effect on the relationship between jurors' wealth and Crown counsels' choices, cannot be ruled out. Hypothesis 8 states that defence counsel are more l i k e l y to accept prospective jurors who do not appear to be wealthy. The differences in the acceptance rates of wealthy versus not wealthy jurors is s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . However, the interaction of jurors' wealth and condition i s not. Table VIII below i l l u s t r a t e s that there are moderate differences in the acceptance rates in the predicted d i r e c t i o n . By condition, these epsilon values are 18, 23, 15, and 33 per cent respectively. Table VIII. Proportion of Jurors Accepted by Defence Counsel by Jurors' Wealth by Condition Jurors' Wealth Case One Experimental Condition Case Case Two Three Case Four Low 0.36 (140) 0.44 (140) 0.30 (140) 0.56 (140) High 0.18 (110) 0.21 (110) 0.15 (110) 0.33 (110) Main Effects Jurors' Wealth - F=46.1, p<0.0l Condition - F=11.1, p<0.0l Two-Way Interaction - F=0.55, p=0.65 59 In sum, the n u l l hypothesis, that jurors' wealth has no effect on defence counsels' choices, i s rejected. However, given that the interaction of condition and jurors' wealth was not s i g n i f i c a n t , one cannot rule out the n u l l hypothesis that condition has no effect on the relat i o n s h i p between jurors' wealth and defence counsels' choices. Hypothesis 9 states that Crown counsel are more l i k e l y to accept jurors who have prior jury experience. The findings of the test of th i s hypothesis (see Table IX, Appendix H) show that the main.effect of jurors' prior experience and the interaction of jurors' prior experience and condition are not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . Consequently, one cannot rule out the n u l l hypothesis that there is no difference in the acceptance rates of jurors with or without prior jury experience for Crown counsels' choices. Also, one cannot discard the n u l l hypothesis that condition has no eff e c t on the relationship between Crown counsels' choices and jurors' prior experience. Hypothesis 10 states that defence counsel are more l i k e l y to accept jurors who lack prior jury experience. The main effect of jurors' prior experience on defence counsels' choices i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . However, the interaction effect of condition and jurors' prior experience i s not. Table X i l l u s t r a t e s a small difference in the acceptance rates of jurors with and without prior experience. By condition, these epsilon values are 10, 15, 17, and 9 per cent respectively. Although consistent with the prediction, these differences are s l i g h t . 60 T a b l e X. P r o p o r t i o n of J u r o r s A c c e p t e d by Defence Counsel by J u r o r s ' P r i o r E x p e r i e n c e by C o n d i t i o n J u r o r s ' E x p e r i e n c e E x p e r i m e n t a l Case Case One Two Co n d i t i o n Case Three Case Four None 0.31 ( 1 8 0 ) 0.38 ( 1 8 0 ) 0.28 ( 1 8 0 ) 0.48 ( 1 8 0 ) P r e v i o u s Duty 0.21 ( 7 0 ) 0.23 (70) 0.11 ( 7 0 ) 0.39 (70) Main E f f e c t s J u r o r s ' E x p e r i e n c e - F = 1 5 . 6 , p < 0 . 0 l C o n d i t i o n - F = 1 0 . 7 , p < 0 . 0 l Two-Way I n t e r a c t i o n - F = 0 . 3 7 , p=0.77 In c o n c l u s i o n , the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s , t h a t j u r o r s ' p r i o r e x p e r i e n c e has no e f f e c t on defence c o u n s e l s ' c h o i c e s , i s r e j e c t e d . F u r t h e r , because the i n t e r a c t i o n of c o n d i t i o n and j u r o r s ' p r i o r e x p e r i e n c e i s not s i g n i f i c a n t , the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s , t h a t c o n d i t i o n has no e f f e c t on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between defence c o u n s e l s ' c h o i c e s and j u r o r s ' p r i o r e x p e r i e n c e , cannot be r e j e c t e d . H y p o t h e s i s 11 s t a t e s t h a t Crown c o u n s e l i s more l i k e l y t o acc e p t p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s who a r e t h i n . The f i n d i n g s (see Table X I , Appendix H) show no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the acceptance r a t e s of t h i n , a verage, or f a t p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s f o r Crown c o u n s e l s ' c h o i c e s . The i n t e r a c t i o n of j u r o r s ' p h y s i c a l appearance and c o n d i t i o n was a l s o not s i g n i f i c a n t . C o n s e q u e n t l y , the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s , t h a t j u r o r s ' appearance has no e f f e c t on Crown c o u n s e l s ' c h o i c e s , cannot be r e j e c t e d . One a l s o cannot 61 reject the n u l l hypothesis that condition has no effect on the relationship between Crown counsels' choices and jurors' physical appearance. Hypothesis 12 states that defence counsel are more l i k e l y to accept prospective jurors who are f a t . The results (see Table XII, Appendix H) i l l u s t r a t e that neither the main effect of jurors' physical appearance, nor the interaction effect of condition and jurors' physical appearance, are s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . As a result, one cannot rule out the n u l l hypothesis that jurors' physical appearance has no effect on defence counsels' choices. Further, one cannot reject the n u l l hypothesis that condition has no effect on the relationship between defence counsels' choices and jurors' physical appearance. Hypothesis 13 states that Crown counsel are more l i k e l y to accept young prospective jurors. The relationship between Crown counsels' choice and jurors' age i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . The interaction of condition and jurors' age, however, i s not. Table XIII below i l l u s t r a t e s that, contrary to hypothesis 13, a larger proportion of middle-aged rather than young or old prospective jurors were chosen by Crown counsel. Consequently, the n u l l hypothesis, that jurors' age has no effect on Crown counsels' choices, and hypothesis 13 are rejected. It may also be concluded that the n u l l hypothesis, that condition has no e f f e c t on the relationship between Crown counsels' choice and jurors' age, cannot be ruled out. 62 Table XIII. Proportion of Jurors Accepted by Crown Counsel by Jurors' Age by Condition Exper imental Condit ion Case Case Case Case >rs' One Two Three Four 20 - 30 0.66 0.40 0.92 0.90 (50) (50) (50) (50) 30 - 40 0.78 0.60 1 .00 0.94 (105) (105) (105) (105) 40 - 50 0.86 0.77 0.97 0.97 (35) (35) (35) (35) 50 - 60 0.63- 0.53 0.90 0.93 (30) (30) (30) (30) 60 - 70 0.70 0.57 0.73 0.93 (30) (30) (30) (30) Main Effects Jurors' Age - F=6.8, p<0.0l Condition - F=56.8, p<0.0l Two-Way Interaction - F=1.5, p=0.1 Hypothesis 14 states that defence counsel are more l i k e l y to accept old prospective jurors. The main effect of jurors' age on defence counsels' choices i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . However, the interaction effect of condition and jurors' age on defence counsels' choices is not. Table XIV i l l u s t r a t e s the findings for the test of hypothesis 14. 63 Table XIV. Proportion of Jurors Accepted by Defence Counsel by Jurors' Age by Condition Experimental Condition Case Case Case Case >rs' One Two Three Four 20 - 30 0.32 0.40 0.36 0.50 (50) (50) (50) (50) 30 - 40 0.30 0. 38 0.27 0.54 (105) (105) (105) (105) 40 - 50 0.20 0.17 0.14 0.40 (35) (35) (35) (35) 50 - 60 0.30 0.40 0.13 0.37 (30) (30) (30) (30) 60 - 70 0.23 0.23 0.13 0.23 (30) (30) (30) (30) Main Ef f e c t s Jurors' Age - F=5.8, p<0.0l Condition - F=10.7, p<0.0l Two-Way Interaction - F=0.73, p=0.72 The findings refute the hypothesis, given that a greater proportion of young than old were chosen. Consequently, both the n u l l hypothesis, that jurors' age has no effect on defence counsels' choices, and hypothesis 14 are rejected. In addition, because the interaction of condition and jurors' age is not s i g n i f i c a n t , the n u l l hypothesis, that condition has no effect on the relationship between jurors' age and defence counsels' choices, cannot be ruled out. Hypothesis 15 states that Crown counsel are more l i k e l y to accept jurors of high s o c i a l status. The results (see Table XV, Appendix H) i l l u s t r a t e that neither the main ef f e c t of jurors' 64 so c i a l status, nor the interaction effect of condition and jurors' s o c i a l status, are s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . In res u l t , one cannot rule out the n u l l hypothesis that jurors' s o c i a l status has not eff e c t on Crown counsels' choices. Also, one cannot reject the n u l l hypothesis that condition has no effect on the relationship between jurors' s o c i a l status and Crown counsels' choices. Hypothesis 16 states that defence counsel are more l i k e l y to accept prospective jurors of low s o c i a l status. The effect of jurors' s o c i a l status on defence counsels' choices i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . However, the interaction effect of condition and jurors' s o c i a l status i s not. As was predicted, Table XVI below i l l u s t r a t e s that a larger proportion of low status prospective jurors were chosen by defence counsel. The differences in acceptance rates by condition are 11, 33, 16, and 23 per cent respectively. Table XVI. Proportion of Jurors Accepted by Defence Counsel by Jurors' Social Status by Condition Experimental Condition Case Case Case Case Jurors' One Two Three Four Social Status Low 0.26 0.51 0.28 0.55 (65) (65) (65) (65) Medium 0.36 0.33 0.27 0.47 (120) (120) (120) (120) High 0.15 0.18 0.12 0.32 (65) (65) (65) (65) Main Effects Jurors' Status - F=15.3, p<0.0l Condition - F=10.9, p<0.0l Two-Way Interaction - F=1.4, p=0.2 65 In c o n c l u s i o n , the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s , t h a t j u r o r s ' s o c i a l s t a t u s has no e f f e c t on defence c o u n s e l s ' c h o i c e s , i s r e j e c t e d . S u b s t a n t i v e l y , s m a l l d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t a re c o n s i s t e n t w i t h h y p o t h e s i s 16 were observed. F i n a l l y , the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s , t h a t c o n d i t i o n has no e f f e c t on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between defence c o u n s e l s ' c h o i c e s and j u r o r s ' s o c i a l s t a t u s , cannot be r u l e d out g i v e n t h a t the i n t e r a c t i o n of j u r o r s ' s o c i a l s t a t u s and c o n d i t i o n i s not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . H y p o t h e s i s 17 s t a t e s t h a t the more s i m i l a r a p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r i s to the a c c u s e d , the l e s s l i k e l y Crown c o u n s e l i s t o a c c e p t the i n d i v i d u a l . The r e s u l t s of the t e s t of t h i s p r e d i c t i o n (see T a b l e X V I I , Appendix H) i l l u s t r a t e t h a t t h e r e i s no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the ac c e p t a n c e r a t e s of j u r o r s who v a r y i n s i m i l a r i t y t o the ac c u s e d . A l s o , the i n t e r a c t i o n of c o n d i t i o n and j u r o r s ' s i m i l a r i t y t o the accused i s not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . C o n s e q u e n t l y , one cannot r u l e out the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s t h a t j u r o r s ' s i m i l a r i t y t o the accused has no e f f e c t on Crown c o u n s e l s ' c h o i c e s . F u r t h e r , the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s , t h a t c o n d i t i o n has no e f f e c t on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between Crown c o u n s e l s ' c h o i c e s and j u r o r s ' s i m i l a r i t y t o the a c c u s e d , cannot be r e j e c t e d . H y p o t h e s i s 18 s t a t e s t h a t the more s i m i l a r a p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r i s t o the ac c u s e d , the more l i k e l y the i n d i v i d u a l i s t o be chosen by d e f e n c e c o u n s e l . The e f f e c t of j u r o r s ' s i m i l a r i t y t o the accused i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . However, t h e i n t e r a c t i o n of j u r o r s ' s i m i l a r i t y t o the accused and c o n d i t i o n i s n o t . Table X V I I I below, i n which the r e s u l t s of the t e s t of h y p o t h e s i s 18 a r e p r e s e n t e d , shows f i n d i n g s t h a t a r e c o n s i s t e n t 66 with the prediction. Table XVIII. Proportion of Jurors Accepted by Defence Counsel by Jurors' S i m i l a r i t y to the Accused by Condition Exper imental Condition Case Case Case Case Jurors' One Two Three Four S i m i l a r i t y None 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.40 (10) (10) (10) (10) One 0.18 0.22 0.15 0.32 (65) (65) (65) (65) Two 0.24 0.30 0.23 0.39 (90) (90) (90) (90) Three 0.36 0.45 0.27 0.62 (55) (55) (55) (55) Four 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.70 (20) (20) (20) (20) F i ve 0.50 0.80 0.40 0.60 (10) (10) (10) (10) Ma in Effects Jurors' S i m i l a r i t y - F=13.1, p<0.0l Condition - F=10.0, p<0.0l Two-Way Interaction - F=0.64, p=0.8 Overall there is an average increase in acceptance rates of 35 per cent that i s associated with increased s i m i l a r i t y to the accused. By condition, the differences in acceptance rates between the most and least similar jurors are 30, 60, 40, and 20 per cent respectively. While in the predicted d i r e c t i o n , these differences are not large. 67 In conclusion, the nu l l hypothesis, that jurors' s i m i l a r i t y to the accused has no effect on defence counsels' choices, is rejected. Substantively, the results are consistent with hypothesis 18. It is also concluded, given that the interaction of condition and jurors' s i m i l a r i t y to the accused i s not s i g n i f i c a n t , that one cannot reject the n u l l hypothesis that condition has no effect on the relationship between jurors' s i m i l a r i t y to the accused and defence counsels' choices. In t h i s chapter an attempt was made to describe the results of this research project. F i r s t , I summarized the findings of a p i l o t study that was done in the preliminary stages of the development of the research problem. These interviews suggested that Crown and defence counsel take adverse positions in the selection process, although Crown to a lesser degree than defence. It was also confirmed during these interviews that status c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are used by lawyers in the selection process as the c r i t e r i a upon which choices are made. Lawyers pointed out various ways in which these attributes are used as indicators of juror bias. Second, the bulk of thi s chapter was devoted to a presentation and analysis of the data used to test the hypotheses that had been developed e a r l i e r . The importance of certain independent variables was noted. It was observed that Crown counsels' choices were mildly influenced by jurors' occupation, age, and wealth. Defence counsels' choices appeared to be affected by jurors' e t h n i c i t y , occupation, age, wealth, prior jury experience, s o c i a l status, and s i m i l a r i t y to the accused. Of these, jurors' occupation, wealth, and s i m i l a r i t y to 68 the accused were obse r v e d t o have the g r e a t e s t e f f e c t . The n a t u r e of the case and the n a t u r e of the defence seemed o n l y t o a f f e c t the r e l a t i o n s h i p between j u r o r s ' o c c u p a t i o n and l a w y e r s ' c h o i c e s . In the f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r , these f i n d i n g s a r e d i s c u s s e d , c o n c l u s i o n s are drawn, and problems w i t h the r e s e a r c h are n o t e d . 69 Chapter Five Discussion and Conclusions In the preceeding chapters the problem of jury selection was developed, hypotheses were put forward, a research design was outlined, and findings were presented. In this chapter the findings are discussed, conclusions are drawn, various problems with the research are considered, and directions for further research along the lines of thi s study are noted. In order to account for lawyers' choices of jurors for criminal t r i a l s in Canada, i t was argued that, because of normative influences in the legal system, both Crown and defence counsel would attempt to select those whom they perceived to be favourable to their case. Further, i t was argued that a t t r i b u t i o n s of juror bias would be made on the basis of stereotypes, s o c i a l status, and s i m i l a r i t y to the accused. During interviews, Crown counsel expressed much less of an interest in the composition of the jury than defence counsel. Crown counsel stated that i t i s their role to protect the fairness of a t r i a l , not to sustain a conviction. Defence counsel, on the other hand, said that their duty is to choose a jury that is favourable to their c l i e n t , i . e . , to get an a c q u i t t a l . The r e l a t i v e l y high acceptance rate of jurors among Crown counsel (80 per cent) i s consistent with the interpretation that there was less normative pressure on them to choose biased jurors than on defence counsel who accepted only 33 per cent of the potential jurors. In the f i r s t two experimental conditions, however, there was a much higher degree of s e l e c t i v i t y among Crown counsel than in the last two 70 conditions. This may be due to the nature of the case, or to sample bias. That i s , one could argue that in a serious offence (conditions one and two) the potential bias of jurors i s more important than in a r e l a t i v e l y minor offence (conditions three and four). On the other hand, one cannot discount the p o s s i b i l i t y , given the sampling methods used, that Crown counsel in the f i r s t two conditions are not representative of the same population as those in the l a s t two conditions. As far as defence counsel are concerned, the results i l l u s t r a t e d a greater amount of s e l e c t i v i t y in cases of consensus crimes and where the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the accused i s the defence issue. Thus, i t is not possible to establish whether the nature of the case, the nature of the defence, both factors, or sample bias account for the differences in the acceptance rates. The results provided l i t t l e evidence that Crown counsel use stereotypes in the selection process. While s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t differences in the acceptance rates of jurors by occupation, wealth, and age .were noted, substantively these differences were s l i g h t . Contrary to prediction, no differences were found in the acceptance rates of jurors by e t h n i c i t y , gender, prior jury experience, and physical stature. Moreover, the findings contradicted the e a r l i e r prediction regarding the relationship between jurors' age and Crown counsels' choices. Thus, at the behavioural l e v e l , the results suggested the use of stereotypes dealing only with jurors' occupation and wealth. Disproportionately more bank employees, members of management, and m i l i t a r y personnel were chosen over salesmen, actors, and a r t i s t s . Also, a greater proportion of jurors with high wealth 71 were a c c e p t e d by Crown c o u n s e l . W h i l e the r e s u l t s show some support f o r the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t s t e r e o t y p e s a r e used by Crown c o u n s e l , a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r the f i n d i n g s do e x i s t . F i r s t , the r e s u l t s may be s p u r i o u s . For i n s t a n c e , a c o r r e l a t i o n between j u r o r s ' o c c u p a t i o n and j u r o r s ' w e a l t h c o u l d make i t appear as though both v a r i a b l e s are r e l a t e d t o Crown c o u n s e l s ' c h o i c e s , even i f o n l y one i s . A l s o , some unknown v a r i a b l e , t o which both j u r o r s ' o c c u p a t i o n and w e a l t h a r e c o r r e l a t e d , may be r e l a t e d t o Crown c o u n s e l s ' c h o i c e s thus making i t appear as though Crown c o u n s e l s ' c h o i c e s can be e x p l a i n e d i n terms of j u r o r s ' o c c u p a t i o n and w e a l t h . Second, the f a c t t h a t a non-random sample was used g i v e s r i s e t o the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the sample i s b i a s e d . In o t h e r words, Crown c o u n s e l who use s t e r e o t y p e s may be o v e r r e p r e s e n t e d i n the sample. F i n a l l y , one cannot r u l e out the p o s s i b i l i t y of type one e r r o r ; t h a t the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s i s b e i n g r e j e c t e d when, i n f a c t , i t s h o u l d be a c c e p t e d . D u r i n g i n t e r v i e w s w i t h Crown c o u n s e l , a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e emerged i n support of the n o t i o n t h a t they use s t e r e o t y p e s . For some salesmen, because they were assumed t o be s e l f - e m p l o y e d or p a i d on a commission b a s i s , j u r y duty was thought t o be too much of a h a r d s h i p . A c t o r s and a r t i s t s were b e l i e v e d t o be too l i b e r a l and a n t i - e s t a b l i s h m e n t . In those cases where age was a f a c t o r , i t was suggested t h a t the e l d e r l y may be p h y s i c a l l y unable t o endure a t r i a l , and m e n t a l l y not c a p a b l e of f o l l o w i n g , remembering, or u n d e r s t a n d i n g e v i d e n c e and courtroom p r o c e d u r e s . The young, on the o t h e r hand, were b e l i e v e d t o l a c k r e s p e c t f o r the j u r y t r i a l p r o c e s s and, t h u s , were assumed t o be l e s s 72 a t t e n t i v e and l e s s s e r i o u s about a d j u d i c a t i n g the case b e f o r e the c o u r t . F i n a l l y , where w e a l t h was of consequence, t h e r e was a s u g g e s t i o n t h a t i t i s an i n d i c a t o r of more c o n s e r v a t i v e t e n d e n c i e s , i . e . , the g r e a t e r a person's w e a l t h , the more c o n s e r v a t i v e he or she w i l l be. There are a number of p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s as t o why the r e s u l t s f a i l e d t o support the p r e d i c t i o n s d e a l i n g w i t h j u r o r s ' e t h n i c i t y , gender, age, p r i o r j u r y e x p e r i e n c e , and p h y s i c a l s t a t u r e . F i r s t , the use of s t e r e o t y p e s was i n f e r r e d from l i t e r a t u r e w r i t t e n by a few American j u r i s t s . Statements made by these commentators may e x p r e s s p e r s o n a l p r e j u d i c e s r a t h e r than the consensus of o p i n i o n among l a w y e r s . Second, the norms of the l e g a l system may not r e q u i r e Crown c o u n s e l t o s e l e c t b i a s e d j u r o r s , but r a t h e r , t o cooperate, w i t h defence c o u n s e l i n the s e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s . I t c o u l d be, f o r i n s t a n c e , t h a t j u r y s e l e c t i o n s e r v e s the f u n c t i o n of m i t i g a t i n g any r e a l or p e r c e i v e d i n j u s t i c e s by g i v i n g the accused the sense t h a t he or she i s g e t t i n g a f a i r t r i a l . For the sake of m a i n t a i n i n g t h a t appearance, t h e n , i t would be i m p o r t a n t t h a t Crown c o u n s e l not take an o b v i o u s l y p a r t i s a n r o l e i n c h o o s i n g j u r o r s . T h i r d , as was a l l u d e d t o e a r l i e r , Crown c o u n s e l s ' s t r a t e g y may be based more on c o u n t e r i n g defence c o u n s e l s ' c h o i c e s than on a t t r i b u t i o n s made about the j u r o r s t h e m s e l v e s . Thus, because the respondents i n t h i s s tudy were not p r o v i d e d w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n about how the o t h e r s i d e would choose, the e x p e c t e d r e l a t i o n s d i d not emerge. F o u r t h , because the sample i s non-random, one cannot r u l e out t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t i t i s b i a s e d and t h a t , w i t h a random sample, use of these s t e r e o t y p e s would be o b s e r v e d . 73 F i n a l l y , where the f i n d i n g s were not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , the p o s s i b i l i t y of type two e r r o r must be c o n s i d e r e d . That i s , i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s i s b e i n g a c c e p t e d when, i n f a c t , i t s h o u l d be r e j e c t e d . In comparison w i t h Crown c o u n s e l , t h e r e i s more e v i d e n c e i n support of the view t h a t defence c o u n s e l use s t e r e o t y p e s i n the j u r y s e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s . S t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found i n t h e ac c e p t a n c e r a t e s of j u r o r s by e t h n i c i t y , o c c u p a t i o n , w e a l t h , p r i o r j u r y e x p e r i e n c e , and age. In the case of e t h n i c i t y and age, the r e s u l t s c o n t r a d i c t e d e a r l i e r p r e d i c t i o n s r e l a t i n g t h e s e v a r i a b l e s t o defence c o u n s e l s ' c h o i c e s . C o n t r a r y t o e x p e c t a t i o n s , s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s were not found w i t h r e s p e c t t o the r e l a t i o n s h i p s of j u r o r s ' gender and j u r o r s ' p h y s i c a l s t a t u r e t o defence c o u n s e l s ' c h o i c e s . S u b s t a n t i v e l y , the f i n d i n g s t h a t a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h e a r l i e r p r e d i c t i o n s ( j u r o r s ' o c c u p a t i o n , w e a l t h , and p r i o r j u r y e x p e r i e n c e ) were weak t o moderate i n s t r e n g t h . As was t r u e of the r e s u l t s f o r Crown c o u n s e l , however, one cannot r u l e out the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t these f i n d i n g s may be s p u r i o u s , or t h a t they are due t o sample b i a s , or t h a t a type one e r r o r i s b e i n g made. A n e c d o t a l e v i d e n c e from defence c o u n s e l p r o v i d e s f u r t h e r support f o r the n o t i o n t h a t they use s t e r e o t y p e s i n j u r y s e l e c t i o n . D u r i n g i n t e r v i e w s , defence c o u n s e l mentioned the use of s t e r e o t y p e s d e a l i n g w i t h j u r o r s ' e t h n i c i t y , o c c u p a t i o n , age, w e a l t h , and p r i o r j u r y e x p e r i e n c e . W h i l e the r e s u l t s do not support the p r e d i c t i o n c o n c e r n i n g the e t h n i c i t y of j u r o r s , t h e r e i s some e v i d e n c e t o suggest t h a t s t e r e o t y p e s of I t a l i a n s and Chinese are used. Both were r e j e c t e d 74 on the assumption t h a t language d i f f i c u l t i e s would i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e i r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of what was b e i n g s a i d and done i n the c o u r t r o o m . Where o c c u p a t i o n was i n v o l v e d i n j u r y s e l e c t i o n , d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h defence c o u n s e l c o n f i r m e d t h a t salesmen, a c t o r s , and a r t i s t s a r e b e l i e v e d t o be more l e n i e n t than m i l i t a r y p e r s o n n e l , bank employees, and members of management. Because r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s a r e a more p e r v a s i v e f e a t u r e of the l i v e s of m i l i t a r y p e r s o n n e l , bank employees and members of management they a r e thought t o f a v o u r law enforcement. Other e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r c h o i c e s on the b a s i s of o c c u p a t i o n a l s t e r e o t y p e s suggest t h a t bank employees are seen t o be d u l l and u n i m a g i n a t i v e . Defence c o u n s e l assume t h a t they would have a hard time b e l i e v i n g t h a t an accused might be i n n o c e n t . They are a l s o seen t o have an i n h e r e n t f e a r and d i s l i k e of c r i m i n a l s because they are i n danger of b e i n g robbed i n the c o u r s e of t h e i r employment. I n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h i s , bank employees were a l s o thought t o f a v o u r gun c o n t r o l . Thus, e s p e c i a l l y i n Case Three and Case Fou r , where t h e r e was a s u g g e s t i o n t h a t the accused behaved i m p r o p e r l y w i t h r e s p e c t t o the s a l e of a f i r e a r m , bank employees were b e l i e v e d t o be more f a v o u r a b l e t o the Crown than t o the d e f e n c e . M i l i t a r y p e r s o n n e l , because they are taught c e r t a i n r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g guns, were s i m i l a r l y thought t o be more l i k e l y t o f a v o u r c o n v i c t i o n of the a c c u s e d . I n t e r v i e w s a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t defence c o u n s e l use age s t e r e o t y p e s i n the s e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s . The e l d e r l y a r e seen t o be f r a i l , i n n a t t e n t i v e , and out of t o u c h w i t h contemporary v a l u e s 75 and e v e n t s . Thus, defence c o u n s e l r e j e c t them on the assumption t h a t they l a c k the stamina t o endure a t r i a l ; would not r e c e i v e , remember, or u n d e r s t a n d the e v i d e n c e ; and would be unable to a p p r e c i a t e how and why people today behave the way they do. Younger p e r s o n s , on the o t h e r hand, a r e a c c e p t e d because they are seen t o have l i b e r a l v a l u e s and a r e more l i a b l e t o r e b e l a g a i n s t a u t h o r i t y . Defence c o u n s e l a c c e p t e d a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of t h o s e w i t h low w e a l t h than w i t h h i g h w e a l t h . S e v e r a l reasons were g i v e n f o r t h i s . F i r s t , p e rsons of low w e a l t h were seen t o be more l i k e l y t o commit c r i m e and, t h e r e f o r e , more l i k e l y t o be l e n i e n t toward o t h e r l a w b r e a k e r s . Second, because they come from a f i n a n c i a l l y d epressed neighbourhood they are thought t o be more l i k e l y t o have t o l i v e w i t h c r i m e . Because they see and hear about i t more o f t e n , c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y becomes a f a c t of l i f e and tends t o be regarded as commonplace. C o n s e q u e n t l y , those of low w e a l t h are seen t o be more l i k e l y t o have a ' l a i s s e z f a i r e ' a t t i t u d e toward c r i m e . T h i r d , because those of low w e a l t h i n t h i s s tudy happen to r e s i d e i n the same community as the a c c u s e d , i t was a l s o f e l t t h a t t h e r e may be some community i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h him. F o u r t h , t h o s e of low w e a l t h a r e seen t o have l e s s r e s p e c t f o r law and o r d e r because i t i s they who are l e a s t l i k e l y t o p r o f i t by i t . F i n a l l y , t h e r e i s a l s o the s u g g e s t i o n of underdog i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ; t h a t those of low w e a l t h would sympathize w i t h the accused because they a r e down on t h e i r l u c k t o o . Defence c o u n s e l a l s o seem t o s t e r e o t y p e j u r o r s w i t h r e s p e c t t o p r i o r j u r y e x p e r i e n c e . They b e l i e v e t h a t s i t t i n g on a j u r y makes p e o p l e t h i n k t h a t they have a c q u i r e d l e g a l s k i l l s and 76 knowledge. As a r e s u l t , j u r o r s w i t h e x p e r i e n c e a r e u n d e s i r e a b l e because i t i s assumed they w i l l dominate o t h e r j u r o r s and the r e b y reduce c o u n s e l s ' i n f l u e n c e over the j u r y ; t h a t they a r e more l i k e l y t o d i s r e g a r d the i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n t o them by the judge; and t h a t they a re more l i k e l y t o see themselves as law e n f o r c e r s . The e x p e r i m e n t a l r e s u l t s f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e any e v i d e n c e i n support of the p r e d i c t i o n s made about the r e l a t i o n s h i p s of j u r o r s ' e t h n i c i t y , gender, age, and p h y s i c a l s t a t u r e t o defence c o u n s e l s ' c h o i c e s . As was argued e a r l i e r i n the case of Crown c o u n s e l s ' c h o i c e s , t h i s d i s c r e p a n c y i n the f i n d i n g s might be due to the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the views e x p r e s s e d i n p r e v i o u s l i t e r a t u r e a re no more than the p e r s o n a l p r e j u d i c e s of the a u t h o r s . Another p o s s i b i l i t y i s t h a t defence c o u n s e l may c o o p e r a t e r a t h e r than compete w i t h Crown c o u n s e l i n o r d e r t o choose j u r o r s who s u i t t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l i n t e r e s t s . For example, they may both want f a i r l y i n t e l l i g e n t j u r o r s so t h a t v a l u a b l e time i s not wasted e x p l a i n i n g and c l a r i f y i n g complex i s s u e s . C o o p e r a t i o n of t h i s k i n d may even te n d t o be c o v e r t , g i v e n defence c o u n s e l s ' more m a n i f e s t duty t o the c l i e n t . Of c o u r s e , one must a l s o c o n s i d e r t h a t the r e s u l t s may be due t o sample b i a s . I t i s a l s o p o s s i b l e t h a t a type two e r r o r i s b e i n g made. A second a t t r i b u t i o n p r o c e s s t h a t was examined i n t h i s t h e s i s c o n c e r n s the concept of s o c i a l s t a t u s . The e x p e r i m e n t a l f i n d i n g s f a i l e d t o show any s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the ac c e p t a n c e r a t e of j u r o r s by s o c i a l s t a t u s f o r Crown c o u n s e l s ' c h o i c e s . However, f o r defence c o u n s e l s ' c h o i c e s the 77 r e s u l t s were not o n l y s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , but a l s o c o n s i s t e n t w i t h an e a r l i e r p r e d i c t i o n . W i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e f i n d i n g s c o n c e r n i n g Crown c o u n s e l s ' c h o i c e s , one c o u l d make a number of a l t e r n a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . F i r s t , one c o u l d argue t h a t Crown c o u n s e l do not use s o c i a l s t a t u s as an i n d i c a t o r of j u r o r b i a s . Second, i t can be argued t h a t Crown c o u n s e l a r e not as c o m p e t i t i v e as was o r i g i n a l l y assumed. T h i r d , had they been a b l e t o observe defence c o u n s e l s ' c h o i c e s , the Crown c o u n s e l i n t h i s s tudy might have chosen h i g h s t a t u s j u r o r s i n o r d e r t o c o u n t e r defence c o u n s e l s ' c h o i c e s . F o u r t h , the r e s u l t s may have been confounded by l a w y e r s ' r e s p o n d i n g t o d i f f e r e n t i n d i c a t o r s of p r e s t i g e than were measured and/or t o s t a t u s i n c o n s i s t e n c y . F i f t h , the r e s u l t s may be due t o sample b i a s . F i n a l l y , one cannot r u l e out the p o s s i b i l i t y of type two e r r o r . As f a r as defence c o u n s e l a r e concerned, t h e r e a r e a l s o s e v e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s t h a t can be made of the r e s u l t s . F i r s t , one c o u l d a c c e p t the argument t h a t defence c o u n s e l use s o c i a l s t a t u s as an i n d i c a t o r of j u r o r b i a s . Second, one c o u l d argue t h a t the observed r e l a t i o n s h i p between j u r o r s ' s o c i a l s t a t u s and defence c o u n s e l s ' c h o i c e s i s s p u r i o u s . T h i r d , i t can be argued t h a t the r e s u l t s a re due t o a sample b i a s . F i n a l l y , perhaps a type one e r r o r i s b e i n g made. D i s c u s s i o n s w i t h defence c o u n s e l p r o v i d e d f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t of the n o t i o n t h a t s o c i a l s t a t u s i s used by them as an i n d i c a t o r of j u r o r b i a s . They b e l i e v e t h a t p ersons of h i g h s o c i a l s t a t u s a re more l i k e l y t o f a v o u r laws, not o n l y because laws o f t e n s e r v e t h e i r i n t e r e s t s d i r e c t l y , but a l s o because laws 78 are p a r t of the dominant i d e o l o g y t o which h i g h s t a t u s p ersons s u b s c r i b e . On the o t h e r hand, persons of low s t a t u s are assumed to be l e s s i n c l i n e d t o f a v o u r laws because laws o f t e n do not work i n t h e i r f a v o u r , and a r e p a r t of a system of v a l u e s t h a t they do not w h o l e h e a r t e d l y s u p p o r t . In a d d i t i o n , i t i s sometimes assumed t h a t p e r s o n s of low s o c i a l s t a t u s a r e l e s s i n t e l l i g e n t and, t h e r e f o r e , more l i k e l y t o become c o n f u s e d about e v i d e n c e , arguments and p r o c e d u r e s . W h i l e some l a w y e r s view t h i s as a n e g a t i v e a t t r i b u t e , o t h e r s view i t p o s i t i v e l y on the assumption t h a t low s t a t u s persons w i l l c o n f u s e doubts about e v i d e n c e and courtroom p r o c e d u r e s w i t h the concept of r e a s o n a b l e doubt and, t h u s , a c q u i t the a c c u s e d . The f i n a l a t t r i b u t i o n p r o c e s s t h a t was c o n s i d e r e d i n t h i s r e s e a r c h i n v o l v e s the concept of s i m i l a r i t y . I t was p r e d i c t e d t h a t defence c o u n s e l would choose d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y more j u r o r s who are s i m i l a r t o the a c c u s e d . C o r r e s p o n d i n g l y , Crown c o u n s e l were e x p e c t e d t o s e l e c t d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y fewer j u r o r s who a r e s i m i l a r t o the a c c u s e d . The f i n d i n g s i n t h i s r e g a r d were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t f o r defence c o u n s e l , but not f o r Crown c o u n s e l . The r e s u l t s f o r Crown c o u n s e l can be e x p l a i n e d i n s e v e r a l ways. F i r s t , one c o u l d s p e c u l a t e t h a t they do not use s i m i l a r i t y t o the accused as a means of i n f e r r i n g j u r o r b i a s . Second, one c o u l d argue t h a t they tend t o c o o p e r a t e w i t h defence c o u n s e l . T h i r d , one c p u l d s p e c u l a t e t h a t they would have chosen j u r o r s who a r e not s i m i l a r t o the accused had they been a b l e t o observe t h a t defence c o u n s e l p r e f e r r e d s i m i l a r j u r o r s . F o u r t h , one c o u l d a t t r i b u t e the r e s u l t s t o sample b i a s . F i n a l l y , perhaps a type 79 two e r r o r i s b e i n g made. The r e s u l t s f o r defence c o u n s e l a re a l s o s u b j e c t t o a v a r i e t y of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . F i r s t , g i v e n t h a t the r e s u l t s showed c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s i n the acceptance r a t e s of j u r o r s by s i m i l a r i t y t o the a c c u s e d , one c o u l d a c c e p t the argument t h a t s i m i l a r i t y t o the accused i s used by defence c o u n s e l as an i n d i c a t o r of j u r o r b i a s . Second, one c o u l d s p e c u l a t e t h a t the r e s u l t s a re s p u r i o u s . T h i r d , the f i n d i n g s might be a t t r i b u t e d t o sample b i a s . F i n a l l y , i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t a type one e r r o r i s b e i n g made. D i s c u s s i o n s w i t h defence c o u n s e l c o n f i r m e d a p r e f e r e n c e f o r j u r o r s who a r e s i m i l a r t o the accused. Two e x p l a n a t i o n s emerged f o r t h i s . F i r s t , j u r o r s who a r e s i m i l a r t o the accused a r e b e l i e v e d t o share s i m i l a r views which may d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y c r e a t e a j u r o r b i a s i n f a v o u r of the accused. Choosing these i n d i v i d u a l s i s viewed as an attempt t o secure j u r o r s who can see themselves i n the accused person's p l a c e . Second, defence c o u n s e l t h i n k i t more p r o b a b l e t h a t j u r o r s who a r e s i m i l a r t o the accused w i l l l i k e the accused more - perhaps because the j u r o r t h i n k s he or she has something i n common w i t h the accused. I t was a l s o argued a t the b e g i n n i n g of t h i s t h e s i s t h a t each of the hypotheses t e s t e d would be a f f e c t e d by the n a t u r e of the case and the n a t u r e of the d e f e n c e . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the hypotheses were e x p e c t e d t o be more v a l i d i n t r i a l s of c o n f l i c t c r i m e s and where the defence of j u s t i f i c a t i o n i s used because j u r o r b i a s would be a more s a l i e n t i s s u e i n t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s . However, the o n l y s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t of t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s o c c u r r e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o the r e l a t i o n s h i p between j u r o r s ' 80 o c c u p a t i o n and l a w y e r s ' c h o i c e s . S u b s t a n t i v e l y , w h i l e these r e s u l t s a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h e a r l i e r p r e d i c t i o n s , the a c t u a l d i f f e r e n c e s were not v e r y l a r g e . One can i n t e r p r e t the n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g s i n s e v e r a l ways. F i r s t , i t i s p o s s i b i l e t h a t these c o n d i t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s have no e f f e c t on the s a l i e n c y of j u r o r b i a s . Second, t h e r e may be l i t t l e n o r m ative i n f l u e n c e on l a w y e r s t o s e l e c t b i a s e d j u r o r s ; r a t h e r , c o u n s e l may ten d t o c o o p e r a t e w i t h one a n o t h e r . Thus, w h i l e c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s may i n c r e a s e the s a l i e n c y of - j u r o r b i a s , the l a c k of m o t i v a t i o n t o s e l e c t b i a s e d j u r o r s produces a n e g l i g i b l e i n t e r a c t i o n . T h i r d , the independent v a r i a b l e s may be u n r e l a t e d t o a t t r i b u t i o n s of j u r o r b i a s . In t h i s c a s e , no i n t e r a c t i o n would t a k e p l a c e . F o u r t h , a l t h o u g h random assignment was used, d i f f e r e n c e s between the l a w y e r s i n each c o n d i t i o n may c a n c e l out the i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t . F i n a l l y , perhaps type one e r r o r s a r e b e i n g made. The s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g s , t h a t t h e r e i s an i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t of e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n and j u r o r s ' o c c u p a t i o n , i s a l s o s u b j e c t t o a number of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . F i r s t , one c o u l d a c c e p t the argument t h a t these c o n d i t i o n s a f f e c t the s a l i e n c e of j u r o r b i a s . Second, the r e s u l t s c o u l d be s p u r i o u s . T h i r d , i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t a type two e r r o r i s b e i n g made. At the b e g i n n i n g .of t h i s t h e s i s i t was argued t h a t the j u r y s e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s may a f f e c t the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s of the j u r y because l a w y e r s a re a l l i e d w i t h p a r t i s a n i n t e r e s t s . W h i l e not c o n c l u s i v e , the f i n d i n g s of t h i s study p r o v i d e d e v i d e n c e i n sup p o r t of t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y , e s p e c i a l l y where defence c o u n s e l a r e c o n c e r n e d . I t appears as though d i s t o r t i o n s c o u l d o ccur as a 81 result of att r i b u t i o n s of juror bias that are made on the basis of stereotypes, s o c i a l status, and s i m i l a r i t y to the accused. While further research would be needed to c l a r i f y these issues, the findings of this study have certain implications for the functions that are attributed to the jury. F i r s t , there may be a 'kernel of truth' to stereotypes that are used to select biased jurors. In thi s case, one can speculate that ju r i e s may not be impartial, but biased in accordance with these a t t r i b u t i o n s . Second, as Byrne and his associates (1961, 1962, 1964, and 1965) have suggested, s i m i l a r i t y and l i k i n g may be related. Thus, there may be some substance to at t r i b u t i o n s that are based on s i m i l a r i t y to the accused. Contrary to what the Law Reform Commission of Canada (1980:5-17)has argued, then, ju r i e s may not be impartial fact - f i n d e r s ; they may go beyond protecting the community from unjust laws; and their decisions may r e f l e c t more individual prejudice than what some would regard as community standards of j u s t i c e . The importance of thi s research also extends to matters of legal p o l i c y . As was e a r l i e r outlined, one of the current issues in legal c i r c l e s today i s the question of how much access to information about prospective jurors should be provided to legal counsel. Reconsideration of some issues that are related to thi s question may be needed in l i g h t of the findings of this research. There i s , f i r s t of a l l , the question of how e f f e c t i v e the r e s t r i c t i o n on lawyers' access to information about jurors i s . Although further research i s needed to v e r i f y this conjecture, current r e s t r i c t i o n s on lawyers' access to information do not 82 appear to be altogether successful at eliminating the potential for choosing biased jurors. Thus, more stringent measures may need to be contemplated. There i s also the question of whether or not section 567 of the Criminal Code has been rendered inoperative as a result of the r e s t r i c t i o n s that have been placed on lawyers' access to information about potential jurors. Section 567 grants lawyers the right to challenge for cause a l l those whose names are not on the panel l i s t , a l l those who are not i n d i f f e r e n t , a l l those who cannot properly perform the duties of a juror, a l l those who have been sentenced to death or a prison term exceeding twelve months, a l l those who are a l i e n , and a l l those who do not speak the o f f i c i a l language in which the t r i a l i s being conducted. Many lawyers, especially defence counsel, lamented their i n a b i l i t y to establish the basis for a challenge for cause through questioning. They argued that panel l i s t s are often outdated and improperly prepared, that some jurors are insane, that others cannot see or hear properly, and that many are biased. As a consequence of not being able to question potential jurors, lawyers claimed, they are forced to use peremptory challenges instead of challenges for cause. Thus, in addition to lawyers' choices being made on the basis of perceived bias, lawyers also appear to make attributions about jurors' c a p a c i t i e s . For instance, i t was noted in thi s research that i n a b i l i t y to understand English was inferred from e t h n i c i t y . Also, old age indicated that persons would be incapable of understanding and remembering evidence and procedural rules. It 83 would appear t h e n , t h a t l a w y e r s have not de v e l o p e d c o p i n g s t r a t e g i e s (eg. p r i v a t e i n v e s t i g a t i o n ) t h a t would a l l o w them t o make use of s e c t i o n 567. R a t h e r , they seem c o n t e n t t o use a t t r i b u t i o n p r o c e s s e s i n o r d e r t o c u l l c e r t a i n i n d i v i d u a l s , and they a c c e p t c e r t a i n p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s who would o t h e r w i s e not be a l l o w e d . A d d i t i o n a l r e s e a r c h a l o n g the l i n e s of t h i s study would h e l p t o d e t e r m i n e , more p r e c i s e l y , the k i n d s of a t t r i b u t i o n s t h a t a re made. A l s o , i n o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h new p o l i c y d i r e c t i o n s , s t u d i e s c o u l d be undertaken i n o r d e r t o a s c e r t a i n what s o r t s of i n e l i g i b l e j u r o r s a r e b e i n g a c c e p t e d , the f r e q u e n c y w i t h which t h i s o c c u r s , and what impact t h i s i s h a v i n g on l e g a l d e c i s i o n s . F i n a l l y , the u t i l i t y of peremptory c h a l l e n g e s , which i s presumably t h a t they p r o v i d e the appearance of j u s t i c e , may a l s o r e q u i r e some r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n . W h i l e l a w y e r s may make use of s t e r e o t y p e s , s o c i a l s t a t u s , and s i m i l a r i t y t o the accu s e d i n or d e r t o s e l e c t j u r i e s , they do not ex p r e s s much c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e i r a b i l i t i e s t o make a c c u r a t e i n f e r e n c e s . Moreover, the use of peremptory c h a l l e n g e s appears t o c o n c e a l the s e l e c t i o n of b i a s e d j u r o r s . Perhaps f u t u r e r e s e a r c h w i l l be a b l e t o e s t a b l i s h whether a l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n i n g of p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s , and e l i m i n a t i n g the use of peremptory c h a l l e n g e s , would enhance the appearance of j u s t i c e . These changes may c r e a t e g r e a t e r c e r t a i n t y about j u r o r s ' q u a l i f i c a t i o n s and, s i n c e a l l c h a l l e n g e s would be f o r cause, a g r e a t e r amount of i m p a r t i a l i t y might be m a n i f e s t e d i n the s e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s . A summation of t h i s r e s e a r c h would not be complete w i t h o u t an a n a l y s i s of the r e s e a r c h methods used i n i t . In terms of the 84 s t a t e d aim of t h i s p r o j e c t t h e r e are s e v e r a l i m p o r t a n t l i m i t a t i o n s t h a t must be mentioned. F i r s t , a random sample of l a w y e r s was not used. Owing t o p r a c t i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s such as d e f i n i n g the a p p r o p r i a t e s a m p l i n g frame, and f i n a n c i a l and time c o n s t r a i n t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t r a v e l l i n g t o o t h e r c i t i e s a c r o s s Canada i n o r d e r t o i n t e r v i e w l a w y e r s , a judgment sample of l a w y e r s from the Vancouver a r e a was used i n s t e a d . The consequence of t h i s i s t h a t I am unable t o d etermine the amount of e r r o r a s s o c i a t e d w i t h i n f e r r i n g t h a t t h e s e r e s u l t s can be a p p l i e d t o Canadian l a w y e r s as a whole. As i t i s , any c l a i m s about the a b i l i t y t o g e n e r a l i z e t h e s e r e s u l t s t o the p o p u l a t i o n of Canadian l a w y e r s r e s t s on the assumption t h a t the sample chosen i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of them. A second problem concerns whether one can g e n e r a l i z e from these r e s u l t s t o l a w y e r s ' a c t u a l c o u r t r o o m b e h a v i o u r . The d e s c r i p t i o n s of p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s were i n c o m p l e t e t o the e x t e n t t h a t they d i d not s u p p l y a b s o l u t e l y a l l of the i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t l a w y e r s would have at t h e i r d i s p o s a l i n the c o u r t r o o m ; p h y s i c a l appearance, d r e s s , and mannerisms were m i s s i n g . Of c o u r s e , t h i s was i n t e n t i o n a l on my p a r t because I d i d not have hypotheses t h a t concerned t h e s e v a r i a b l e s , and i n o r d e r t o p r o p e r l y measure the e f f e c t s of those v a r i a b l e s f o r which I d i d have p r e d i c t i o n s i t was n e c e s s a r y t o c o n t r o l f o r o t h e r s o u r c e s of v a r i a b l i 1 i t y . However, d o i n g t h i s c r e a t e s an a r t i f i c i a l i t y about the d e c i s i o n s l a w y e r s made t h a t may a f f e c t the e x t e n t "to which the f i n d i n g s of t h i s r e s e a r c h can be g e n e r a l i z e d t o l a w y e r s ' a c t u a l courtroom b e h a v i o u r . For i n s t a n c e , i t might be t h a t l a w y e r s i n t h i s s tudy used s t a t u s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t they would not o r d i n a r i l y use 85 because of t h i s f e a t u r e . F u t u r e r e s e a r c h might attempt t o r e d r e s s t h i s weakness i n my r e s e a r c h by d e v e l o p i n g t h e o r y t h a t c o u l d account f o r the e f f e c t of these v a r i a b l e s on l a w y e r s ' c h o i c e s and by i n c l u d i n g t h e s e a t t r i b u t e s i n the c h o i c e c r i t e r i a made a v a i l a b l e t o l a w y e r s i n f u t u r e e x p e r i m e n t s . A t h i r d major weakness of t h i s r e s e a r c h i s t h a t a complete f a c t o r i a l d e s i g n was not employed. A l t h o u g h i t would have been b e t t e r from the d e s i g n p o i n t of view t o i n c l u d e a l l the independent v a r i a b l e s i n a f a c t o r i a l d e s i g n , d o i n g so was judged to be i m p r a c t i c a l because of the number of s u b j e c t s t h a t would be r e q u i r e d and the c o s t and d i f f i c u l t y of a n a l y s i n g the d a t a . A consequence of t h i s l i m i t a t i o n i s t h a t i t i n c r e a s e s the l i k e l i h o o d of the r e s u l t s b e i n g s p u r i o u s . In o t h e r words, i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n of independent v a r i a b l e s c o u l d account f o r c e r t a i n f i n d i n g s . A p o t e n t i a l source of e r r o r i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the t e s t of the n o t i o n t h a t l a w y e r s ' c h o i c e s a re a f f e c t e d by the s o c i a l s t a t u s of j u r o r s c o n c e r n s the f a c t t h a t I used a s i n g l e i n d i c a t o r of s o c i a l s t a t u s ( o c c u p a t i o n a l p r e s t i g e ) t h a t may not have been v a l i d because o t h e r d i m e n s i o n s of s o c i a l s t a t u s f o r many of the p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s were not b a l a n c e d w i t h i t . In o t h e r words, w h i l e p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s ' o c c u p a t i o n a l p r e s t i g e may have been h i g h , t h e i r e t h n i c s t a t u s may have been low. Thus, the r e s u l t s i n some ca s e s may have been confounded by the f a c t t h a t l a w y e r s were r e s p o n d i n g t o a d i f f e r e n t i n d i c a t o r of p r e s t i g e or to the i n c o n s i s t e n c y i t s e l f . F i n a l l y , the model used t o t e s t t h e s e hypotheses does not take i n t o account i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s between the independent 86 v a r i a b l e s . I t would seem r e a s o n a b l e t o expect t h a t l a w y e r s ' c h o i c e s are o f t e n based on the presence of c e r t a i n v a r i a b l e s t o g e t h e r . For i n s t a n c e , o l d C hinese people might be r e j e c t e d because of assumed language problems, where young Chinese would n o t . Beyond the m e t h o d o l o g i c a l problems t h a t c o u l d account f o r the l a c k of d e f i n i t i v e r e s u l t s , one must a l s o c o n s i d e r what s u b s t a n t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n s c o u l d be d e v e l o p e d . F u t u r e s t u d i e s may w i s h t o examine, f o r i n s t a n c e , whether the n o t i o n of c o o p e r a t i o n among l a w y e r s p r o v i d e s a more adequate account of t h e i r c h o i c e s . I t was e a r l i e r suggested t h a t Crown c o u n s e l may l e t defence c o u n s e l i n f l u e n c e the c o m p o s i t i o n of the j u r y i n o r d e r t o m a i n t a i n the appearance of j u s t i c e . Another i d e a was t h a t c o u n s e l may have p r o f e s s i o n a l i n t e r e s t s , such as case l o a d s , t h a t i n f l u e n c e who they choose. A l s o worth c o n s i d e r i n g i s the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the s t r a t e g y of defence c o u n s e l may i n f l u e n c e the s t r a t e g y of Crown c o u n s e l and v i c e v e r s a . The degree of c o m p e t i t i o n and c o o p e r a t i o n may, t h u s , v a r y from one case t o a n o t h e r , depending on the f a c e - t o - f a c e i n t e r a c t i o n of the p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d . In t h i s t h e s i s I have t r i e d t o argue t h a t the norms of the l e g a l system o b l i g a t e l a w y e r s t o s e l e c t j u r o r s who would be f a v o u r a b l e t o t h e i r c a s e . F u r t h e r , I t r i e d t o suggest t h a t a t t r i b u t i o n s of j u r o r b i a s a r e based on s t e r e o t y p e s , s o c i a l s t a t u s , and s i m i l a r i t y t o the a c c u s e d . W h i l e by no means c o n c l u s i v e , the r e s u l t s of a p i l o t - s t u d y and a f i e l d experiment p r o v i d e d some e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t of t h e s e c o n t e n t i o n s . Crown c o u n s e l appear t o use s t e r e o t y p e s d e a l i n g w i t h o c c u p a t i o n s and 87 w e a l t h i n o r d e r t o s e l e c t j u r o r s w i t h more c o n s e r v a t i v e t e n d e n c i e s . Defence c o u n s e l , on the o t h e r hand, seemed t o choose more l i b e r a l - m i n d e d j u r o r s , u s i n g s t e r e o t y p e s about o c c u p a t i o n s , w e a l t h , and p r i o r j u r y e x p e r i e n c e . A l s o , defence c o u n s e l seemed to p r e f e r j u r o r s of low s o c i a l s t a t u s on the assumption t h a t they would be more l e n i e n t than h i g h s t a t u s i n d i v i d u a l s . F i n a l l y , defence c o u n s e l appeared t o p r e f e r j u r o r s who a r e s i m i l a r t o the a c c u s e d , b e l i e v i n g them t o be b i a s e d i n h i s f a v o u r . In view of t h e s e f i n d i n g s , I argued t h a t the f u n c t i o n s t h a t a r e a t t r i b u t e d t o the j u r y need t o be r e c o n s i d e r e d . L a s t , I c a l l e d i n t o q u e s t i o n the wisdom of r e s t r i c t i n g l a w y e r s ' a c c e s s t o i n f o r m a t i o n about p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s . T h i s study r e p r e s e n t s o n l y a s t a r t i n g p o i n t from which an adequate u n d e r s t a n d i n g of j u r y s e l e c t i o n c o u l d f o l l o w . Thus, i t i s hoped t h a t t h i s t h e s i s has not o n l y p r o v i d e d g r e a t e r i n s i g h t i n t o the problem of j u r y s e l e c t i o n , but a l s o w i l l s e r v e as a c a t a l y s t f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h on t h i s i m p o r t a n t s u b j e c t . Cases Regina v. Dowling (1848) 7 S t . T r . N.S. 381 Regina v. Hubbert (1975) 29 C C C . (2d) 279 Regina v. Makow (1974) 20 C C C (2d) 518 89 Bibliography Adkins, J.C., "Jury Selection: An Art? A Science? Or Luck," T r i a l  Magazine, ,Dec.-Jan., 1968-69, pp. 37-39. Al l p o r t , G.W. The Nature of Prejudice , Cambridge, Massachussets: Addison Wesley Publishers, 1954. Amandes. R.B., "From Voir Dire to Verdict," Missouri Bar Journal ,1965, 27, pp. 323-330. Anshen, R. Moral P r i n c i p l e s of Action; Man's Eth i c a l Imperative, New York: Harper, 1952. Ashmore, R.D. "The Problem of Intergroup Prejudice," in B.E. C o l l i n s (ed.) Social Psychology , Reading, Massachuetts: Addison Wesley, 1970, pp. 247-297. Ashmore, R.D. and Del Boca, F.K. "Conceptual Approaches to Stereotypes and Stereotyping," in Hamilton, D.L. (ed.) Cognitive Processes in Stereotyping  and Intergroup Behaviour , H i l l s d a l e , New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1981, pp. 1-36. Avins, A., "The Fourteenth Amendment and Jury Discrimination: The Ori g i n a l Understanding," Federal Bar Journal ,1967, pp.257-290. Berg, K. and Vidmar, N. "Authoritarianism and Recall of Evidence About Criminal Behaviour," Journal of Research in Personality, 1975, 9, pp. 147-157. Blauner, R. "The Social Psychology of Jury Selection," in Ginger, A,F., Jury Selection in Criminal T r i a l s : New Techniques and  Concepts , Tiburton, C a l i f . : Lawpress Corp., 1975, chpt. 10, pp.443-476 Blume, W.W. "Jury Selection Analysed, Proposed Revision of Federal System," Michigan Law Review ,1944, 42, pp. 831-862. Bodin, H.S. Fi n a l Preparation for T r i a l - S e l e c t i n g a Jury, New York: Practicing Law Institute, 1964. 90 Boehm, V. "Mr. Prejudice, Miss Sympathy and the Authoritarian Personality:An Application of Psychological Measuring to the Problem of Juror Bias," Wisconsin Law Review , 1968, pp. 734-750. Bray, J. J. "Law, Liberty, and Morality," Australian Law Journal , 1971, 45, pp. 452-472. Brigham, J.C. "Ethnic Stereotypes," Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1971, 76, pp. 15-38. B r i l l , N.S. "Voir Dire - Examination of Jurors," Missouri Law Review, 1964, pp. 259-304. Brody, A. "Selecting a Jury - Art or Blind-man's B l u f f ? , " Criminal  Law Review, 1957, 4, pp. 67-78. Broeder, D.W. "Voir Dire Examination - An Empirical Study," Southern  C a l i f o r n i a Law Review, 1965, 38, pp. 503-504. Brooks, W. and Doob, A. "Justice and the Jury," Journal of Social Issues , 1975, 32, pp. 171-182. Bryan, W.J. J r . The Chosen Ones: The Psychology of Jury Selection , New York: Vantage Press, 1971. Burnett, W., "Economic Discrimination in Jury Selection," Law and the  Social Order , 1970, pp. 474. Burnett, W., "Exploring Racial Prejudice on Voir Dire; Constitutional Requirements and Policy Considerations," Boston University  Law Review , 1974, 54, pp. 394. Busch, H.J., "Selecting the Jury," I l l i n o i s Bar Journal ,1958, 47, pp. 238-241. Byrne, D. "Interpersonal Attraction and Attitude S i m i l a r i t y , " Journal  of Abnormal and Soc i a l Psychology , 1961, 62, pp. 713-715. Byrne, D. "Response to Attitude S i m i l a r i t y - d i s s i m i l a r i t y as a Function of A f f i l i a t i o n Need," Journal of Personality , 1962, 30, pp. 164-177. 91 Byrne, D. "Attitudes and A t t r a c t i o n , " in L. Berkowitz (ed.) Advances  in Exper imental Soc i a l Psychology , New York: Academic Press, 1969, v.4, pp. 36-90. Byrne, D., Clore, G.L. J r . , and Worchel, P. "The Effect of Economic S i m i l a r i t y - D i s s i m i l a r i t y on Interpersonal Attraction," Journal of Personality and  Social Psychology , 1966, 4, pp. 220-224. Byrne, D. And McGraw, C , "Interpersonal Attraction Toward Negroes," Human Relat ions , 1964, 17, pp. 201-213. Byrne, D. And Nelson, D. "Attraction as a Linear Function or Proportion of Positive Reinforcements," Journal of Personality and Soc i a l  Psychology , 1965, 1, pp. 659-663. Byrne, D. and Wong, T.J. "Racial Prejudice, Interpresonal Attraction, and Assumed D i s s i m i l a r i t y of Attitudes," Journal of Abnormal and Soc i a l  Psychology , 1962, 65, pp. 246-253. Campbell, S., "The Multiple Functions of the Criminal Defense Voir Dire in Texas," American Journal of Cr iminal Law , 1972, 1, pp. 255. Cartwright, D. and F. Harary "Structural Balance: A Generalization of Heider's Theory," Psychological Review , 1956 (Sept.), 63, pp. 277-293. Centers, R., Shomer, R., and Rodriques,. A. "A F i e l d Experiment in Interpersonal Persuasion Using Authoritative Influence," Journal of Personality , 1970, 38, pp. 392-403. C h r i s t i e , R. and Schulman, J., "Jury Selection," Time , Dec. 30, 1974. Cohen, J . , Robson, R.A.H., and Bates, A. "Ascertaining the Moral Sense of the Community," Journal of  Legal Education , 1955, 8, pp. 137-149. Curtis, R. "Sunday Observance Legislation in Alberta," Alberta Law  Review , 1974, 12, pp. 236-265. Davis, J.A. "Structural Balance, Mechanical S o l i d a r i t y , and Interpersonal Relations," in Berger, J. and M. Zelditch J r . and B. Anderson Sociological Theories in Progress , Volume One, Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n Company, 1966. 92 Devlin, P. The Enforcement of Morals , London: Oxford University Press , 1965. Doob, A. and Kirshenbaum, H. "Some Emperical Evidence on the Effect of s.12 of the Canada Evidence Act Upon an Accused," Criminal Law  Quarterly , 1973, 15, pp. 88-95. Dudycha, G. "The Attitudes of College Students Toward War and and the Germans Before and During the Second World War," Journal of  Social Psychology , 1942, 15, pp. 317-324 Duijker, M. and F r i j d a , N. Nat ional Character and Nat ional Stereotypes , Amsterdam: North Holland, 1960. Eddy, J.P., "Challenges to Jurors," Law Times , 1960, 229, pp. 305-306. Efran, M.G. "The Effect of Physical Appearance on the Judgment of G u i l t , Interpersonal A t t r i b u t i o n , and Severity of Recommended Punishment in a Simulated Jury Task," Journal  of Research in Personality , 1974, 8, pp. 45-54. Eh r l i c h , H.J., The Social Psychology of Prejudice , New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973. Emerson, R.M. "Power Dependance Relations," American Sociological Review , 1962, 27, 1, pp. 31-41 . "Fair Jury Selection Procedures," Yale Law Journal , 1965, 75, pp. 322-334. Faust, R. and Carlson, J. The Impact of Age and Other S t r a t i f i c a t i o n Variables on  Att itudes Toward Just ice , New York: Centre for Responsive Psychology, 1977. Festinger, L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance , Evanston, 111.: Row, Peterson, 1957. F i e l d , L., "Voir Dire Examinations - A Neglected Art," University of  Kansas City Law Review , 1965, 33, pp. 171-187. Fin k e l s t e i n , M.O. "The Application of S t a t i s t i c a l Decision Theory to the Jury Discrimination Cases," Harvard Law Review , 1966, 80, pp. 338-376. 93 F o l e y , P.J. " C l a s s D i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n S e l e c t i n g of J u r o r s , " C a t h o l i c  U n i v e r s i t y of America Law Review , 1955, 5, no.2, pp. 157-1 72. F o o t e , N. " I d e n t i f i c a t i o n as the B a s i s f o r a Theory of M o t i v a t i o n , " Amer i c a n Soc i o l o g i c a l Review , 1951, 16, pp. 14-21. F r i e d l a n d , M.L. (ed.) C o u r t s and T r i a l s ; A M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y Approach , T o r o n t o : U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto P r e s s , 1975. G e r b a s i , K., Zuckerman, M., and R e i s , H. " J u s t i c e Needs a New B l i n d f o l d : A Review of Mock J u r y R e s e a r c h , " P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1977, 84, pp. 323-345. G i n g e r , A,F., J u r y S e l e c t i o n i n Cr i m i n a l T r i a l s : New Techniques and  Concepts , T i b u r t o n , C a l i f . : Lawpress Corp., 1975. G o l d s t e i n , I . Tr i a l Technique , C h i c a g o : C a l l a g h a n and Company, 1935. Green, E. "The Reasonable Man:Legal F i c t i o n or P s y c h o s o c i a l F a c t , " Law and Soc i e t y Review , 1967, 2, pp. 241-257. H e i d e r , F. " S o c i a l P e r c e p t i o n and Phenomenal C a u s a l i t y , " P s y c h o l o g i c a l  Review 1944, 51, pp.358-374. H e i d e r , F. " A t t i t u d e s and C o g n i t i v e O r g a n i z a t i o n , " J o u r n a l of  Ps y c h o l o g y , 1946, 21, pp. 107-112. H e i d e r , F. The P s y c h o l o g y of I n t e r p e r s o n a l R e l a t i o n s , New York: W i l e y , 1958. H e s t e r , R.K. and Smith, R.E. " E f f e c t s of a Mandatory Death P e n a l t y on the D e c i s i o n s of S i m u l a t e d J u r o r s as a F u n c t i o n of the Heinousness of the Crime," J o u r n a l of C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e , 1973, 1, pp. 319-326. H i l l , J . L . , " E f f e c t i v e Techniques of J u r y S e l e c t i o n and J u r y Argument i n P e r s o n a l I n j u r y Cases," Texas Bar J o u r n a l , 1958, 21, pp. 221-222, 249-258. Homans, G.C. Soc i a l B e h a v i o u r : I t s Elementary Forms , New York: H a r c o u r t , Brace and World I n c . , 1961. 94 Hughes, E.C. "Dilemmas and Contradictions of Status," American Journal  of Sociology , 1944, 50, pp. 353-359. Izzett, R. and Leginski, W. "Group Discussion and the Influence of Defendant Characteristics in a Simulated Jury Setting," Journal of  Social Psychology , 1974, 93, pp. 271-279. : Jones, A.P., "Peremptory Challenges - Should Rule 233 Be Changed?" Texas  Law Review , 1966, 45, pp. 80-94. Jones, C. and Aronson, E. "Attribution of Fault to a Rape Victim as a Function of Respectability of the Victim," Journal of Personality and  Social Psychology , 1973, 26, pp. 415-419. Jurow, G.L. "New Data on the Effect of a 'Death Qualified' Jury on the G u i l t Determination Process," Harvard Law Review , 1971, 84, pp. 567-611. Kairys, D., "Juror Selection: The Law, A Mathematical Method of Analysis," American Criminal Law Review , 1972, 10, pp. 771-806. Kalven, H. J r . and Z e i s e l , H. The American Jury , Boston:Little, Brown, 1966. Kaplan, K.J., K.W. Klein, and Fried, M., "General Aims of Prosecution and Defense in the Selection and Influence of Jurors in a Criminal T r i a l , " Journal of  Soc i a l and Behavioural Sc iences , (Winter), 1975. Kaplan, M.R. and Kemmerick, G.D. "Juror Judgment as Information Integration:Combining Evi d e n t i a l and Non-Evidential Information," Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology , 1974, 30, pp. 493-499. Karcher, J.T. "Importance of Voir Dire," Pract ic ing Lawyer , 1969, 15, pp. 59. Katz, L.S. "The Twelve Man Jury," T r i a l Magazine , (Dec.-Jan.), v.5,1, 1968-69, pp.39-41. Kennelly, J.J., "Jury Selection in C i v i l Cases," T r i a l Lawyer's Guide , 1965, pp. 87-152. Kerr, E.T. "Empanelling of a Jury," Federal Rules Decisions , 1961, pp.185-189. 95 Knox, J . C , "Jury Selection," New York University Law Quarterly Review , 1947, 22, pp. 433-444. Knox, J.C. "Selection of Federal Jurors," Journal of the American  Juridicature Society , 1947, 31, pp. 9-15. Kuhn, R.S. "Jury Discrimination: The Next Phase," Southern C a l i f o r n i a  Law Review , 1968, 41, pp. 235-328. Landy, D. and Aronson, E. "The Influence of the Character of the Criminal and His Victim on the Decisions of Simulated Jurors," Journal of  Experimental Soc i a l Psychology , 1969, 5, pp. 141-152. Lerner, M.J. "The Desire for Justice and Reactions to Victims," in J. Macaulay and L. Berkowitz (eds.) Altruisism and Helping  Behaviour , New York:Academic Press, 1970. Lippmann, W. Public Opinion , New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1922. Milgram, S. "Some Conditions of Obedience and Disobedience to Authority," Human Relations , 1965, 18, pp. 57-76. M i t c h e l l , H. and Byrne, D. "The Defendant's Dilema:Effects of Juror's Attitudes and Authoritarianism on J u d i c i a l Decisions," Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology , 1973, 25, pp. 123-129. Morris, H. Freedom and Responsibility , Stanford, Ca.:Stanford University Press, 1961. Nemeth, C. and Sosis, R.H. "A Simulated Jury:Characteristics of the Defendant and the Jurors," Journal of Soc i a l Psychology , 1973, 90, pp. 221-229. Newcomb, T.M. "An Approach to the Study of Communicative Acts," Psychological Review , 1953, 60, pp.393-404 Odum, P., "Jury Selection in F l o r i d a , " University of Florida Law  Review , 1963, 15, pp. 500-527. Phares, E. and Wilson, K. "Responsibility Attribution:Role of Outcome Severity, Situational Ambiguity, and Internal-External Control," Journal of Personality , 1972, 40, pp. 392-406. 96 P i n e o , P. and J . P o r t e r " O c c u p a t i o n a l P r e s t i g e i n Canada," i n J . C u r t i s and W. Lambert (eds.) Soc i a l S t r a t i f i c a t i o n : Canada , Scarborough, O n t a r i o : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , L t d . , 1973 P l u t c h i k , R. and S c h w artz, A.K., " J u r y S e l e c t i o n : F o l k l o r e or S c i e n c e ? " C r i m i n a l Law  B u l l e t i n , 1965, 1, no. 4, pp. 3-10. •'• Rawls, J . A Theory of J u s t i c e , Cambridge, Mass.:Belknap P r e s s of H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1971. Rokeach, M. and M e z e i , L., "Race and Shared B e l i e f as F a c t o r s i n S o c i a l C h o i c e , " S c i e n c e , 1966, 151, pp. 167-172. Rokeach, M., S m ith, P.W. Evans, R . I . , "Two K i n d s of P r e j u d i c e or One," i n M. Rokeach (ed.) The  Open and C l o s e d Mind , New York: B a s i c Books, 1960, pp. 132-168. Rosen, J . "Peremptory C h a l l e n g e s and Change of Venue," U n i v e r s i t y of  C i n c i n n a t i Law Review , 1958, 27, pp. 87-92. R o t h b l a t t , H.B. "Techniques f o r J u r y S e l e c t i o n , " Cr i m i n a l Law B u l l e t i n , 1966, 2, pp. 14-29. S c h e l e r , M. The Nature of Sympathy , New Haven: Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 966. Schulman, J . , Shaver, P., E m r i c h , B., and C h r i s t i e , R., "Recipe f o r a J u r y , " P s y c h o l o g y Today , May, 1973, pp. 37. Shaver, K.G. " D e f e n s i v e A t t r i b u t i o n : E f f e c t s of S e v e r i t y and Relevance on the R e s p o n s i b i l i t y A s s i g n e d f o r an A c c i d e n t , " J o u r n a l of  P e r s o n a l i t y and Soc i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1970, 14, pp. 101-113. Shaw, J . I . and S k o l n i c k , P. " A t t r i b u t i o n of R e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a Happy A c c i d e n t , " J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and Soc i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1971, 18, pp. 380-383. S h e r i f , M. and 0. Harvey, B. White, W. Hood, and C. S h e r i f I n t e r g r o u p C o n f 1 i c t and C o o p e r a t i o n : The Robbers' Cave  Exper iment , Norman, Oklahoma: U n i v e r s i t y of Oklahoma P r e s s , 1961 S h i b u t a n i , T. S o c i e t y and P e r s o n a l i t y : An I n t e r a c t i o n i s t Approach t o Soc i a l P s y c h o l o g y , Englewood C l i f f s , N . J . : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1961 . 97 Sosis, R. "Internal-External Control and the Perception of Responsibility of Another for an Accident," Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology , 1974, 30, pp. 393-399. Spetz, S.N. Can I_ Sue: An Introduction to Canadian Tort Law , Toronto: Pitman, 1974. Stapes, B.C., Kasarjian, L., and Resnick, E., "The Q u a l i f i c a t i o n s and Competence Required for Jury Duty in New England," Boston University Law Review , 1961, 41, pp. 232-256. Stouffer, S. A. The American Soldier , Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1949 Stulberg, E.B., " P r e t r i a l Selection - Suggested Improvements," Michigan Law  Review , 1958, 56, pp. 954-963. T a j f e l , H. (ed.) D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n Between Soc i a l Groups; Studies in the Soc i a l Psychology of Intergroup Relations , London: Academic Press, 1978 T a j f e l , H. and Fraser, C. (eds.) Introduc ing Soc i a l Psychology , Aylesbury, Bucks, U.K.:Hazell, Watson, and Viney, 1978. Tapp, J.L. and Levine, F.J. (eds.) Law, Justice, and the Individual in Society , New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1977. Teitlebaum, W., "Voir Dire: Another View," American Journal of Criminal Law , 1972, 1, pp. 274 Tomkins, S.S. and Izard, C E . Affect, Cognition, and Personality: Empirical Studies , New York: Springer, 1965. Urbom, W., "Picking a Jury and Referring to Evidence," Nebraska Law  Review , 1967, 45, pp. 523-539. Vidmar, N. "Effects of Decision Alternatives on the Verdicts and Social Perceptions of Simulated Jurors," Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology , 1972, 22, pp. 211-218. Walster, E. "Assignment of Responsibility for an Accident," Journal of  Personality and Soc i a l Psychology , 1966, 3, pp. 73-79. 98 Walster, E. " 'Second Guessing' Important Events," Human Relat ions , 1967, 20, pp. 239-250. Wildman, M.E. "Selection and Examination of Jurors," DePaui Law Review , 1955, 5, pp. 32-39. Wright, C. and Linden, A. The Law of Torts , Toronto: Butterworths, 1970. APPENDIX A L e t t e r of I n t r o d u c t i o n APPENDIX B Pilot-Study Interview Schedule 1 02 LAWYER SURVEY ON JURY SELECTION Introduct ion As I mentioned in my l e t t e r , what I would l i k e to discuss with you is the subject of jury s e l e c t i o n . In order to focus the discussion to some extent I have prepared a few questions. However, as thi s is a preliminary study some of the questions may not seem a l l that pertinent to you. If so, please l e t me know. Should you not wish to answer a question just l e t me know and we w i l l move on to the next one. Also, i f you at any time want to discontinue the interview please l e t me know and we w i l l stop. An important concern of mine is the protection of the information that you provide. With your permission I would l i k e to record our conversation and take notes. These I s h a l l keep in a locked cabinet solely for my own use. What I intend to do with the information i s to make generalizations about what lawyers think concerning the issues raised. Any statements that I make w i l l , therefore, be about lawyers in general and not about you personally. Do you mind then i f I record our discussion or make notes? Do you have any questions before we start? 1 03 When c o n s i d e r i n g whether or not t o use a peremptory c h a l l e n g e (or st a n d a s i d e ) , what c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the person i n q u e s t i o n a r e of importance t o your d e c i s i o n ? How are thes e f a c t o r s i m p o r t a n t ? What s o r t of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s do you r e g a r d as u n i m p o r t a n t ? What about the type of c a s e ; does the i s s u e i n v o l v e d have an e f f e c t on whom you would c h a l l e n g e (or s t a n d a s i d e ) ? What about the d e f e n d a n t ; i s t h e r e a n y t h i n g about t h i s p erson t h a t c o u l d a f f e c t your d e c i s i o n t o c h a l l e n g e (or st a n d a s i d e ) someone? Are t h e r e any o t h e r f a c t o r s t h a t you f e e l a f f e c t your d e c i s i o n t o make use of a c h a l l e n g e (or s t a n d a s i d e ) ? Are t h e r e any d i f f e r e n c e s between the s o r t of j u r o r t h a t defence c o u n s e l choose and those p r e f e r r e d by Crown c o u n s e l ? I f y e s , what are the d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t you have observed and how would you account f o r them? THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP APPENDIX C Operat i o n a l i z a t ion of Condition One 1 05 CASE 1 On December 11, 1981 John Mulligan, a 35 year old r e t a i l clerk who resides on East 21st Avenue in the c i t y of Vancouver, B.C., was arrested on his return home at 3 A.M. and charged with second degree murder of his wife, Kate Mulligan. Neighbours said the accused would often come home drunk and that the couple would quarrel. Police records indicate that o f f i c e r s had been c a l l e d to the Mulligan residence on several occasions to break up a domestic dispute. On the evening of the alleged murder, December 10, 1981, neighbours said they heard a gunshot. Shortly thereafter, witnesses claim, a fat man resembling the accused was seen running from the house. When police arrived they found the body of Kate Mulligan lying on the kitchen floor in a pool of blood. She had received a f a t a l gunshot wound to the chest. A 22 c a l i b r e handgun belonging to the accused was found next to the body. Laboratory investigation later revealed that fingerprints belonging to both the accused and the victim were on the weapon. At his preliminary inquiry Mulligan appeared without counsel. At the conclusion of the evidence c a l l e d by the Crown, and when asked by the Provincial Court Judge i f he wished to say anything, he replied that his only r e c o l l e c t i o n of that day was that his wife had f a l l e n into a deep depression and that because of that he l e f t the house early as he f e l t she wanted to be alone. He claimed that he f i r s t went for a long walk but as the thought of his wife being so unhappy also made him miserable he went drinking, although he could not remember where or when. He argued that he did not k i l l his wife and suggested that she may have committed suicide. He was committed for t r i a l . APPENDIX D Operat i o n a l i z a t i o n of C o n d i t i o n Two 1 07 CASE 2 On December 11, 1981 John M u l l i g a n , a 35 year o l d r e t a i l c l e r k who r e s i d e s on E a s t 21st Avenue i n the c i t y of Vancouver, B.C., was a r r e s t e d on h i s r e t u r n home at 3 A.M. and charged w i t h second degree murder of h i s w i f e , Kate M u l l i g a n . Neighbours s a i d the accused would o f t e n come home drunk and t h a t the c o u p l e would q u a r r e l . P o l i c e r e c o r d s i n d i c a t e t h a t o f f i c e r s had been c a l l e d t o the M u l l i g a n r e s i d e n c e on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s t o break up a domestic d i s p u t e . On the e v e n i n g of the a l l e g e d murder, December 10, 1981, n e i g h b o u r s s a i d they heard a gunshot. S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , w i t n e s s e s c l a i m , a f a t man r e s e m b l i n g the accused was seen r u n n i n g from the house. When p o l i c e a r r i v e d they found the body of Kate M u l l i g a n l y i n g on the k i t c h e n f l o o r i n a p o o l of b l o o d . She had r e c e i v e d a f a t a l gunshot wound t o the c h e s t . A 22 c a l i b r e handgun b e l o n g i n g t o the accused was found next t o the body. L a b o r a t o r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n l a t e r r e v e a l e d t h a t f i n g e r p r i n t s b e l o n g i n g t o b oth the accused and the v i c t i m were on the weapon. At h i s p r e l i m i n a r y i n q u i r y M u l l i g a n appeared w i t h o u t c o u n s e l . At the c o n c l u s i o n of the e v i d e n c e c a l l e d by the Crown, and when asked by the P r o v i n c i a l Court Judge i f he wished t o say a n y t h i n g , M u l l i g a n r e p l i e d t h a t he spent the day d r i n k i n g and w a t c h i n g t e l e v i s i o n . A l l day l o n g , he s a i d , h i s w i f e p e s t e r e d him about one t h i n g a f t e r a n o t h e r . As had o f t e n happened i n the p a s t , M u l l i g a n s a i d , they got i n t o a b i t t e r argument. T h i s t i m e , c l a i m e d the a ccused, h i s w i f e went i n t o the bedroom and r e t u r n e d b r a n d i s h i n g h i s r e v o l v e r which she t h r e a t e n e d t o use on him. He argued t h a t i n o r d e r t o p r o t e c t h i m s e l f he s t r u g g l e d w i t h h e r , but as he reached f o r the gun i t went o f f and h i s w i f e f e l l t o the f l o o r . H i s next r e c o l l e c t i o n was t h a t the p o l i c e a r r e s t e d him f o r the murder of h i s w i f e . APPENDIX E O p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of C o n d i t i o n T h r e e 1 09 CASE 3 John M u l l i g a n , who r e s i d e s on E a s t 21st Avenue i n the c i t y of Vancouver, i s a f a t 35 year o l d r e t a i l c l e r k employed a t the Acme Gun Company. On December 11, 1981 he was charged w i t h s e l l i n g , g i v i n g , or d e l i v e r y of a f i r e a r m , t o w i t , a 30.06 BSA h u n t i n g r i f l e t o a p e r s o n , Jack O ' N e i l l , who d i d not at the time of such s e l l i n g , g i v i n g , or d e l i v e r y , produce a f i r e a r m s a c q u i s i t i o n c e r t i f i c a t e f o r i n s p e c t i o n by M u l l i g a n , c o n t r a r y t o the p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 95 (1) (a) of the C r i m i n a l Code. O ' N e i l l was stopped by p o l i c e on t h a t same day f o r a t r a f f i c v i o l a t i o n . When q u e s t i o n e d about the r i f l e i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n , O ' N e i l l was unable t o produce a f i r e a r m s a c q u i s i t i o n c e r t i f i c a t e . He c l a i m e d t o have purchased the r i f l e from a f a t c l e r k i n h i s m i d - t h i r t i e s a t Acme Gun Company and t h a t the c l e r k never mentioned a n y t h i n g about a c e r t i f i c a t e . The p o l i c e q u e s t i o n e d a l l the employees of Acme and c o n c l u d e d t h a t M u l l i g a n was the o n l y one who f i t t e d the d e s c r i p t i o n g i v e n by O ' N e i l l . They f u r t h e r d e t e r m i n e d t h a t w h i l e t h e r e was a s t o c k r e c o r d f o r the r i f l e i n q u e s t i o n , t h e r e was no r e c o r d of i t s s a l e . M u l l i g a n e l e c t e d t r i a l by Judge and j u r y . At h i s p r e l i m i n a r y i n q u i r y he appeared w i t h o u t c o u n s e l . At the c o n c l u s i o n of the e v i d e n c e by the Crown, and when asked by the P r o v i n c i a l Court Judge i f he wished t o say a n y t h i n g , M u l l i g a n r e p l i e d t h a t he i s o n l y one of s e v e r a l c l e r k s who s e l l guns a t Acme. He s a i d t h a t s i n c e the law had changed on the 1st of January 1979 he has never s o l d a f i r e a r m w i t h o u t r e q u i r i n g t h a t both a c e r t i f i c a t e and some o t h e r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n be produced. He m a i n t a i n e d t h a t he d i d not s e l l a f i r e a r m t o O ' N e i l l and, ind e e d , had never met him. APPENDIX F Operationalizat ion of Condition Four 111 CASE 4 John M u l l i g a n , who r e s i d e s on East 21st Avenue i n the c i t y of Vancouver, i s a f a t 35 year o l d r e t a i l c l e r k employed a t the Acme Gun Company. On December 11, 1981 he was charged w i t h s e l l i n g , g i v i n g , or d e l i v e r y of a f i r e a r m , t o w i t , a 30.06 BSA h u n t i n g r i f l e t o a p e r s o n , Jack O ' N e i l l , who d i d not a t the time of such s e l l i n g , g i v i n g , or d e l i v e r y , produce a f i r e a r m s a c q u i s i t i o n c e r t i f i c a t e f o r i n s p e c t i o n by M u l l i g a n , c o n t r a r y t o the p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 95 (1) (a) of the C r i m i n a l Code. O ' N e i l l was stopped by p o l i c e on t h a t same day f o r a t r a f f i c v i o l a t i o n . When q u e s t i o n e d about the r i f l e i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n , O ' N e i l l was unable t o produce a f i r e a r m s a c q u i s i t i o n c e r t i f i c a t e . He c l a i m e d t o have purchased the r i f l e from a f a t c l e r k i n h i s m i d - t h i r t i e s a t Acme Gun Company and t h a t the c l e r k never mentioned a n y t h i n g about a c e r t i f i c a t e . The p o l i c e q u e s t i o n e d a l l the employees of Acme and c o n c l u d e d t h a t M u l l i g a n was the o n l y one who f i t t e d the d e s c r i p t i o n g i v e n by O ' N e i l l . They f u r t h e r d e t e r m i n e d t h a t w h i l e t h e r e was a s t o c k r e c o r d f o r the r i f l e i n q u e s t i o n , t h e r e was no r e c o r d of i t s s a l e . M u l l i g a n e l e c t e d t r i a l by Judge and j u r y . At h i s p r e l i m i n a r y i n q u i r y he appeared w i t h o u t c o u n s e l . At the c o n c l u s i o n of the e v i d e n c e by the Crown, and when asked by the P r o v i n c i a l C ourt Judge i f he wished t o say .anything, M u l l i g a n r e p l i e d t h a t he i s o n l y one of s e v e r a l c l e r k s who s e l l guns a t Acme. He s a i d t h a t s i n c e the law had changed on the 1st of January 1979 he has never s o l d a f i r e a r m w i t h o u t r e q u i r i n g t h a t both a c e r t i f i c a t e and some o t h e r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n be produced. He a d m i t t e d s e l l i n g the f i r e a r m t o o ' N e i l l , but m a i n t a i n e d t h a t O ' N e i l l had shown him a c e r t i f i c a t e and another p i e c e of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . F u r t h e r , he i n s i s t e d t h a t he had r e c o r d e d the s a l e and cannot u n d e r s t a n d why t h e r e i s no r e c o r d . APPENDIX G F i e l d Experiment Interview Schedule 1 1 3 FIELD EXPERIMENT INTERVIEW SCHEDULE I n t r o d u c t i o n As I mentioned in my l e t t e r , what I would l i k e to d i s c u s s with you i s the s u b j e c t of j u r y s e l e c t i o n . In order to focus the d i s c u s s i o n to some extent I have prepared a few q u e s t i o n s . Perhaps we c o u l d begin though by my t e l l i n g you what I have done so f a r . To date I have read a great d e a l of the e x i s t i n g l i t e r a t u r e on j u r y s e l e c t i o n . As you may be aware, much of i t i s s p e c u l a t i v e and has not been v e r i f i e d . In order to develop our understanding of j u r y s e l e c t i o n I then went out i n t o the f i e l d and i n t e r v i e w e d a number of lawyers from both the Crown and the defence. F o l l o w i n g t h i s I put together a number of ideas that I want to t e s t more thoroughly. Which b r i n g s me to what I would l i k e to accomplish today. F i r s t , I would l i k e to ask you a few q u e s t i o n s about your views on j u r y s e l e c t i o n . Then, I would l i k e you to read a short f a c t p a t t e r n f o r a h y p o t h e t i c a l t r i a l . F o l l o w i n g t h i s I w i l l g i ve you a set of cards that d e s c r i b e p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s f o r t h i s case and I would l i k e you to s o r t the deck a c c o r d i n g to who you would accept f o r j u r o r s and who you would not. In doing so I do not want you to f e e l c o n s t r a i n e d by what the law i s today; you may accept or r e j e c t as many of these j u r o r s as you l i k e . What I intend to do with the i n f o r m a t i o n i s to make g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s about what lawyers think concerning the i s s u e s r a i s e d . Any statements that I make w i l l , t h e r e f o r e , be about lawyers in general and not about you p e r s o n a l l y . Your responses w i l l be kept c o n f i d e n t i a l . Should you not wish to answer a q u e s t i o n j u s t l e t me know and we w i l l move on to the next one. A l s o , i f you at any time want to d i s c o n t i n u e the i n t e r v i e w please l e t me know and we w i l l stop. Do you have any q u e s t i o n s before we s t a r t ? 1 1 4 When c o n s i d e r i n g whether or not to use a peremptory c h a l l e n g e (or stand a s i d e ) , what c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the person i n q u e s t i o n are of importance to your d e c i s i o n ? How are these f a c t o r s important? What s o r t of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s do you regard as unimportant? What about the type of case; does the issue i n v o l v e d have an e f f e c t on whom you would c h a l l e n g e (or stand a s i d e ) ? What about the defendant; i s there anything about t h i s person that c o u l d a f f e c t your d e c i s i o n to c h a l l e n g e (or stand aside) someone? Are there any other f a c t o r s that you f e e l a f f e c t your d e c i s i o n to make use of a c h a l l e n g e (or stand a s i d e ) ? Are there any d i f f e r e n c e s between the s o r t of j u r o r that defence counsel choose and those p r e f e r r e d by Crown counsel? If yes, what are the d i f f e r e n c e s and how would you account for them? 1 1 5 Now I would l i k e t o ask you some q u e s t i o n s about the c h o i c e s you have j u s t made. 6. How would you e x p l a i n your c h o i c e s ? Do you see a b a s i c d i f f e r e n c e between th o s e a c c e p t e d and those not? 7. I s i t your i m p r e s s i o n t h a t the people you a c c e p t e d are more l i k e l y t o ta k e a l e n i e n t ( s t r i c t f o r Crown c o u n s e l ) view i n t h i s case than those you d i d not a c c e p t ? I f y e s , what f e a t u r e s of these i n d i v i d u a l s c r e a t e d t h i s i m p r e s s i o n ? 8. Are t h e r e any o t h e r f a c t o r s t h a t a f f e c t e d your c h o i c e s ? I f y e s , what a r e they and how d i d they a f f e c t your c h o i c e s ? 9. D i d you f e e l t h a t the case summary I asked you t o read was t y p i c a l of j u r y c a s e s , or was i t unusual i n some way? I f u n u s u a l , p l e a s e e x p l a i n . 10. D i d the f a c t p a t t e r n p r o v i d e you w i t h a s u f f i c i e n t amount of i n f o r m a t i o n on which t o base your c h o i c e s ? I f no, what i n f o r m a t i o n was m i s s i n g ? THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP APPENDIX H S t a t i s t i c a l l y I n s i g n i f i c a n t R e s u l t s Table I. Proportion of Jurors Accepted by Crown Counsel Jurors' Ethnicity by Condition Experimental Condition Case Case Case Case Jurors' One Two Three Four Ethnic i t y B r i t i s h 0.67 0.53 0.97 0.90 (30) (30) (30) (30) German 0.67 0.63 0.90 0.93 (30) (30) (30) (30) Scandinavian 0.80 0.60 0.88 0.96 (25) (25) (25) (25) Chinese 0.71 0.54 0.86 0.94 (35) (35) (35) (35) Jewi sh 0.77 0.70 1 .00 0.97 (30) (30) (30) (30) Lat in 0.63 0.47 0.93 0.87 (30) (30) (30) (30) I t a l i a n 0.91 0.51 1 .00 0.97 (35) (35) (35) (35) I r i s h 0.74 0.60 0. 94 0.94 (35) (35) (35) (35) Main Ef f e c t s Jurors' Ethnicity - F=1.9, p=0.08 Condition - F=55.1 p<0.0! Two-Way Interaction - F=0.74, p=0.79 1 18 Table I I I . Proportion of Jurors Accepted by Crown Counsel by Jurors' Gender by Condition Experimental Condition Case Case Case Case Jurors' One Two Three Four Gender Male 0.76 0.54 0.91 0.92 (140) (140) (140) (140) Female 0.72 0.62 0.96 0.95 (110) (110) (110) (110) Main Effects Jurors' Gender - F=1.75, p=0.l9 Condition - F=55.2, p<0.0l Two-Way Interaction - F=1.16, p=0.32 Table IV. Proportion of Jurors Accepted by Defence Counsel by Jurors' Gender by Condition Experimental Condition Case Case Case Case Jurors' One Two Three Four Gender Male 0.31 0.40 0.25 0.42 (140) (140) (140) (140) Female 0.25 0.26 0.22 0.50 (110) (110) (110) (110) Main Effects Jurors' Gender - F=1.65, p=0.20 Condition - F=10.7, p<0.0l Two-Way Interaction - F=2.29, p=0.08 Table IX. Proportion of Jurors Accepted by Crown Counsel by Jurors' Prior Experience by Condition Jurors' Experience None Previous Duty Case One 0.78 (180) 0.64 (70) Experimental Condition Case Two 0.57 (180) 0.57 (70) Case Three 0.93 (180) 0.96 (70) Case Four 0.93 (180) 0.96 (70) Main Effects Jurors' Experience - F=0.54, p=0.46 Condition - F=55.3, p<0.0l Two-Way Interaction - F=2.2, p=0.08 Table XI. Proportion of Jurors Accepted Jurors' Physical Appearance by Condition by Crown Counsel by Exper imental Condit ion Case Case Case Case Jurors' One Two Three Four Appearance Thin 0.71 0.52 0.94 0.95 (85) (85) (85) (85) Average 0.75 0.66 0.89 0.91 (85) (85) (85) (85) Fat 0.76 0.54 0.97 0.95 (80) (80) (80) (80) Main Effects Jurors' Appearance - F=0.51, p=0.60 Condition - F=55.3, p<0.0! Two-Way Interaction - F=1.66, p=0.13 Table XII. Proportion of Jurors Accepted by Defence Counsel by Jurors' Physical Appearance by Condition Exper imental Condition Case Case Case Case Jurors' One Two Three Four Appearance Thin 0.29 0.38 0.28 0.42 (85) (85) (85) (85) Average 0.26 0.31 0.19 0.47 (85) (85) (85) (85) Fat 0.29 0.34 0.24 0.47 (80) (80) (80) (80) Main Effects Jurors' Appearance - F=0.62, p=0.54 Condition - F=10.6, p<0.0! Two-Way Interaction - F=0.40, p=0.88 Table XV. Proportion of Jurors Accepted by Crown Counsel by Jurors' Social Status by Condition Jurors' Social Status Case One Experimental Condition Case Two Case Three Case Four Low 0.77 0.45 0. 94 0.89 (65) (65) (65) (65) Medium 0.68 0.63 0. 92 0.94 (120) (120) (1 20) (120) High 0.82 0.60 0. 95 0.97 (65) (65) (65) (65) Main Effects Jurors' ' Status - F = 2.46, p=0.08 Condition - F=55 .7, p<0. 01 Two-Way Interaction - F=2.2, p=0.04 Table XVII. Proportion of Jurors Accepted by Crown Counsel by Jurors' S i m i l a r i t y to the Accused Case Jurors' One S i m i l a r i t y None 0.80 (10) One 0.78 (65) Experimental Condition Case Case Case Two Three Four 0.70 0.90 1 .00 (10) (10) (10) 0.60 0.95 0.97 (65) (65) (65) Two 0.70 0.58 0.92 0.93 (90) ;• (90) (90) (90) Three 0.67 0. 56 0.91 0.91 (55) (55) (55) (55) Four 0.85 0.50 1 .00 0.90 (20) (20) (20) (20) F i ve 0.90 0.40 1 .00 0.90 (10) (10) (10) (10) Main Effects Jurors' S i m i l a r i t y - F=0.98, p=0.42 Condition - F=53.8, p<0.0! Two-Way Interaction - F=0.75, p=0.70 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095730/manifest

Comment

Related Items