A ‘Special’ Delivery? Exploring the Impact of Screens, Live-Links and Video-Recorded Evidence on Mock Juror Deliberation in Rape Trials

Abstract

This article discusses the findings of a study in which 160 volunteer members of the public observed one of four mini rape trial reconstructions and were asked to deliberate as a group towards a verdict. In a context in which research into the substantive content of the deliberations of real jurors is prohibited by the Contempt of Court Act 1981, these discussions were analysed to assess whether, and in what ways, perceptions of adult rape testimony are influenced by different modes of presentation. While lawyers and other observers have speculated about the possible undue effects of alternative trial arrangements on juror perceptions and the evaluation of evidence in rape trials, the issue has received scant empirical attention. In an effort to bridge this knowledge gap, this study investigated the influence upon mock jurors of three special measures currently made available in England and Wales to adult sexual offence complainants by the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, namely (1) live-links; (2) video-recorded evidence-in-chief followed by live-link cross-examination and (3) protective screens. Following a careful and contextual exploration of the content of the mock juries' deliberations, the researchers

The Relevance of Sexual History and Vulnerability in the Prosecution of Sexual Offences

“…However, in England and Wales, Ellison and Munro investigated the impact of three special measures upon mock juror evaluations of adult rape testimony: (1) live-links; (2) video recorded evidence-in-chief followed by live-link crossexamination; and (3) protective screens. 120 Their findings are illustrative since they refer to the same sorts of special measures as introduced in Scotland and elsewhere in the last decades.…”

‘It doesn’t happen … and I’ve never thought it was necessary for it to happen’

“…The ‘sanctity of the jury room’ 47 acts as a very real barrier to assessing the effect, if any, of the impact of the medium through which evidence is delivered on the jury. In an attempt to gauge its significance Ellison and Munro conducted mock jury research (Ellison and Munro, 2014), setting up various conditions through which testimony was received, including via prerecorded video evidence, live link, from behind screens, and without the use of any special measures. In the jurors’ deliberations, it was found that references to the way in which the witnesses testified were rarely made (Ellison and Munro, 2014: 21).…”

Lay participation: the paradox of the jury

“…92 Myths and imbalanced power relationships can especially be played upon where the jury's understanding of a case may be affected by the victim/survivor's behaviour and language contradicting the normal stereotype. 93 The notion that a victim is complicit in the violence or brings it upon herself, 94 still has credence in some legal circles, 95 where arguments 90 of 'contributory negligence' have been advanced and, as barrister Barbara Hewson recently put it, that 'victims have a moral responsibility for their rape'. 96 These tactics can be contrasted with the opportunity for defendants to speak to judge and jury in their defence or by way of a 'closing speech' in the eighteenthcentury trials at the Old Bailey, which was potentially a way of influencing the jury by evoking sympathy for their case and situation, but was clearly no match for seasoned advocates.…”