Please complete attached from using my research to provide a project justication. Example is provided to guide. 

1

ADPProject Justification Template (PJT)

Revised 5/8/2018

Student name: Jane Doe

Program: Doctor of Psychology (Psy. D.)
Specialization: Criminology and Justice Studies

Working title: Dual Diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Substance Abuse in War Veterans: An Analysis of Treatment Options and the Factors Affecting their Success

Draft version:

Date:

ADP Planning I/II instructor review:

Approved; may proceed with chair and committee solicitation.

Changes requested; must revise and resubmit. Resubmission must include a change

matrix that includes the instructor comments and how each comment was addressed in the revision.

Beginning on the following page, please complete the following sections in this template, using black, 12-point font. Please address all requested content.

· Justification Statement

· Purpose Statement

· Importance of the Study

· Proposed Project Approach

· Over-arching Study Question(s)/Statement of Project Intent

· References (formatted according to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, sixth edition)

Justification Statement: Provide sufficient background of the topic area and its relationship to the discipline or field of study that supports the need for, or opportunity to, conduct the proposed project. Describe the issue, situation, problem or opportunity that reinforces the need to implement the study, supported by recent citations from the literature. Briefly explain how the intended outcomes of the project could be used to advance knowledge, understanding or practice in the discipline or field of study. (2-3 paragraphs)

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is characterized by recurring symptoms of distress felt after an exposure to a traumatic event (Masters, 2018). Veterans with PTSD may have intense and vivid flashbacks to the original traumatic event; in addition, they may feel as if they are reliving the event as well as experience sadness, anger, and detachment or estrangement from others (Cooper et al., 2016). Additional PTSD symptoms include significant changes in attitudes and beliefs, changes in personality, hyperarousal, anxiety, paranoia, depression, and increased suicide ideation (Bowe & Rosenheck, 2014).

Military veterans who are exposed to combat have a higher risk of experiencing PTSD (Steinman, Hunter, & Teachman, 2013). Nemeroff and Marmar (2018) found that every year, approximately 11–20% of veterans who served in the middle eastern Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, 12% of Gulf War veterans, and 15–30% of the Vietnam War veterans experienced PTSD. Miles, Graham, and Teng (2015) stated that Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) often accompanies PTSD for many veterans and that it co-occurs with substance abuse. Furthermore, evidence of the comorbidity of PTSD, TBI, and substance abuse is well-documented in health and academic research (Acierno, 2016; Karlin et al., 2010; Miles et al., 2015). However, mental health providers continue to struggle to identify the most effective practice-based treatments for veteran patients with a dual diagnosis of PTSD and substance abuse (Bowe & Rosenheck, 2014; Najavits, Krinsley, Waring, Gallagher, & Skidmore, 2018). Currently, research on the treatment of veterans with a dual diagnosis of PTSD and substance abuse is being conducted at many levels, such as federally funded projects, universities, hospitals, and practitioner organizations (Clees, 2018).

From 2010 to 2019, war has pushed PTSD to the forefront of public health concerns (Karlin et al., 2010). Veterans suffering from PTSD have a higher risk of other health issues than the general population as well as face unique barriers such as inconvenient scheduling, as well as a lack of accessible transportation to and from clinics to access adequate treatment (Bowe & Rosenheck, 2014; Miles et al., 2015). There is a need for a systematic review of the published academic literature covering successful treatment methods and outcomes for veterans with a dual diagnosis of PTSD and substance abuse. Such a review would help practitioners make treatment decisions for their patients as well as aid researchers in their analysis of the treatment modality of veterans with a dual diagnosis of PTSD and substance abuse.

Purpose Statement: Provide a specific, accurate synopsis of the overall purpose of the project. Align the Purpose Statement to the Justification Statement. In one concise paragraph, succinctly describe the focus, project approach, scope, and intended outcomes of the study. (1 paragraph)

The purpose of this project is to conduct a study on why veterans with PTSD do not follow through with treatment. To date, no exploration or unified presentation of effective treatment methods for a dual diagnosis of PTSD and substance abuse in the combat veteran population exists (Berke et al., 2019). The current inequality in access to proper mental health treatment services faced by returning U.S. veterans echoes the variations in access to quality mental health services experienced by the general population (Clees, 2018). Both researchers and practitioners have voiced a need for the identification of effective treatment methods (Bowe & Rosenheck, 2014; Miles et al., 2015). The scope of this research will be limited to journal articles published in academic peer-reviewed publications between 2010 and 2019; such research includes the results of treatment or intervention for veterans with a dual diagnosis of PTSD and substance abuse (Marshall et al., 2019).

Importance of the Project: Briefly describe the importance of the proposed project, including how the project represents a unique approach to the topic, how results may contribute to theory, knowledge and/or practice in the discipline, and the implications of the study to scholars and practitioners. Identify any knowledge gaps to be addressed by the proposed project. (1-2 paragraphs)

Since 2010, veterans who serve in active combat experience PTSD (Charney et al., 2018). As much as 11–20% of the veterans who served in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom are diagnosed with PTSD; this percentage rises to 30% of veterans from other military operations such as Desert Storm and the Vietnam War (Waltman, 2015). Many veterans have received a dual diagnosis of PTSD and substance abuse (Bowe & Rosenheck, 2014; Miles et al., 2015). Despite the large number of veterans with PTSD, there is a dearth of academic literature that reviews and discusses the various approaches taken to treat this population (Berke et al., 2019). Researchers, academicians, and practitioners have all noted that there is a need to compile and review evidence-based, experimental, and quasi-experimentally researched treatment approaches. This should be done to help mental health providers make more informed choices when treating veterans with a dual diagnosis of PTSD and substance abuse (Bowe & Rosenheck, 2015).

This project aims to determine why veterans do not seek treatment. Several factors come into play regarding veterans who do not reach out for treatment. The distance between the veteran and the nearest clinic can be an obstacle to the required mental health treatment (Cooper et al., 2016). Many veterans suspect that something is not right but are not sure what it is; knowing the signs of PTSD can help to promote the timely acquisition of the necessary treatment. Furthermore, veterans who believe they can get better with treatment and who believe that treatment can work are more likely to seek treatment (Cooper et al., 2016). Support from family, friends, and nearby clinics will increase the chances of the veterans getting treatment (Waltman, 2015). Organizations such as the National Center for PTSD are working to educate both veterans and the general population about PTSD to help them make informed decisions (Marshall et al., 2019).

Proposed Project Approach: Briefly describe the approach for the proposed project, including how the project will be conceptualized, organized and implemented, and discuss how the proposed project will reflect accumulated learning from the student’s academic program. Discuss any proposed data collection methodologies and instrumentation, as well as the study population, as appropriate. Describe how project outcomes will be achieved. (2-3 paragraphs)

The approach for this project is a systematic literature review. A systematic literature review is a research methodology where the researcher reviews academic literature on a specific topic; said research consists primarily of articles published in peer-reviewed or open-access journals (Panaite et al., 2018). Systematic literature reviews are usually a standalone research project where the researcher does not gather any primary data and, instead, uses existing academically published literature on a chosen topic as the data in the study.

The project will be conducted in several steps, as recommended by Turgoose, Ashwick, and Murphy (2017). First, the researcher will establish the criteria for article selection. These criteria will include a consideration of the articles that will be included and those that will be excluded from the final analysis and synthesis. Second, the researcher will search for the articles using academic search engines via the university library and other academic search engines, such as Google Scholar. Third, the researcher will evaluate the quality of each article; a decision will then be made as to whether each article should be included in the final synthesis of the results, based on the exclusion and inclusion criteria. Finally, each article will be analyzed, and the results will be synthesized, with the conclusions being provided about best therapy practices for veterans with a dual diagnosis of PTSD and substance abuse.

Writing a literature review is perhaps the best piece of literature that a student can work with because it means the student is already near the end of their final stages in their studies (Lewis, Easterday, Harburg, Gerber, & Riesbeck, 2017). In a literature review, the student refers to sections of articles. This aspect of a research paper is designed to assess the student’s level of skill and understanding of the subject. Keeping aside the purpose of writing down how much one knows, writing the literature review is mostly aimed at researching previous works and studies that are related to the student’s field of research (Lewis et al., 2017). A systematic literature review is one of the best literature reviews to write because it focuses on critically analyzing the work done by previous authors (Lewis et al., 2017).

Over-arching Study Question(s)/Statement of Project Intent: Present the over-arching study question(s) or statement of project intent to be addressed, consistent with the proposed Purpose Statement and project approach. If hypotheses will be tested, identify the specific quantitative research questions and hypotheses, as well. (1 paragraph)

Study Question 1: Which therapeutic techniques reported by mental health practitioners in the academic literature have been the most effective at treating veterans who have a dual diagnosis of PTSD and substance abuse?

Study Question 2: Why do veterans who have a dual diagnosis of PTSD and substance abuse decline treatment?

The research questions will help to identify the reason veterans who have served in the military decline treatment. As stated in the purpose statement, these will help manage and conduct a study on why veterans with a dual diagnosis of PTSD and substance abuse do not follow through with treatment. Male veterans are less likely to receive proper care compared to female veterans (Turgoose et al., 2017). Furthermore, this also includes veterans less than 25 years old who received their PTSD treatment from care clinics that refers them to a mental health program and those living in areas away from cities (Hundt et al., 2018). One of the benefits of performing the systematic literature review is that it will quickly indicate which authors have researched extensively to procure information and have written the most on the topic and are, therefore, probably experts on the topic (Turgoose et al., 2017).

References: List and cite a minimum of 10 sources that support and reinforce justification of the project.

References

Berke, D. S., Yeterian, J., Presseau, C., Rusowicz-Orazem, L., Kline, N. K., Nash, W. P., & Litz, B.T. (2019). Dynamic changes in marines’ reports of PTSD symptoms and problem alcohol use across the deployment cycle. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 33(2), 162–170. doi:10.1037/adb0000430

Bowe, A., & Rosenheck, R. (2015). PTSD and substance use disorder among veterans: Characteristics, service utilization and pharmacotherapy. Journal of Dual Diagnosis, 11(1), 22–32, doi: 10.1080/15504263.2014.989653

Charney, M. E., Bui, E., Sager, J. C., Ohye, B. Y., Goetter, E. M., & Simon, N. M. (2018). Complicated grief among military service members and veterans who served after September 11, 2001. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 31(1), 157-162. doi:10.1002/jts.22254

Clees, J. (2018). Differential diagnosis and treatment of comorbid PTSD and TBI in combat veterans. UF Journal of Undergraduate Research, 20(1), 11–22. doi:10.32473/ufjur.v20i1.106242

Cooper, D. C., Helfrich, C. D., Thielke, S. M., Trivedi, R. B., Nelson, K. M., Reiber, G. E., . . . Fan, V. S. (2016). Association between mental health staffing level and primary care-mental health integration level on provision of depression care in veteran’s affairs medical facilities. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 45(1), 131-141. doi:10.1007/s10488-016-0775-9

Hundt, N. E., Helm, A., Smith, T. L., Lamkin, J., Cully, J. A., & Stanley, M. A. (2018). Failure to engage: A qualitative study of veterans who decline evidence-based psychotherapies for PTSD. Psychological Services, 15(4), 536-542. doi:10.1037/ser0000212

Karlin, B. E., Ruzek, J. I., Chard, K. M., Eftekhari, A., Monson, C. M., Hembree, E. A., . . . Foa, E. B. (2010). Dissemination of evidence-based psychological treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder in the Veterans Health Administration. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 23(6), 663–673. doi:10.1002/jts.20588

Lewis, D. G., Easterday, M. W., Harburg, E., Gerber, E. M., & Riesbeck, C. K. (2017). Overcoming barriers between volunteer professionals advising project-based learning teams with regulation tools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(3), 354-369. doi:10.1111/bjet.12550

Marshall, G. N., Jaycox, L. H., Engel, C. C., Richardson, A. S., Dutra, S. J., Keane, T. M., . . . Marx, B. P. (2019). PTSD symptoms are differentially associated with general distress and physiological arousal: Implications for the conceptualization and measurement of PTSD. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 62, 26–34. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2018.10.003

Masters, K. J. (2018). Post-traumatic stress disorder in combat veterans. Journal of the American Academy of Physician Assistants, 31(11), 11-22. doi:10.1097/01.jaa.0000546487.96721.81

Miles, S. R., Graham, D. P., & Teng, E. J. (2015). Examining the influence of mild traumatic brain injury and posttraumatic stress disorder on alcohol use disorder in OEF/OIF veterans. Military Medicine, 180(1), 45–52. doi:

10.7205/milmed-d-14-00187

.

Najavits, L. M., Krinsley, K., Waring, M. E., Gallagher, M. W., & Skidmore, C. (2018). A randomized controlled trial for veterans with PTSD and substance use disorder: Creating change versus seeking safety. Substance Use & Misuse, 53(11), 1788–1800.

Panaite, V., Brown, R., Henry, M., Garcia, A., Powell-Cope, G., Vanderploeg, R. D., & Belanger, H. G. (2018). Post-deployment mental health screening: A systematic review of current evidence and future directions. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 45(6), 850–875. doi:10.1007/s10488-018-0869-7

Steinman, S. A., Hunter, M. D., & Teachman, B. A. (2013). Do patterns of change during treatment for panic disorder predict future panic symptoms? Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 44(2), 150–157. doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2012.09.003

Turgoose, D., Ashwick, R., & Murphy, D. (2017). Systematic review of lessons learned from delivering tele-therapy to veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 24(9), 575-585. doi:10.1177/1357633×17730443

Waltman, S. H. (2015). Functional analysis in differential diagnosis. Clinical Case Studies, 14(6), 422–433. doi:10.1177/1534650115571003

1

ADP Project Justification Template (PJT)

Student name: Matthew Rosario

Program: Doctor of Psychology (Psy. D.) Specialization: Criminology and Justice Studies

Working title: Dual Diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Substance Abuse in War Veterans: An Analysis of Treatment Options and the Factors Affecting their Success

Draft version: Date:

ADP Planning I/II instructor review:

|_| Approved; may proceed with chair and committee solicitation.

|_| Changes requested; must revise and resubmit. Resubmission must include a change

matrix that includes the instructor comments and how each comment was addressed in the revision.

Beginning on the following page, please complete the following sections in this template, using black, 12-point font. Please address all requested content.

· Justification Statement

· Purpose Statement

· Importance of the Study

· Proposed Project Approach

· Over-arching Study Question(s)/Statement of Project Intent

· References (formatted according to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, sixth edition)

Justification Statement: Provide sufficient background of the topic area and its relationship to the discipline or field of study that supports the need for, or opportunity to, conduct the proposed project. Describe the issue, situation, problem or opportunity that reinforces the need to implement the study, supported by recent citations from the literature. Briefly explain how the intended outcomes of the project could be used to advance knowledge, understanding or practice in the discipline or field of study. (2-3 paragraphs)

Purpose Statement: Provide a specific, accurate synopsis of the overall purpose of the project. Align the Purpose Statement to the Justification Statement. In one concise paragraph, succinctly describe the focus, project approach, scope, and intended outcomes of the study. (1 paragraph)

Importance of the Project: Briefly describe the importance of the proposed project, including how the project represents a unique approach to the topic, how results may contribute to theory, knowledge and/or practice in the discipline, and the implications of the study to scholars and practitioners. Identify any knowledge gaps to be addressed by the proposed project. (1-2 paragraphs)

Proposed Project Approach: Briefly describe the approach for the proposed project, including how the project will be conceptualized, organized and implemented, and discuss how the proposed project will reflect accumulated learning from the student’s academic program. Discuss any proposed data collection methodologies and instrumentation, as well as the study population, as appropriate. Describe how project outcomes will be achieved. (2-3 paragraphs)

Over-arching Study Question(s)/Statement of Project Intent: Present the over-arching study question(s) or statement of project intent to be addressed, consistent with the proposed Purpose Statement and project approach. If hypotheses will be tested, identify the specific quantitative research questions and hypotheses, as well. (1 paragraph)

References: List and cite a minimum of 10 sources that support and reinforce justification of the project.

Running head: CONTEMPORARY THEMES

1

CONTEMPORARY THEMES 7

Contemporary Themes in Forensic Psychology

Matthew M. Rosario

University of the Rockies

Abstract

Combining the contemporary theme of law and psychology in practical and professional literature allowed practitioner in the field to gain information to advance the understanding of behavioral analysis and mental illness in criminals. Criminology and psychology have become the practitioner of understanding the relationship between behavior and law. It can be speculated through the themes and topic engaged in the community of forensic psychology. Reconceptualizing the understanding of psychology and law through the notion of victim and offender can allow a preplanned response before a crime has happened. In other words, the social and legal gap derives from a system which only sees the position of the crime and ignores the psychological differences within the crime. This paper will give in insights on my final paper and the development of some forensic psychology topic and theories.

Contemporary Themes in Forensic Psychology

Forensic Psychology is a new and developing academic and professional career that has become one of the leading professions in today society. Combining the contemporary theme of law and psychology in practical and professional literature allowed practitioner in the field to gain information to advance the understanding of behavioral analysis and mental illness in criminals. Identifying some contemporary themes and topic prepared in recent research which contributed to the study of the field of forensic psychology are sociopathic behavior and narcissistic personality disorder. The development of these psychological disorders are just not related to crime, but the first response to prevent crimes of individuals with mental illness. Understanding not just the behavior, but the biology behind the behavior and applying it to the understanding of the law in the criminal justice systems leads to the profound social and legal gap between mentally ill individuals. In other words, the social and legal gap derives from a system which only sees the position of the crime and ignores the psychological differences within the crime. Being able to minimize the gap between both legal and psychology allows the development and knowledge of the psychological makeup between two individual who has different biological makers and environmental influence to support or persuade an action of a crime to be committed though possible manipulation.

Sociopathic behavior has a relationship with evolutionary growth and design of the brain. Individuals’ essential feature refers to individuals with anti-social personality disorder in sociopathic behaviors having no regards for other peoples rights (Mohl, 2013). The focus of sociopathic behavior manifested in the violations of others rights by displaying forms of disrespect and no acknowledgment of their unlawful behaviors (Mohl, 2013). Some signs of sociopathic behaviors are aggressive activates, lying, evasion, and repeated theft (Mohl, 2013). This is not always the case and does not mean that every person who communicates these crimes are classified as sociopaths. The information can sometimes be confusing, but other factors play into the behavior such as being impulsive, recklessness and displaying anti-social personality disorder. Some signs of anti-social personality disorder are lack of fidelity, loyalty and the inability to develop an interpersonal relationship with other. There is a tendency to focus just on the behavioral profile of the sociopathic concepts, but other influences have to consider such as the socialization and etiology of genetic and environmental influences (Mohl, 2013). Moreover, the interactions within the integrated complexities of social stability and social network influences and modifies the consistency of young adults risk for committing crimes early on. This is troubling because according to Mohl (2013), individuals cannot be classified as sociopaths until the age of 18 which brings the question what facet early on can identify sociopathic behavior.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder is the social network between the socialization process expressed in various degree of severity (Ohk, Joo, Park, Yang, 2017). It is conceptualized as the exaggerated perception of oneself which can cause abnormal behaviors in social relations (Ohk et al., 2017). The abnormal behavior derived from receiving positive feedback during social events which can lead to aggressive behavior to others judgment and feedback. In recent years Ohk et al., (2017) researched the effects of social media which resulted in the founding of people with more than 5,000 falls under having a narcissistic personality by allowing social media to disrupt their life. The conceptual understanding of a Narcissistic behavior can be a contributing factor the criminal activity in order to adhere or influence other perception of their self. Examining the information of social behavior allows the internal repression of anger caused by sensitivity expressed and formed based on self-expression and feeling important. Therefore, the ability to have recognition is significant for a narcissist to process there importance and relevancy in a social setting or even in a criminal setting. Being accepted and liked can influence one’s ability to take the necessary action to receive the positive judgment from others.

Criminology and psychology have become the practitioner of understanding the relationship between behavior and law. It can be speculated through the themes and topic engaged in the community of forensic psychology. Reconceptualizing the understanding of psychology and law through the notion of victim and offender can allow a preplanned response before a crime has happened. According to Venales, Hall, Patrick (2014), anti-social behavior can lead to homicides through serial crimes. More specifically, criminological theory and recurring condition of the behavior of crime can lead to serial crimes and murders. The ideological concept of crime and psychology allows the study of forensic psychology and how the law can contribute or harm in rehabilitating mental ill individuals. The themes of behavior in direct correlation with sociopath and narcissist behavior allow the practitioner to research and investigate crimes and the position of the court in solving and rehabilitating these individuals. In addition, the practitioner is engaged in these topics because according to Venales et al., (2014) states that 90 percent of our prisons are filled with people who have the psychopathic trait and are psychopaths. There it is speculated in order to reduce personnel in prisons we must first understand how criminals think and what led to the action of the law created to keep good order and discipline. The answer cannot always be to separate them from society but to create treatment and have an understanding of the disorder.

There are many contemporary challenges that confront practitioners in the field of forensic psychology. Some challenges practitioners will have will be the written letter of the law. In other words, in recent years Lubaszka and Shon (2013) state the most difficult part of a trail is proving a theory in law when the fact is only allowed. Speculating is not allowed, and theory must be proven by science. This can be difficult because many psychological theories are a concept in development that may not have a lot of support factor at the time because of science is always evolving. In order to improve the service to clients or advance the understanding of practitioners in the field, there should be a law created to protect and govern the information a psychology professional put out in a courtroom. For example, the Rule of Evidence 702 guidelines helps psychology professional understand the rules of evidence in regards to information allowed and not allowed in court. As a scholar-practitioner, it would be good to know how to become a certified expert witness and having information that explains step by step. One of the issues being faced is after obtaining the degree what else is need to be classified as an expert witness. Having more resources at the graduate level showing the steps need to become a forensic psychologist and expert witness would be beneficial. Even reaching out the many professors it is still unclear on the step to take.

The topic that I would like to pursue in this class is to investigate further the assessments used to classify the understanding of criminal intent in psychopathic and sociopathic facets in the criminal justice system. I have been working on this research topic for over 4 years now, and I would like to come up with better ideas and to investigate further on the determining factors of going on trial with crimes psychopathic and sociopathic individual commit. In the same on how we charge children under seven with murder but cannot classify them as psychopathic and sociopathic until the age of 18. I understand that these are two topics, but I am really interested in understanding how the court system found a verdict of guilty for people with these facets.

References

Lubaszka, C. K., & Shon, P. C. (2013). Reconceptualizing the notion of victim selection, risk,

and offender behavior in healthcare serial murders. Journal of Criminal Psychology, 3(1),

65-78.doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy-

campuslibrary.rockies.edu/10.1108/20093821311307776

Mohl, A. S. (2013). Sociopathic behavior and its relationship to psychohistory. The Journal of

Psychohistory, 41(1), 2-13. Retrieved from

https://search-proquest-

com.proxy-

campuslibrary.rockies.edu/docview/1412594700?accountid=39364

Ohk, K., Joo, S., Park, K., & Yang, H. K. (2017). The effect of NPD on social network formation

and information sharing behavior 1. International Information Institute

(Tokyo).Information, 20(8), 6055-6062. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-

com.proxy-campuslibrary.rockies.edu/docview/2020459110?accountid=39364

Venables, N. C., Hall, J. R., & Patrick, C. J. (2014). Differentiating psychopathy from antisocial

personality disorder: A triarchic model perspective. Psychological Medicine, 44(5), 1005-

13. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy-campuslibrary.rockies.edu/10.1017/S003329171300161X

Running head: JUROR SUGGESTIBILITY 1

JUROR SUGGESTIBILITY 24

Juror Suggestibility Verdict

Matthew M. Rosario

University of the Rockies

Juror Suggestibility Verdict

Problem Statement

There are many general conclusions on jury selection and the examination of information based on gender and individual biases due to developmental and environmental influences. There is very little research that examines the effect of personality inventories determination on juries’ selection. The perceptions of jury selection are based on the process of “Vior Dire” which gives the opportunity for lawyers to ask a question to the jury pool and dismiss the jury for cause if the lawyer feels that jury can hurt their case. Also, according to Eigenbery, McGuffe, Iles, and Garland (2011) during the process of vior dire counsel can excuse jurors in two manners which the council can remove for a cause which requires proof of potential jurors view are bias or challenge for cause which need no reason. While the judge has the right to deny counsel the right to remove for cause if the argument is not substantially the counsel can go around the judge and use one of their peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges are not unlimited and are different from state to state. There have been some empirical studies which demonstrate the mechanism of counsel using these techniques in order to deny some group the right to serve on juries (Eigenbery et al., 2011). In selecting jurors, the process can be impartial to empaneled juries to reduce discrimination and biases within the court process. Potential jurors without reason can relate the court trial and information being delivered to past experiences and intuitions to assist them in their decision-making process which can allow a psychological perspective or lean towards a psychological approach during jury selection to benefit a counsel or client.

Surprisingly there is not much research on personality inventories about jury selection. In other words, the criminal justice systems have been using the same methods to select juries which can reduce biases and ensure a fair trial. What if counsel uses forensic psychologist who understands behavior about the personality and the effects of information or how information will be perceived based on an individual’s personality type during pre-trial selections. Some would argue whether or not this is ethical because counsel and psychologist could manipulate the jury pool to have a more favorable jury on their position. We already do this during the vior dire process during jury selection, all this is adding is an element of the psychological profile within juries to reduce biases and allow a counsel a better opportunity to win their cause. The downfall to this is there both counsels from each position has the opportunity to challenge for cause or use a peremptory challenge, which gives each counsel the opportunity to have their specific type of jurors they are looking for. Enhancing psychological within the criminal justice preceding will traditionally have jury service become more effective for both positions. According to Eigenbery et al. (2011) historically very little social science research has examined the process of jury selection and the influences of jury selection based on counsels position. Due to this, it is important to understand the literature review of the jury selection process to improve the selection theory of juries. More specifically, can personality inventories (Juries suggestibility theory) determine a jury’s verdict based on individual suggestibility and personality type? The purpose of this exploratory study is to address and determine whether or not jurors perceive information based on their suggestibility type (emotional or physical) or personality type (Myers-Byers Personality Test) based on gender role identity. During the process of jury selection, there was little to no research conducted on this topic. In order to understand the criminal justice system in relations to jury process and mata-analysis of the literature review was conducted on the common issue with jury selection such as biases, discrimination, and race-related issues with minorities and majorities. Finally, this study will address antagonistic attitudes towards forensic psychologist being used in the criminal justice system to advise counsel on jury selection strategies through mock trial and physical and emotional profiling of the information in each case being provided

Research Question

How does a juror’s suggestibility state (Emotional or Physical) affect their verdict during a murder trial?

Literature Review

The criminal defendant to trial by an impartial jury is a part of the U.S. Constitution which entitles all rights. According to Rose (2008) during jury selection questioning (voir dire), trial judges are required to evaluate each juror on whether or not they can evaluate evidence and can make a decision with an open mind. This can be difficult because there has been evidence presented that prior beliefs and experience influence perceptions. The diversity of background is interchangeable depending on demographic and factors such as personal strength and ability to stay open. In contrast, this is not always the case due to attitudes and beliefs which are formed in the unconscious mind leading to unacceptable bias (Rose, 2008).

In many cases judge are obligate to excuse the prospective juror because of biases because of this, it is hard to say if a judge is trained to see this behavior. Also, judges ask jurors to report their assessment of their ability to stand a fair trial (Rose, 2008). Giving the ability to honest assessment early on can be beneficial, but it is hard to know whether or not a jury will have an honest self-assessment on their ability to stand a fair trial. Many individuals with biases are not always honest with themselves because of the environment they were raised and developed in. There has been much empirical literature which addresses the stages of jury selection and the attorney choice to remove jurors or keep jurors for the trial. To determine vior dire and self-assessment of fairness during selection procedures if juror’s background or attitudes raise any flags or relevant life experiences are associated with past crimes they will b,e removed from jury duty(Rose, 2008). The issue with this is that one of the contributing factors within the assessment stage is the juror’s report about their characteristics. Even with having some background from the juror is the only individuals who make these assessments on their behavior are judges and lawyers during voir dire.

There is no professional such as a forensic psychologist or clinical psychologist recommending the juror behavior or possible lack of opened mindfulness the case. It is the duty of the juror only to focus on the evidence, but it has been proven that being open minded can be hard for the average person because of associations within the world (Rose, 2008). Another part to this is the credibility of juror’s self-assessment and the judge coming with a conclusion on if the juror is being not modest about their capabilities nor claiming bias. The judge usually asked many follow up questions in order to feel conformable with the juror (Rose, 2008). A different type of credibility assessment is conduct with a juror who says they can be fair to determine if they are lying and will be impartial to the case. More specifically, many of this assessment are detailed with the possibility of using behavioral science to understand how to choose an unbiased juror properly. According to Rose (2008), voir dire provides several reasons to be concerned about the quality of juror claiming fairness because it relies on a self-assessment report of the jurors past and influential factors which can be unknown if the juror decides not to provide.

In contrast, the design of voir dire provides question often convey social desirability which may influence how the juror may answer the question (Rose, 2008). Therefore, the confidence and perceived juror competence suggest that even though judges have the discretion to overrule the juror’s self-assessment. Rose (2005) reported that 13 felony trials prospective juror who stated they would be fair was dismissed for cause, in contrast, 14 jurors in a death penalty trial found that the judge’s questions led them to express greater openness to applying the death penalty than their initial answers. Therefore, it can be concluded that judges can influence bias if the question leads to the factor lead to a suggestible state of agreeableness with the judging perspective.

The presumption of equal competence constitutes essential to serving as a juror. The capability of incompetence to presumed to be equal and the scoop of applicability for all jurors (Schwartzberg, 2018). The competence of judgment is part of a secured designed to enable juror to understand testimony and participate in deliberations but no means to have them be expert in the field or case being held. Moreover, juries must be able to follow the judge’s instructions and are deemed competent, though analyzing conflicting testimony but will surely vary depending on each case. Unfortunately, the liability of the presumptions of equal competences is implausible because equal competences cannot be proven and are subjective based on the information being interrupted by the jurors receiving the information. According to Schwartzberg (2008), it was believed that juries systematically empaneled the incompetent and rendered just verdicts by jurors are not just verdict because all competencies are equal and all verdicts should be held by judges or some alternative institution to replace them who are competent in the field of law.

In contrast, the Supreme Court examines the impact of errors in detecting bias during jury selection and the presentation of evidence in a jury trial.

Additionally, the social scientists have questioned the value of peremptory challenges because of the weak predictor of furor verdict preferences (Hafemeister, 2000). The verdict preferences are based on gender or ethnicity during voir dire which typically is argued that verdicts are undemocratic and sometimes inherently irrational based on abuse of jurors inappropriately biases attitudes or beliefs. In comparison, Hafemeister (2000), mentions that some jurisdictions are struggling to get sufficient numbers of the citizen to come to duty which worries the judge of dismissals of prospective jurors which can reverse a verdict on appeal if the judge’s do not properly dismiss prospective jurors. Understanding the process of juror selection about behavior can allow lawyers and judges to understand the possible outcome of a cause depending on the juror’s experiences and personality.

Judging bias in juror confidence can be challenging because of the lack of knowledge judges, and attorneys have on the jury pool. Rose (2008) investigated appellate cases through court observations studying the operationalization of problematic jurors in two studies. Both studies relied on the perspective of prosecutors and defense attorneys (Study 1) and judges (Study 2) to assess their ability to notice juror bias. Study 1 evaluated prosecutors and defense attorneys in urban regions and study to focusing on judges in different states (Rose, 2008). 282 questionnaires were distributed to a public defender and 297 prosecutors in the large urban county to maximize and measure the difference in response between both samples. The questionnaires were returned by their supervisor and returned to the collection state. Out of the 282 public defenders only 80 responded as well as only 107 out of 297 defense attorney (Rose, 2008). One person was omitted due to not having trail experience (Rose, 2008). Due to the population sample, the data was substantial using control vignettes and equivocal assessment to see if the participants could be fair. The methodology was used to measure the samples ability to identify and well-using voir dire assessment of fairness properly. Furthermore, the control vignettes checked to see in participants were the ability to measure bias in particular cases which emotions and experiences can affect a jury bias.

The effect of rehabilitative voir dire during decision making of juror eliminate venirepersons not meeting requirements. In order to rehabilitate having the understanding of social psychological perspective leading to bias on jurors. Crocker and Kovera (2010) investigated the legal assumption of vetting during voir dire using questions to indicate bias. It also evaluated the rehabilitate question during the voir dire process to see if it would reduce bias on verdict judgments. Experiment 1 focused on the questioning used and to see if jurors were able to ignore their knowledge or opinions about the cases presented. 124 eligible participants were measured by suitability and member of the New York area. Member was selected using an aid listed in Craiglist and was paid for their participation with 25 dollars. 72 were females, and 52 were males sampling with racial diversity (Corocker and Kovera, 2010). Crocker and Kovera (2010) noted that that factorial design of unbiased/biased condition would have a positive effect on the real world outside the courtroom. The methodology used was voir dire questions standard vs. rehabilitative factor assessing altered decision-making questionnaire favorably of defense irrespective of juror bias (Crocker and Kovera, 2010). The questionnaire intensively measures juror bias of the insanity defense leading to the categorized bias for or against insanity defense based on participant background. Furthermore, the categorized biased allowed the conceive of the responsibility of criminal action and pre-existing juror experiences.

Attempting to debias jury judgment can be a challenge because of the responsibility and consequences of negligent evaluations in the legal system in regards to jury selection and limitation of a qualified and unqualified juror in the United States. According to Smith and Greene (2005) evaluated the effectiveness of eliminating hindsight biases and suppressing evidence means of trial bifurcation. Smith and Greene (2005) investigated negligence case in the perspective of bias jurors by reacting the case. The participants applied to a local newspaper announcement and were 355 jury-eligible adults were accepted. There were four conditions used with the primary manipulating evidence and jury instruction. The methodology behind the investigation was designed to evaluate jury bias with manipulated evidence using questionnaires after the participants view the mock trial (Smith and Green 2005). To measure the methodology, six questions were asked in regards to negligent for all four conditions and the manipulated evidence given to suggest juror bias in multiple event experiences. Moreover, the bifurcated conditions controlled the consist conditions and question by allowing only 6-10 participant at a time. Therefore measuring groupthink and personality liable of jurors (Smith and Green, 2005).

Generalizations can merely contribute to stereotypes in a link demographic and personality variable (Ream, 2009). Ream (2009) conducted a meta-analysis of several researchers to focus on the sixth amendment right. Many researchers concluded that juror background demographic information and education and personality could influence a juror verdict. Ream (2009) investigated the effects of juror background and demographic history factor of bias verdict by jurors. Ream (2009) reenacted murder trial for a sample of 828 citizens from Massachusetts jury pools. Using the predictive power of background characteristic found associated bias within the demographic history which affected their verdict. By using a sample size of 828, the methodology of using questionnaires demonstrated inconsistent results. Therefore, the methodology used in a large sample appeared verdicts of inconsistent because of predicted background characteristics, and personality traits of jurors (Ream, 2009).

Research Methodology

The research methodology that will be used to answer the research question is qualitative. The qualitative methodology allows the use of serval research and paradigm methods which will benefit the collection and interpretation of nonmathematical data (Whitley and Crawford, 2005). The methodology is comprised of three methods of in-depth interview, focused groups, and participant observation. Also, qualitative method documents the complexity and multiplicity of experience from the participant which are rarely known in other methodologies. Understanding the point of view of the participant during this study will allow us also to modify the mock trial. According to Whitley and Crawford (2005), the design and process of qualitative methods are to differ from the analogs procedure in quantitative research. Moreover, the orientation of the methodology will investigate the applicability of a juror suggestibility state (Emotional or Physical) affecting their verdict during a murder trial.

This methodology is appropriate because it will support the development of a formulation of an immutable design, data collection, and data analysis. Also, qualitative methodology is more flexible and iterative with design and data analysis. The methods of inquiry within this methodology encompass the isolation and conjunction with an in-depth interview, and participant observation within the modify mock trial that will be conducted to analyze the study. Furthermore, the related issues of sample size are needed for some validity nonetheless regarding the justification for the sample sizes needed which will allow future research to further understanding and investigate the study. According to (Whitley and Crawford (2005), the rules of the practice of qualitative research is to include the appropriate checks on validity and reliability to have a benchmark of equivalent and significant tests. In other words, validity and reliability are important during any qualitative methodology to control the integrity and honesty of the study. Therefore qualitative methodology is the appropriate method for this study.

Participant Selection

At this time the site of the data collection is unknown until the research proposal is approved. The site will be very important because the setting must be controlled without any disturbance. Once the proposal has approved a request will be sent to the University of Hawaii to see if we will be able to rent or use a classroom to conduct the study, since we will be off the campus of the University of the Rockies. The classroom should be set up with a computer or television and should be able to fill up to 12 participants at a time. Before the start of the study, we must first get informed consent and have the participants signed a non-disclosure agreement until the study is completed to maintain its integrity. In order to get informed consent from the participants, we will draft an informed consent form with full disclosure and nature of the research and have the participants understand that this is a volunteer and that they can quit at any time. (sample informed consent form)

The participants in this research will be selected from a pool of students in graduate-level courses specifically the University of Hawaii or nearest University available. Prior approval must be granted by the university as some of their resources will be needed to conduct the study. Theoretical sampling will be used to select the participant for the study. Theoretical sampling is used in order to deliberately recruit induvial with requisite demographic and characteristics allowing the study to be grounded in the context being studied (Whitley and Crawford, 2005). The number of participants will be 108 students taking a graduate-level course that has never had jury duty. During the screening process, all participants will be screened for biases by using the vior dire questionnaire developed in Ijury Application. All questions will be composed of three lawyers’ beforehand and suggested answers leading to the implication of biases for phase 1and inputted in the Ijury application before being the study. Due to the modify mock trial, all participants will be aware that this study will be held in three sessions. Phase 1: Vior Dire process, phase 2: Suggestibility test: Phase 3 Mock trial. Phase 1 and Phase 2 will be conducted on the same day. After phase 1 any participant who has been noted as having biases implications for the trial will be removed before the start of phase 2. All participants will be notified after phase 1 if they have been selected to continue onto phase 2. The Ijury Application will start with the following questions but are not all inclusive until we interview with three lawyers’ on specific of the mock trial and what question should be asked to reduce biases juries. Listed below are some sample questions from Sample Voir Dire subjects covered by Judge Susan Oki Mollway (2015) in Civil Trials.

1. Does anyone have a medical reason or personal hardship that would

make it difficult to serve as a juror in this case?

2. Does anyone have difficulty reading, hearing, or understanding the

English language?

3. Does anyone know or has anyone dealt with the plaintiffs, the defendants, or their attorneys? If yes, please identify the person you know or have dealt with, the nature of your relationship, and whether

that relationship would hinder or affect your ability to give a fair trial to

all of the parties in this case.

4. Is anyone here a lawyer, married to a lawyer or in a substantial relationship with a lawyer? Has anyone here studied law or worked in a law office? Notwithstanding what you feel the law is or should be on a particular subject, will you apply the law as I give it to you at the end

of this case?

5. Does anyone here, because of the nature of your employment, feel that you may not be able to judge this case impartially?

During phase 2 of the study, we will evaluate the participant’s suggestibility by using a suggestibility test in order to determine whether or not the participant is emotional or physical. All participants will take questionnaire 1 and 2 and turn them into the researchers for grading. We will be using the Emotional and Physical Suggestibility questionnaire 1 and 2. The Emotional and Physical Suggestibility will start with the following questions but are not all-inclusive. The Suggestibility Questionnaire 1 and 2 was created by Dr. Knapp from HMI Nationally Accredited School of Hypnotherapy in order to help treat client depending on their suggestibility state. Listed below are some sample questions from the suggestibility questionnaire 1 and 2.

1. Have you ever walked in your sleep during your adult life?

2. As a teenager, did you feel comfortable expressing your feeling to one or both of your parents?

3. Do you tend to look directly into a person’s eyes and more close to them when

discussing an interesting subject?

4. Do you feel the most people, when you first meet them, are uncritical of your

appearance?

5. Do you feel comfortable holding hands or hugging someone you are in a relationship with in front of other people?

Participants will not be notified of their suggestibility to maintain the integrity of the study. There is a chance that participant can score a 50/50 on the suggestibility test. If any participant scores a 50/50 on the suggestibility, the participant will be dismissed. A score of 50/50 means that the participant is in intellectual and our current study is not evaluating an intellectual suggestibility verdict. During the selection process, we will select 54 physical and 54 emotional suggestibility participants to participate in the study. The participants will not be notified of their suggestibility until the study is concluded. More important each participant will be separated into groups of 12 participants resulting in 6 emotional and 6 physical. The group members will not know who they are until the start of phase 3 mock trial which will start on the morning of day 2.

During phase 3, we will have 9 groups of 12 who will watch a trial being conducted via television which all would have been screened during phase 1 to determine if they have any background or information on the trial. It is understood that all 108 participants may not be selected in one time. It is encouraging moving forward if you have at least 12 participants for phase 3. Currently, phase 3 is still being developed as far as choosing the trial video being used. One of the participants views the trial all will be asked to make a confidential verdict one at a time using the Ijury verdict Application. We are doing this in order to reduce any influences from another participant after each participant induvial make their verdict we will allow the jurors to deliberate to give the final verdict. One this is completed we will interview with each member of the jury to determine how they come up with their verdict.

Data Collection

To collect the data for the study, we will use interviews, observations, and documentation from the participants. During phase 3 the participant will be viewing a trial via video. During that time they will be videoed taped in order to observe their body language during the trail. During the trial, we will be focusing on body language in order to analyze whether or not the participant agrees or disagree with the information being provided as well as nervousness. Body language such as leg movement up and down motion, biting of nails, and facial movement demonstrating agree or disagreeing with the information being presented. We will also focus on making sure the participants are not talking to each other. We will collect all verdicts from the participant before deliberation to analysis their verdict before the interview phase to determine if they changed their verdicts based on other jurors influences. The in-depth interview will take most of the time throughout the day as we will be able to observe the participant behavior later. Interviews can establish and generate more insightful responses and allows follow-up question to probe additional information. It allows us to identify highly valuable findings throughout the study that would not have been normal known. This will allow us to confirm our finding in relations to suggestibility within court verdicts. During the interview process, the interviewers will be allowed to answer a follow-up question if they feel more explanation is needed. In no way should the interviewer deviate from the interview sheet. Allowing us to interview the participant will give us the opportunity to tailor specific question for physical and emotional suggestibility. Some sample question we would ask is:

1. How did you enjoy the trial?

2. What influenced your decisions?

3. Why did you change your verdict after deliberation? If applicable.

4. Did your emotions play into your decision making?

5. What was the hardest part of the trial?

6. What lead you to your decision?

Data Analysis

After the data is collected, it must be transcribed to textual using the computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS). Using this software will effectively transcribe faster than trying to manually. After transcribing the data, there will be a large amount of information which will need to be organized before coding the data. Coding the data into the understandable concept is more efficient for the data analysis process. We will do this by categorizing the data into concepts, properties, and patterns. This will give us meaning to the collected data. We will use two type of coding descriptive and pattern coding which reference the central theme of the data and build on the theme to have a greater insight into the data being used. Validate data is an important pillar, and the validity and reliability will go through validation to make sure that there are no flaws.

Methods of Achieving Validity

To understand the validity of any research the internal, construct, and external validity must be understood early on. The internal validity applies to understanding the relationship between two variable and the inferences of the data being collected. Construct validity is related to operationalizing the process and claiming the inferences is accurate in a theoretical constructs. Lastly, external validity focuses on the conclusion and the generalization of the population. It is important to achieve and ensure validity for all research methodologies and results. In order to ensure validity it is beneficial to choose well-trained moderator who are skilled to check for personal bias and expectations early on to avoid any problem with bias towards to methodology and results. This will reduce errors early on which would affect the results in a positive or negative way. The moderator must be interested in learning from the research participant by being engaged and giving honest feedback necessary for the validity of the results which are neutral and candid. To ensure this we must make sure all moderator are not influencing the answer and make sure all answers are genuine. From a practical application all moderator will disclose all of their biases and perspective beforehand and report it in the data will full disclosure. Outside of the moderator it is key to have the sample group that is recruited and segmented early on during the study to reduce basis influence from the sampling group. Also ethical recruiting is important in qualitative research because the sampling population should not be represented based on the results beforehand. Moreover, using the triangulation strategy will promote validity from multiple perspective. Having several moderators in different locations and analyzing the same data is in essentially methodology to confirm the results from different angles. During this study we will use three geographical location for this study to improve the validity of the study. Secondly, using the respondent validation method involves testing the participant a second time to validate their initial response and answer to the question. Seeing whether or not the participant will stay true to their original answer will attest to the validity of the methodology and data collected. Although the results are already known to the moderator’s participant should be about the keep their original answer resulting in an authentic study. Randomization in studies is critical to ensure the validity of the research, because of the study this method will not be able to be used as randomization will not support the results. This will have minimal effects to the validity of this study because the selection of the population will be chosen based on the predispostional question established in the appendix. Finally, the sample size of the study will increase the validity of the study. During this study the sample size will be small and average 20 participants. Already this is a small sample size, this will not affect the validity of the study because qualitative research usually have small sample size. Therefore, several steps are in place to ensure the validity of the study.

Potential Ethical Problems

The participants is this research will not be harmed and there are no indicators that will harm the participants. There are ethical concern and problems in regards to the study affecting society once it is completed. Being able to create a study which demonstrates juror’s suggestibility and how it effect verdicts can concern many societal law enforcement and the criminal justice systems. The audiences for this research are lawyers and judges. This will allow them to have a better understanding of juror’s verdict beforehand and to allow the criminal justice system to create a better process during juror selection. This study will affect the way the criminal justice systems chooses their jurors. Affecting the criminal justice system and the process in which they use to choose jurors to reduce biases is important, but having a study proving a suggestibility affect jurors verdict can be harmful. This can be harmful to the criminal justice system because lawyers will use this to their advantage in order to have the upper hand over their opponents in court. This is a minor ethical concern because both sides have the opportunity to choose their juror, but the judge also has a say. Even with running through a case which as 12 jurors it is possible this can lead to a hang juror leading to a mistrial and a retrial. This can be costly to the population and cost the taxes payer more money. This can lead to an underline cycle for the criminal justice system causing ethical and legal concern. This will have objective concern for practical implications and policy recommendation for the criminal justice systems. As far as policy recommendation, this study will lead to further research and allow the criminal justice system to reevaluate their system which has been in place for many years and improve their system during juror’s selection. To reevaluate a policy which has been standing for many years can be hard, but this research will allow the criminal justice system to learn and see with time and science the criminal justice process will need to reevaluate their method throughout the years. Furthermore, all participants will sign an inform consent form acknowledging their participation in the study. All potential ethical problem have been addressed and have been reduced. Unfortunately, because there are not many studies published regarding this topic all ethical problems will be address as they come up.

Limitations

No research covers everything and this research has obvious limitations. This research focus on the participant suggestibility and not the participant personality. The participant personality is not being consider for this research and it is recommended for further follow on research evaluating whether or not personalities affect jurors verdict. This study will not prove that person’s effect juror’s verdicts. It is difficult to conduct a study like this because we will not be able to use rule courtroom, lawyers, and a judge which all effect the outcome of a jurors verdicts because it is limited on the access we can have in a courtroom. Using a mock trial will allow us to gather enough evidence and data to conclude with the suggested problem statement. With the limitations or lack or resources provided outside of the court system, we will have to relieve on filmed trails to provide to the participant. This cause a limitation because many courts to not allowed video types or cell phones, so we will have to be subject with using only tapes that was recorded in a particular state not allows videotaping. This will not affect the validity of the test, but the limitation on resources needed. The research does not focus on the questions lawyers ask the witness in correlation to the view point of the jurors. This is limited because we are not able to predicate the questions lawyers would ask to witness or victim which can affect the outcome of the case. We are not here to prove that particular verbiage effect or impact the suggestibility of the participant and should be further research on a later time to find corresponding factor of suggestibility. There are always going to be limitation to research, being able to understand those limitation and work around the limitation providing feedback of the limitation unknown for further research to be conducted. Therefore, it is in important skill to have in order to identify the limitation to the research and work towards furthering science and research in a developing practice of forensic psychology.

References

Chernoff, N. W., & Kadane, J. B. (2012). Preempting Jury Challenges:

Strategies For Courts And Jury System Administrators*. Justice System Journal, 33(1), 47-67. Retrieved from

https://search-proquest-

com.proxy

-campuslibrary.rockies.edu/docview/1021398035?accountid=39364

Eigenberg, H., Mcguffee, K., Iles, G. D., & Garland, T. S. (2012). Doing justice: Perceptions of

gender neutrality in the jury selection process. American Journal of Criminal Justice : AJCJ, 37(2), 258-275. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy-campuslibrary.rockies.edu/10.1007/s12103-011-9139-x

Hafemeister, T. L. (2000). Supreme court examines impact of errors in detecting bias during jury

selection. Violence and Victims, 15(2), 209-24. Retrieved from

https://search-proquest-com.proxy-

campuslibrary.rockies.edu/docview/208555352?accountid=39364

Morrison, C. M. (2014). NEGOTIATING PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES. Journal of Criminal

Law & Criminology, 104(1), 1-58. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.proxy-

campuslibrary.rockies.edu/docview/1501857597?accountid=39364

O’Brien, B., Grosso, C. M., & Taylor, A. P. (2017). EXAMINING JURORS: APPLYING

CONVERSATION ANALYSIS TO VOIR DIRE IN CAPITAL CASES, A FIRST LOOK. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 107(4), 687-732. Retrieved from

https://search-proquest-com.proxy-campuslibrary.rockies.edu/docview/1967049578?accountid=39364

Rose, M. R., & Diamond, S. S. (2008). Judging bias: Juror confidence and judicial rulings on

challenges for cause. Law & Society Review, 42(3), 513-549. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.proxy-campuslibrary.rockies.edu/docview/226936259?accountid=39364

Schwartzberg, M. (2018). Justifying the jury: Reconciling justice, equality, and democracy. The

American Political Science Review, 112(3), 446-458. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy-

campuslibrary.rockies.edu/10.1017/S0003055417000661

Sommers, S. R., & Norton, M. I. (2007). Race-based judgments, race-neutral justifications:

Experimental examination of peremptory use and the batson challenge procedure. Law

and Human Behavior, 31(3), 261-73. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy-

campuslibrary.rockies.edu/10.1007/s10979-006-9048-6

Whitley, R., & Crawford, M. (2005). Qualitative research in psychiatry. Canadian Journal of

Psychiatry, 50(2), 108-14. Retrieved from

https://search-proquest-com.proxy

campuslibrary.rockies.edu/docview/222845595?accountid=39364

http://www.newformhypnotherapy.com/Suggestibility%20Questionnaire

http://www.hid.uscourts.gov/reqrmts/SOM/SOM_standard_civil_voir_dire ?pid=19&mid=63

Appendix

Suggestibility Question #1

It is important that you answer these questions truthfully, keeping in mind there are no “right” or“wrong” answers. Go with the first answer that comes to mind after you read the question. Try not to dwell on any question. Simply check “Yes” or “No” beside each question. Complete both suggestibility questionnaires 1&2. Follow instructions on score sheet below.

QUESTION YES NO

1 Have you ever walked in your sleep during your adult life?

2 As a teenager, did you feel comfortable expressing your feelings to one or both of your Maternal

and Paternal figures?

3 Do you have a tendency to look directly into people’s eyes and/or move close to them when

discussing an interesting subject?

4 Do you feel that most people you meet for the first time are uncritical of your appearance?

5 In a group situation with people you have just met, would you feel comfortable drawing attention

to yourself by initiating a conversation?

6 Do you feel comfortable holding hands or hugging someone you are in a relationship with while

other people are present?

7 When someone talks about feeling warm physically, do you begin to feel warm also?

8 Do you occasionally have a tendency to tune out when someone is talking to you, and at times

not even hear what the other person is saying, because you are anxious to come up with your

side

of it?

9 Do you feel that you learn and comprehend better by seeing and/or reading than by hearing?

10 In a new class or lecture situation, do you usually feel comfortable asking questions in front of

the group?

11 When expressing your ideas, do you find it important to relate all the details leading up to the

subject so the other person can understand it completely?

12 Do you enjoy relating to children?

13 Do you find it easy to be at ease and comfortable with your body movements, even when faced

with unfamiliar people and circumstances?

14 Do you prefer reading fiction rather than non-fiction?

15 If you were to imagine sucking on a sour, juicy, yellow lemon, would your mouth water?

16 If you feel that you deserve to be complemented for something well done, do you feel

comfortable if the compliment is given to you in front of other people?

17 Do you feel that you are a good conversationalist?

18 Do you feel comfortable when complimentary attention is drawn to your physical body or

appearance?

TOTAL

Appendix

Suggestibility Question #2

It is important that you answer these questions truthfully, keeping in mind there are no “right” or“wrong” answers. Go with the first answer that comes to mind after you read the question. Try not to dwell on any question. Simply check “Yes” or “No” beside each question. Complete both suggestibility questionnaires 1&2. Follow instructions on score sheet below.

QUESTION YES NO

1 Have you ever awakened in the middle of the night and felt you could not move your body

and/or could not talk?

2 As a child, did you feel that you were more affected by the tone of voice of your Maternal and

Paternal figures than by what they actually said?

3 If someone you are associated with talks about a fear that you too have experienced, do you

have a tendency to have an apprehensive or fearful feeling also?

4 If you are involved in an argument with someone, after the argument is over do you have a

tendency to dwell on what you could or should have said?

5 Do you have a tendency to tune out occasionally when someone is talking to you, perhaps not

even hear what was said, because your mind has drifted to something totally unrelated?

6 Do you sometimes desire to be complemented for a job well done, but feel embarrassed or

uncomfortable when complemented?

7 Do you often have a fear or dread of not being able to carry on a conversation with someone

you have just met?

8 Do you feel self-conscious when attention is drawn to your physical body or appearance?

9 If you have your choice, would you rather avoid being around children most of the time?

10 Do you feel that you are not relaxed or loose in body movements, especially when faced with

unfamiliar people or circumstances?

11 Do you prefer reading non-fiction rather than fiction?

12 If someone describes a very bitter taste, do you have difficulty experiencing the physical feeling

of it?

13 Do you generally feel that you see yourself less favourably than others see you?

14 Do you tend to feel awkward or self-conscious initiating touch (holding hands, kissing, etc…)

with someone you are in a relationship with while other people are present?

15 In a new class or lecture situation, do you usually feel uncomfortable asking questions in front of

the group even though you may desire further explanation?

16 Do you feel uneasy if someone you have just met looks you directly in the eyes when talking to

you, especially if the conversation is about you?

17 In a group situation with people you have just met, would you feel uncomfortable drawing

attention to yourself by initiating a conversation?

18 If you are in a relationship or are very close to someone, do you find it difficult or embarrassing

to verbalize your love for him or her?

Appendix

Sample Voir Dire subjects covered by Judge Susan Oki Mollway in Civil Trials1

1. Does anyone have a medical reason or personal hardship that would
make it difficult to serve as a juror in this case?
2. Does anyone have difficulty reading, hearing, or understanding the
English language?
3. Does anyone know or has anyone dealt with the plaintiffs, the defendants, or their attorneys? If yes, please identify the person you know or have dealt with, the nature of your relationship, and whether
that relationship would hinder or affect your ability to give a fair trial to
all of the parties in this case.

4. Does anyone know, or has anyone had any business dealings with, any of the witnesses who have just been identified by counsel? If yes, please identify the person you know or have dealt with, the nature of

your relationship, and whether that relationship would hinder or affect your ability to give a fair trial to all of the parties in this case.

5. Now that I have discussed the different burdens of proof in criminal and civil cases, does everyone understand those different burdens?

6. Has anyone here previously served as a juror either in a criminal or civil case? If yes, has your previous experience as a juror affected your ability to be fair to all sides in the case?

7. Has anyone here served as either a state or federal grand juror? If yes, has your previous experience as a grand juror affected your ability to be fair to all sides in the case?

8. In the eyes of the law, all parties, whether individuals or corporations, are to be treated alike. All parties are entitled to the same honest, fair and impartial treatment. If selected to serve as a juror in this case,

would everyone accept and apply this principle of law?

9. Does anyone know of any reason he or she may be prejudiced for or against the plaintiffs or defendants because of the nature of the case, or

otherwise?

10. Is anyone here a lawyer, married to a lawyer, or in a substantial relationship with a lawyer? Has anyone here studied law or worked in a law office? Notwithstanding what you feel the law is or should be on a particular subject, will you apply the law as I give it to you at the end

of this case?

11. Does anyone here, because of the nature of your employment, feel that you may not be able to judge this case impartially?

12. Have you read in the newspapers, read on the internet, seen on television, or heard on the radio anything about this case, or do you have any knowledge of the facts or events of this case?

Running Head: BEFORE THE VERDICT: PROTECT THE BIAS SENTENCES

1

BEFORE THE VERDICT: PROTECT THE BIAS SENTENCES 7

Before the Verdict Sentence Bias

Matthew M. Rosario

Ashford University

June 22, 2019

Abstract

Despite this, the approached and outcome of a trial is determined early on during a variation in court using the voir dire procedure to select and manage the jury. According to Mulvaney and Little (2015), the importance of pre-trial composition and attention to jury selection grants judges significant discretion and strategies to reduce bias among jurors. Kerr and Jung (2018) research whether or not trial evidence should be presented to jurors before trial. Many states to include (e.g., Arizona, Colorado, the District of Columbia) have become more relaxed to permit a juror to discuss evidence before deliberation. The perceptions of jury selection in psychological literature focus on impartial bias during a trial in the courtroom. There are empirical studies which demonstrated the mechanism of counsel using the voir dire process to gain an advantage during a trial. Due to this, it is important to understand the literature review of the jury selection process to improve the selection theory of juries. More specifically, can personality inventories (Juries suggestibility theory) determine a jury’s verdict?

Before the Verdict Sentence Bias

Literature Review Synthesizes and Summary

Often time, many court cases are won or lost before trial because of the composition of the jury. Despite this, the approached and outcome of a trial is determined early on during a variation in court using the voir dire procedure to select and manage the jury. According to Mulvaney and Little (2015), the importance of pre-trial composition and attention to jury selection grants judges significant discretion and strategies to reduce bias among jurors. In other words, this allows the courts to craft an approach to maximize the chance of success during a trial. The courts may permit attorneys to examine prospective jurors and ask questions to consider proper. The voir dire process determines bias or prejudice of juror during selectin and falls under two categories such as determining basic statutory requirements for the jury and to reduce and determine prejudice (Mulvaney and Little, 2015). Many courts allow panelist to assess to determine the requirements before the process of voir dire. Prospective jurors response during voir dire provides the opportunity for attorneys to exercise their peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges allow lawyers to dismiss a jury without cause. The number of peremptory challenge ranges between state and local laws.

During this time, the opportunity to condition the jury and commitment to the case it developed. More, importantly this is the first time jurors meet the attorneys and hear about the case in order assess the juror ability to analyze evidence and to see if there is any prejudice or experience which will affect the juror to be impartial during the trial (Mulvaney and Little, 2015). The effect of these decision early on can affect the outcome, but over the year, it has been increasingly hard to prevent prejudice or bias decision according to Crocker and Kovera (2010). Because of this, it has come difficult for judges and attorney to conclude whether or not venireperson is truly impartial. Venireperson are juror going through the process of selection, and although attorneys and judges have peremptory challenges and challenges for cause, this does not always provide insight of unaware bias a venireperson fails to report (Crocker and Kovera, 2010). The integrity of the venirperson is important, and a factor which influences their behavior must be noted, and proper research must be completed to challenge and impartial viewing. The theme of impartial and bias has permitted trial evidence before jury selection to promote explanation of bias (Kerr and Jung, 2018).

Kerr and Jung (2018) research whether or not trial evidence should be presented to jurors before trial. Many states to include (e.g., Arizona, Colorado, the District of Columbia) have become more relaxed to permit a juror to discuss evidence before deliberation. For instance, in Arizona, during a civil trial, a juror is allowed to deliberate about the cases in their hotel rooms. Many states are considering this approach for civil cases, but it is hard to determine the individual processing style and juror bias outside of the courtroom. According to Gunnell and Stephen (2010), a cognitive experiential self-theory (CEST) demonstrates and suggest that information processing proceeds within two paths and realistic jurors are jurors capable of overcoming bias and life influence. Within the legal skeptics justified in a claim that once juror is selected, it does not mean they will not be bias and impartial minded toward the case. Extralegal influence is a growing body within the literature of social science that focuses on characteristics of juror decision and the possible attraction leniency bias (Gunnell and Stephen, 2010). One of the most compelling evidence of attractiveness on juror decision has increased in literature, which allows consistency withstood of significant bias. Individual difference applied to juror decision making has shown the difference in personality and cognitive ability among the effect of juror performance and problem-solving skills (Gunnell and Stephen, 2010). The socio-cognitive theory within substantial research outweighs the highly punitive decision of the court and more prone to conviction when the status quo is not reached. Therefore, the independent assessment of parallel cognitive systems of the conscious mind or unconscious mind can have an analytical impact on the evidence-based understanding of jurors. So, can society have an impartial juror panel? What are the causes of juror deliberation coming up with a unanimous verdict? What leads to jurors to change their initial assessment whether or not to vote guilty or not guilty.

Using a systemic analysis of juror bias, it is important to understand how juror decision-making is influenced by an emotional child witness testimony. According to Cooper, Quas, and Clevland (2014) researched the assumed notion that emotional child witness plays a role in the judical process and effect jurors’ decision courses possible bias or impartial judgment. Why us this so important? Children witness can make it difficult for any person to think straight, but as a society we entrust adults to stay open, but how this is possible when children witness are emotional and according to Cooper et al. (2014), 5 out of 7 cases with a child witness resulted in a verdict of guilty. This can be viewed as a possible bias or emotional connection with the child witness leading to a guilty verdict. However, it is important to understand we do have a perfect system within selecting jurors because at any time a juror can change their decision for better or worst depending on how they are feeling, personality modalities. Therefore, how do we have a fair or somewhat far legal system, when we deprive of all different walk of life. Legal is straight forward, but understanding how personality modalities affect juries decision-making skills can play a vital role within the system and improve the process.

Trends and Patterns of Jurors Bais

According to Williams (2015), the problems and criticisms of jury vior dire are that in particular, the law should change to grantee attorney understand and can successfully conduct jury voir dire but considering each jury vior dir option separately and to set forth Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 24(a). This rule allows no one to conduct voir dire or the judge conducts the process without the attorneys. Unfortunately, this is credible because allowing one person to conduct voir dire does not suggest impartial jurors. The trends and patterns from literature illustrate that there is not a system to which to conduct vior dire that reduce bais. One of the most compelling trends and the pattern is that attorneys can set up the panel of jurors in favor of their side if they understand how to use vior dire properly. William (2015) suggest that lawyers usually use peremptory stikes which rely on stereotypes and hunches and with little information judge the appearance or generalize the prospective juror’s residence, age, and some time on the bases race or gender. In recent years, it is rare where a panel of a jury is only male or female, but there is no statue to protect this from happening. Moreover, Dewitt (2013) makes a great point that nonetheless, basic strategies are employed to maximize the chance of success at the trial. More importantly. The voir dire vary from courtroom to courtroom and case by case, which suggests there is not a standard across the United States. Although there rules and regulation, it is hard to determine if there are effective because there is no consistency across the courtroom and courthouse. For example, juror 29 is a stealth juror and listen to vior dire all day and can analyze what the lawyers are looking for by realizing prospective jurors with strong feeling and personality are press to admit they cannot be impartial and unbias. Understanding this and other literature, the trend demonstrates that some jurors are unable to be impartial, which will lead to the verdict that is not filled with integrity but personal satisfaction for the jury.

Mitigating Jurors’ biases is not only based on crime and environmental and developing influence but race. According to Ingriselle (2014), the sixth amendment of the United States guarantees the accused the right to an impartial jury. Moreover, it is known that black defendants are more likely to be found guilty than white defendants due to the social identity theory and can explain such results (Ingriselle, 20145. Many individuals are not explicitly racist, but identifiers are disfavoring the criminal justice system process. In comparison, to determine if theories investigated the claims, Ingriselle (2015) conduct a mock trial dervied from aversive racism theory, social identity theory towards procedural justice and instruction. Identifying the trends and themes through scholar article suggest that many of the research is consistent with one another, but have not suggested a plan of action to correct the issues of impartial and baizes. Forensic science evidence role has increased, and judge rarely rules the information inadmissible under the Daubert or Frye standards (3,6,7) (Thompson, Scurich, 2019). This is important when addressing the concern of impartial behavior and possible problem and simulation of the interpretation of the subjective judgment of juror to admit to exposed potentially biases. Therefore, the interpretation of the information and procedural justice it is important to understand the suggested information show that there is a problem with our process of selecting juries. The appreciation and the importance of having a far trial are hypothesized through the effect of evidentiary testing to allow a better understanding of how to particularly pick an impartial jury. For better or worse, a jury will usually or likely decide on the outcome of a trial before the evidence is presented.

Study Methodologies and Populations

According to Crocker and Kovera (2009), The voir dire must be rehabilitated in order to have an impartial attempt to eliminate all evidence of bias and reveal the integrity of all court cases. A social psychological perspective on juror rehabilitation framework explores whether biased jurors can be rehabilitated. Crocker and Kovera (2009) conducted an experiment designed to empirically test the legal assumption of rehabilitative questioning during vior dire to eliminate bias and impartial claims. There was 124 juries eligible community member in the New York City area. The participants were selected from a pull of volunteers via advertisements on craigslist, which paid $25 for participation. Seventy-two participants were male, and 52 were male, leading to 44% white, known-Hispanic, 34% African American, 12% Hispanic (Crocker and Kovera, 2009). The participants were categorized for bias using bias screening questions and the vior dire questionnaire. The judge addressed standard vior dire to all mock jurors in regards to television shows they watch to the news source they listen to. Finally, a one-hour trial video but the verdict was not given to the participants in order to give all participants a verdict questionnaire to choose from two verdict guilty and not guilty. It was concluded that 78 percent of jurors were bais with their answer do to life experiences. This was concluded based on an interview with each participant before the experiment was conducted to avoid any influences of the results. More importantly, the judge who help with the experiment gain a better understanding of psychological IDA-R and the scientific method. Therefore, juror bias was uncovered during the vior dire process and can be difficult because of compliance and social influence. All need to have a fair trial, but the research and evidence suggest that it is impossible to have a jury pool of all impartial jury. Thus, consistency within the criminal justice system mechanism must improve in order to reduce this issue within having a fair trial.

Supporting Research Design and Topic Relevance

The perceptions of jury selection in psychological literature focus on impartial bias during a trial in the courtroom. There are empirical studies which demonstrated the mechanism of counsel using the vior dire process to gain the advantage during a trial. Due to this, it is important to understand the literature review of the jury selection process to improve the selection theory of juries. More specifically, can personality inventories (Juries suggestibility theory) determine a jury’s verdict? According to Gardner, Titcomb, Cramer, Stroud, and Bate (2013) refer to perceiver personality as an individual difference in tendencies to view other interpersonal perceptions across situations. In other words, perceived personality has an interpersonal perception and to understand how attitudes and judgment affect jurors selections. This is relevant to psychology and science due to the advancement of the court system and the crimes being committed or being accused of committing.

According to Levett and Kovera (2010), potential jurors are questioned about their attitudes during trials after an adjudication examine is conducted to see any potential bias. This can be difficult because it is unknown how the jurors will be sway depending on the evidence. According to Rose (2008), it is important for jurors to only focus on the evidence and not the emotion, but a self-assessment of juror’s displayed biased during the first ten minutes of the trial. In contrast, the juror has to be able to separate personal and social desirability that can influence decision In contrast, the design of the vior dire does not provide or convey often social norms due to environmental difference during development. The presumption of equal competence is essential, but as Schwartzbery (2008) suggest that juries systematically empaneled information to become implausible because of the liability and judge’s instructions during vior dire process.

In contrast, Greene and Dougherty (2013), recommends a review of the sixth

Amendment due to an impartial judgment that is to be tried by an impartial jury. If one person on the panel is impartial, a new jury shall be created. The downside to this is how do you prove bias in the courtroom after the jury is chosen. We are entrusting 12 citizens to make an educated decision based on the evidence present in the courtroom. Is a degree of education need for a juror? No, the fact is anyone who is not a felony can be chosen for the duties. Also, the fact is that personality is a factor in problem-solving and the way or direction we receive or perceive the information being present. It is in common to understand common information, but when a case uses terms that are not common to jurors, their understanding of the information is limited and suggestive.

According to Greene and Dougherty (2013), personality is the key to understanding an individual mindset and reasoning skills that are in conjunction with critical skills. The progress to understanding personality in relations to juror selection can measure personality influence during emotional motivation conception to suggesting personality is the root cause and root consideration of our basic reasoning decision. Because of understanding if personality modalities affect juries before a trial can allow us to develop a system that is not impartial and bias during a trial if understanding the effect of pre-trail voir dire. The integrity of the venirperson is important, and a factor which influences their behavior must be noted, and proper research must be completed to challenge and impartial viewing. The theme of impartial and bais has permitted trial evidence before jury selection to promote explanation of bias (Kerr and Jung, 2018). So, it is key to develop research that investigates can personality inventories (Juries suggestibility theory) determine a jury’s verdict?

Conclusion

It is important to understand the criminal justice system over the years have bee able to finally see how important psychological approaches are when dealing with many legal cases in courts. The perceptions of jury selection in psychological literature focus on impartial bias during a trial in the courtroom. There are empirical studies which demonstrated the mechanism of counsel using the vior dire process to gain an advantage during a trial. Moreover, Dewitt (2013) makes a great point that nonetheless, basic strategies are employed to maximize the chance of success at the trial. More importantly. The voir dire vary from courtroom to courtroom and case by case, which suggests there is not a standard across the United States. The research presented would standardize the process for all states and to make sure the biases are not on the jury pool. Therefore the research that will be conducted will further the criminal justice system and allow a better understanding of personality and verdict decisions.

References

Cooper, A., Quas, J. A., & Cleveland, K. C. (2014). The Emotional Child Witness: Effects on

Juror Decision-making. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 32(6), 813–828.

https://doi-

org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.1002/bsl.2153

Caroline B. Crocker, & Margaret Bull Kovera. (2010). The Effects of Rehabilitative Voir Dire

on Juror Bias and Decision Making. Law and Human Behavior, 34(3), 212. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.40785177&site=eds-live&scope=site

Chernoff, N. W., & Kadane, J. B. (2012). Preempting Jury Challenges:

Strategies For Courts And Jury System Administrators*. Justice System Journal, 33(1), 47-67. Retrieved from

https://search-proquest-

com.proxy-campuslibrary.rockies.edu/docview/1021398035?accountid=39364

Eigenberg, H., Mcguffee, K., Iles, G. D., & Garland, T. S. (2012). Doing justice: Perceptions of

gender neutrality in the jury selection process. American Journal of Criminal Justice : AJCJ, 37(2), 258-275. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy-campuslibrary.rockies.edu/10.1007/s12103-011-9139-x

Ellison, K. F. (2013). Getting out of the Funk: How Wisconsin Courts Can Protect against the

Threat to Impartial Jury Trials. Marquette Law Review, 96(3), 953–992. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=88174432&site=eds-live&scope=site

Estrada, R. V. C., Gray, J. M., & Nuñez, N. (2015). Information Integration Theory, Juror Bias,

and Sentence Recommendations Captured Over Time in a Capital Trial. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29(5), 713–722. https://doi-org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.1002/acp.3155

Gunnell, J. J., & Ceci, S. J. (2010). When emotionality trumps reason: A study of individual

processing style and juror bias. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28(6), 850–877. https://doi-org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.1002/bsl.939

Hafemeister, T. L. (2000). Supreme court examines impact of errors in detecting bias during jury

selection. Violence and Victims, 15(2), 209-24. Retrieved from

https://search-proquest-com.proxy

–

campuslibrary.rockies.edu/docview/208555352?accountid=39364

Morrison, C. M. (2014). Negotiating Peremptory Challenges. Journal of Criminal

Law & Criminology, 104(1), 1-58. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.proxy-campuslibrary.rockies.edu/docview/1501857597?accountid=39364

Ingriselli, E. (2015). Mitigating Jurors’ Racial Biases: The Effects of Content and Timing of Jury

Instructions. Yale Law Journal, 124(5), 1690–1745. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=101662699&site=eds-live&scope=site

Kerr, N. L., & Jiin Jung. (2018). Should Jurors Be Allowed to Discuss Trial Evidence Before

Deliberation?: New Research Evidence. Law & Human Behavior (American Psychological Association), 42(5), 413. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=132436070&site=eds-live&scope=site

O’Brien, B., Grosso, C. M., & Taylor, A. P. (2017). Examining Jurors: Applying Conversation

Analysis to Voir Dire in Capital Cases, a First Look. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 107(4), 687. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=125935997&site=eds-live&scope=site

Otis, C. C., Greathouse, S. M., Kennard, J. B., & Kovera, M. B. (2014). Hypothesis testing in

attorney-conducted voir dire. Law and Human Behavior, 38(4), 392–404. https://doi-org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.1037/lhb0000092

Ritter, S. (2014). Beyond the Verdict: Why Courts Must Protect Jurors from the Public Before,

During, and After High-Profile Cases. Indiana Law Journal, 89(2), 911–940. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=94706225&site=eds-live&scope=site

Rose, M. R., & Diamond, S. S. (2008). Judging bias: Juror confidence and judicial rulings on

challenges for cause. Law & Society Review, 42(3), 513-549. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.proxy

campuslibrary.rockies.edu/docview/226936259?accountid=39364

Schwartzberg, M. (2018). Justifying the jury: Reconciling justice, equality, and democracy. The

American Political Science Review, 112(3), 446-458. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy-

campuslibrary.rockies.edu/10.1017/S0003055417000661

Sommers, S. R., & Norton, M. I. (2007). Race-based judgments, race-neutral justifications:

Experimental examination of peremptory use and the batson challenge procedure. Law

and Human Behavior, 31(3), 261-73. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy-

campuslibrary.rockies.edu/10.1007/s10979-006-9048-6

Whitley, R., & Crawford, M. (2005). Qualitative research in psychiatry. Canadian Journal of

Psychiatry, 50(2), 108-14. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.proxy

campuslibrary.rockies.edu/docview/222845595?accountid=39364

Shuman, D. W., Stokes, L., & Martinez, G. (2011). Stranger at the Gate: The Effect of the

Plaintiff’s use of an Interpreter on Juror Decision-Making. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29(4), 499–512.

https://doi-org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.1002/bsl.985

Williams, C. J. (2015). To Tell You the Truth, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 24(A) Should

Be Amended to Permit Attorneys to Conduct Voir Dire of Prospective Jurors. South Carolina Law Review, 67(1), 35–71. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=120805446&site=eds-live&scope=site

Running head: PERSONALITY INVENTORIES

1

PERSONALITY INVENTORIES 9

Personality Inventories as Evidence of Personality

Matthew M. Rosario

University of the Rookies

May 15, 2018

Abstract

It can be difficult to understand law in relations to psychology and the way behavior can be explained in a more practical application. Unfortunately, the advancement of psychology and the perception of law are at a constant struggle with each other because law is specific and psychology is changing. Understanding how juror verdict come to be not from a lawyer standpoint by a psychological one can be beneficial as far a juror selection. Juror selection is the most important part during pre-trial services. Being able to use science to investigate juror personality in regards to personality evidence can create a new theory in psychology and law once the research begins and the length and understanding of the topic is better. This paper will outline information of my research topic.

Personality Inventories as Evidence of Personality

It can be difficult to understand law in relations to psychology and the way behavior can be explained in a more practical application. Unfortunately, the advancement of psychology and the perception of law are at a constant struggle with each other because law is specific and psychology is changing. Law does not change in theory, but psychology does which enhances psychological understanding of the world. Being able to identify juror in favor of a particlar postion during “Voir Dire” can be beneficial during legal preceedings. Voir dire is the ability to rehabilitate the jury by allowing the judge and attorney to observe and ask questions to eliminate bias jurors before selecting the final 12 jurors who will preside over the case (Erik, Marek, 2016). Unfortunately, this method can be used in order to evaluate which juror would be most benefical for a particlar lawyer during a trial. In other words, lawyers have the ability to munapluate the selction process in order to gain juror in their favor. According to Schuller, Erentzen, Vo, and Li (2015) it is the right for one to be tried by an impartial and independent jury from one’s peers, but this can be difficult when peers can be prejudice or possibly chosen by attorneys to benefit their position. At this time there is mininal psychological assessement being conducted in order to understand the jurors position outside of their biases. Because this is a new topic emerging in studies, more research needs to be conducted in order to understand the bases of trial science and the annotation of using trial consultant to create mock trials for juror selection for their advantage. Due to trial science being a new specialty this lead to the research topic can personality inventories indicate a juror verdict during trial? Many researchers concluded that juror background demographic information, education and personality could influence a juror verdict, but did not conduct a study outside of mata-anaysis. Therefore, the theroy that personality inventories indicate a juror verdict during trail will allow further explanation of personality and its relasionship to decsion making skills.

Essence of Research

The essence of the topic is led by the ideology of personality traits and the influence of decision making based on evidence presented in court. Understanding personality traits not just only in behavior, but in decision making based on trial and evidence can led to a different type of personality influence and personality facet in regards to evidence trait. There is no scientific framework for juror selection, but to understand juror bias introducing personality inventories to understanding juror precipitation, strengths, and weakness may be able to contribute to developing a juror’s selection personality inventories or evidence trait inventories. According to Gardner, Titcomb, Cramer, Stroud, and Bate (2013) refer to perceiver personality as an individual difference in tendencies to view other interpersonal perceptions across situations. In other words, perceived personality in juror selection can evaluate interpersonal perception in perceived information or situations regarding a particular event. Personality traits in the courtroom have a significant effect on attitudes and judgment across context in perceived similarities with juror’s personality traits. Gardner et al., (2013) investigated the potential influence of mock juror’s perceived similarity on perceptions of expert witnesses in a courtroom. Moreover over Gardner et al., (2013) believed greater global perceived personality similarity would be associated with favorable views of the expert witness in juror’s verdict. Likewise, According to Ingrishlli (2015), the sixth amendment guarantees the accused the right to a trial by an impartial jury. But a jury cannot be impartial do to personality traits and influences. In considering what personality is, the context is important. Everyday people make assessments about their personality or characteristics of other people’s personality. When considering the study of personality, the components make a difference in the definition. These components include whether the characteristic is enduring or consistent, whether it is distinctive or universal (Cervone, 2016, p. 7), both the psychological and physiological characteristics, how characteristics impact on how we respond to our environment and causes us to act, and how personality is displayed in multiple ways (Cherry, 2016).  There are many theories about personality and when our personality is shaped and how consistent it is. The general consensus is that it shaped early in life and remains fairly consistent (Vitelli, 2015). However, there is evidence that life experiences can influence personality changes, particularly life changing experiences (Cervone, 2016, p. 20-22; Vitelli, 2015). This merely contribute to stereotypes in a link demographic and personality variable (Ream, 2009). Ream (2009) conducted a meta-analysis of several researchers to focus on the sixth amendment right. Therefore, evidence trait in regards to personality inventories can help explain juror decision making beforehand based of their personality. This is a new topic emerging in our studies, more research needs to be conducted and understanding how other elements contribute to trial verdicts and the ideology behind personality or evidence influential traits effecting verdicts in the courtroom.

Relevant to Field

The research topic is relevant to the field of trial science in many contributing factors in correlation with juror selection and evidence presentation. Since, law and order in the foundation of our society and the understanding of innocent behavior proven guilty adds another element of surprise for this research topic. Understanding that juror have a prescribed or precursor of personality trait which can influence their verdict may affect the sixth amendment right because of influences and impartial personality traits that can led a juror to vote or chose a verdict in favor or against a position. The APA suggests that personality can be assessed. It is considered a proficiency in professional psychology used to refine clinical diagnosis, inform psychological interventions and increase the accuracy of behavioral prediction and must be done with specialized knowledge and the use of skills and procedures that are established (APA, 2016). A personality assessment is a set of steps to determine information about an individual’s personality and it is done to predict behavior, conduct research, and in clinical settings to provide information for diagnosis and treatment (Cervone & Pervin, 2016, p. 38-39). Understanding this can a personality assessment be created to pinpoint particular evidence based testimony which can influence a person’s particular personality to cause them to lean more towards their position being presented. The relevance to the field of trail science is that of the utmost importance because if we are able to pinpoint particular evidence based traits to personality traits in regards to evidence traits/evidence presented in a trial this can help trial consultant understand or predict how a juror would vote based on a personality assessment data or even answer to questions asked during voir dire. Moreover, this will enhance the understanding of juror selection and will improve the selection process during voir dire.

Improving Client Service and Advancement

Practitioners will be able to improve client service during trial consultation in many different ways which will be beneficial. Practitioner will be able to understand evidence based traits in regards to juror’s personality which will allow them to evaluate and explain to their client the best possible outcome during juror selection. Since voir dire allow both sides to choose the jury this process would only work best if the lawyer has a trial consultant or understand how this assessment being creating or evaluating during my research will work. Practitioners will be able to improve their service by giving their client in advantage during juror selection. If practitioners are able to utilize the information presented in my research this may change the way all trial scientist will conduct their mock trial and research for their servicing clients. This will allow practitioners to break down different personality and evidence which will allow them to educate their clients in understanding how a particular evidence and can be predetermined to effect a juror verdict based on their personality traits. It is interesting that there is no universal operationalized definition for this concept yet, but this research will help practitioners discover this. There are different studies of personality traits and different personality concepts, but we do not have a proper definition of personality evidence because it is a very difficult concept to understand and has not be research at this time. Being able to present the finding for this research will allow other practitioner to investigate similar concept or evolve the concept or thesis being presented today.

Audience for Research

The audience for this research study will be for lawyers, forensic psychologist and trial scientist. This will allow the audience to understanding not only the purpose for personality, but also how it can affect the way a person can interpret particular evidence in relation to their personality facets. The audience in which will be interested in this topic will be forensic psychologist and trial scientist because to will allow their expertise to expend and allow them to understanding the important of juror selection or even as an expert witness. Likewise, this will benefit lawyers during voir dire and allow them to have a deeper understanding of the important of juror selections. The results of the study will be used in order to educate and create an assessment which will measure juror’s personality which can affect their decisions or verdict during a trial. In other words, perceived personality in juror selection can evaluate interpersonal perception in perceived information or situations regarding a particular event. This will allow the understanding of the theory of evidence personality as it effect verdict outcomes based on a juror personality facet. Because we are a going society there will always be room for growth and advancement. The opportunity is endless when the audience is effected by the information of the research and will allow further research to be conducted in order to expend the current topic under research. In evaluating this topic I would like the audience of this topic to understand the importance of science development and how law must change with time in order to keeps it integrity in part. Law is integrity in order to improve this it is important for law to understand psychological advantages and disadvantages with knowing how juror personality can affect the verdict of the trial based on evidence personality. The idea that we all have personality of evidence which is affected by our personality facets and how we understanding a perceive information presenting in a court room. Moreover, this research will improve the audience view of law and psychology being not separate but together to serve justice for all.

Scholar and Practitioner

As a scholar and practitioner I am interested in the answer to my research question. I am interested in the answer because it is a new type of psychology which has little research. Understanding how juror verdict come to be not from a lawyer standpoint by a psychological one can be beneficial as far a juror selection. Juror selection is the most important part during pre-trial services. Being able to use science to investigate juror personality in regards to personality evidence can create a new theory in psychology and law once the research begins and the length and understanding of the topic is better. Trial science is a developing science and with any new science new research must be conduct and proven as science to make an academic or clinical stand. Because of this I am interested in research juror verdict in regards to can personality inventories indicate a juror verdict during trial. Being able to establish a new theory or new study not currently researched is important to the advancement of psychology and forensic psychology in and of itself. The application of trial science can be drawn up from understanding juror’s personality and juror’s background in order to influence judgment in a particular favor. Personality is the key to any lawyer and having the basic science and knowledge on this can allow an advantage. This is way I study the research topic presented early in this paper. Knowledge is power and in order to unlock to secret of personality and it effects of juror verdict.

References

Cervone, D., Pervin, L.A. (2016). Chapters One and Two. Personality Theory and Research, 13th

Edition. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons.  

Crocker, C. B., & Kovera, M. B. (2010). The effects of rehabilitative voir dire on juror bias and decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 34(3), 212-226. doi:10.1007/s10979-009- 9193-9

Gardner, B. O., Cramer, R. J., Titcomb, C. R., Stroud, C. H., & Bate, B. P. (n.d.). Examining the Effects of Perceived Personality Match on Perceptions of Expert Testimony. PsycEXTRA Dataset. doi:10.1037/e571212013-093

Ingriselli, Elizabeth, “Mitigating Jurors’ Racial Biases: The Effects of Content and Timing of Jury Instructions” (2015). Student Prize Papers. 119.

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylsspps_papers/119

Ream, R. A. (2009). Limited Voir Dire. Criminal Justice, 23(4), 22.

Schuller, R. A., Erentzen, C., Vo, A., & Li, D. (2015). Challenge for a cause: Bias screening procedures and their application in a Canadian courtroom. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21(4), 407-419. doi:10.1037/law0000056

Vitelli, R. (2015). Can you change your personality? Psychology Today. Retrieved from

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/media-spotlight/201509/can-you-change-your-

personality