Mock jury trials in Taiwan—Paving the ground for introducing lay participation.

Abstract

The first mock jury study in Taiwan, in which 279 community members watched a videotaped trial, investigated how jurors' estimates of the relative undesirability of wrongful conviction versus wrongful acquittal predicted individual decisions and how decision rules affected outcomes. The percentage of jurors who viewed wrongful conviction as more undesirable increased from 50.9% to 60.9% after deliberation and jurors' postdeliberation acquittal rate (71.7%) was higher than predeliberation acquittal rate (58.8%). Jurors' estimates of the undesirability of wrongful conviction were not correlated with their predeliberation votes but became positively correlated with their postdeliberation decisions. The unanimous rule facilitated jurors' change of vote, predominantly from conviction to acquittal, than the simple majority rule. Jurors reaching a verdict under the unanimous rule viewed deliberation and the verdict more positively. This study indicates that deliberation can ameliorate the problem of most Taiwanese citizens not viewing wrongful conviction as more undesirable than wrongful acquittal. It also suggests that Taiwan should adopt a unanimous rule for its proposed lay participation system.

Jury simulation studies: To exclude or not to exclude participants based on a lack of comprehension of the case?

“…Only 12 of the 156 studies within the whole review contained jury deliberation (7.69%). Of these 12 studies, 9 studies involved questions pertaining to manipulations, memory, attention, or understanding, but only 2 studies made any exclusions on the basis of these questions (Huang & Lin, 2014; Salerno & Peter‐Hagene, 2015). In Salerno and Peter‐Hagene (2015), participants were asked the manipulation check question following the deliberation; however, the manipulation was in relation to the deliberation (gender of the holdout).…”

“…In Salerno and Peter‐Hagene (2015), participants were asked the manipulation check question following the deliberation; however, the manipulation was in relation to the deliberation (gender of the holdout). In Huang and Lin (2014), the question about the trial was asked prior to deliberation, and all mock‐jurors answered the question correctly.…”

Japan’s Lay Judge System

“…When the defendant agrees to this procedural addition, randomly selected civilian participants hear testimony then deliberate on their own before consulting with professional judges regarding guilt and, as necessary, punishment (Kim, Park, Park, & Eom, 2013; J.-H. Lee, 2009, 2010). Similarly, Taiwan is considering a proposal wherein a group of five randomly chosen citizens would sit with and advise three professional judges in serious criminal trials (Huang & Lin, 2013, 2014). To the extent, Japan is able to set an Asian model for ordinary citizens to participate in deciding criminal cases, the saiban-in system could be a major event of the early 21st century.…”

Greater Knowledge Enhances Complainant Credibility and Increases Jury Convictions for Child Sexual Assault

“…For example, the magnitude of correlations of predeliberation attitudes and verdict among empaneled jurors serving on a criminal case was larger than that following deliberation (Moran and Comfort, 1982 ). However, mock-jury research on other topics conducted in North America (Devine, 2012 ), South Korea (Park et al, 2005 ) and Taiwan (Huang and Lin, 2014 ) demonstrated a “leniency effect” following jury deliberation, with more decisions to acquit when verdicts before and after group deliberation were compared (Peter-Hagene et al, 2019 ). Similarly, a recent study of a case of historical child sexual assault showed that individual pretrial attitudinal biases were associated with mock-juror decisions (culpability and verdict) at the individual juror level, while this effect disappeared at the jury group level (Goodman-Delahunty and Martschuk, 2020 ).…”