Fascinating journal article discussing juror bias and firearms use

[lexjj]

I was reading the The Jury Expert, published by the American Association of Trial Consultants, and stumbled upon this article discussing the biases found in experiments on mock jurors. http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2009/0...s-and-the-fears-of-the-legally-armed-citizen/

The experiments tested how perception of specific firearms and/or gender impacts the behavior of a jury. The researchers created a scenario where a lawful gun owner defended his/her home with various weapons. Specifically, they tested an AR-15 v. a Mini-14, and a .38 revolver against a Glock 9mm.

Jurors were MUCH more likely to convict an AR-15 shooter than a Mini-14 shooter AND ascribed significantly longer sentences. In particular, female shooters in general were likely to be found guilty and given long sentences. But, female AR-15 shooters received the highest rate of "conviction" and the longest sentences.

I'm not sure what the ultimate impact of this study should be for gun owners, but it is definitely worth thinking about. The studies use a small sample. But the findings seem to support many of the perception arguments that Massad Ayoob has been making for years.

 

[THE DARK KNIGHT]

I figured that one out about a month after getting into firearms, didn't need a fancy study to tell me that. Does this really come as a surprise to anyone?

"A Jury is a collection of 12 people too dumb to get out of jury duty"
- Unknown

 

[Jubjub]

Makes me happy that I live in Missouri, with maybe the strongest Castle law in the country. If someone someone breaks into your house and is a threat, it wouldn't matter if you shot them with a belt fed machinegun (assuming that you owned the gun legally). You can't be charged or sued.

 

[1911Tuner]

Yep. Juries can be biased and they can be swayed by the smallest point...no matter how irrelevant...especially by certain hot button issues. People argue: "If the shooting is justified, then it shouldn't matter what gun/ammunition combination is used." "Shouldn't" being the wild card. It may well be that these things "shouldn't" make a difference...but the reality is that they often do.

 

[rbernie]

Article text:

 

[HKUSP45C]

This is also a reason to scrutinize your local prosecutor's office and make sure you work to actively "vote out" any malicious prosecutors.

I still have a tremendous amount of faith in the criminal court system of this country. The vast majority of the time, in the majority of locales, righteous shootings never get in front of a jury with the ability to find you guilty.

That said, use what you want to defend yourself and for whatever reason. If you're concerned about a chain of events where a malicious police officer offers a contrived story to a malicious prosecutor who offers a contrived story to a grand jury who then indicts you and a trial jury jury that isn't smart enough to see through all of the lies even with your defense attorney pointing them out then, yes, using a mini 14 istead of your AR may be a better way for you to go. Just to be on the safe side.

Me, I'll use whatever is at hand at the time, even if it's a 10.5" supressed , tacticool machine gun. Problem number two is gonna suck either way, I'd just as soon be alive to endure it.

ETA: After having read the article I can say that the study was well conducted and the results cogently laid out. It truly was a fascinating look at the whole process. Particularly since it was conducted in Texas and the jury results were so far off of what I would have guessed. I was truly suprised.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

Can we say Harold Fish?

Good read.

 

[DeepSouth]

rbernie Thanks for that, it should be required reading for anyone that carries a weapon, and I haven't even finished it yet.

 

[HKUSP45C]

Can we say Harold Fish?

Harold Fish had a whole bunch more going against him than the fact that he used a 10mm ... to say otherwise is a gross over-simplication

 

[Kindrox]

That study is very eye opening. If I didn’t live in a free state with a castle doctrine my weapon selection would not include AR15s, particularly for the wife.

I would have though women would have an almost automatic pass if shooting a burglar in their own home, it says a lot about society when they get more “jail time” and are actually knocked by other women for defending themselves.

I am sure there is some sort of projection going on there.

 

[bigalexe]

Sorry but all this study says is:
People Make Decisions based on emotions, and not facts!

News at 11

 

[HexHead]

Interesting read. Brings to mind another question... Is a person with a carry permit more likely to be excused from the jury on a shooting case, or picked?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Harold Fish had a whole bunch more going against him than the fact that he used a 10mm ...

Of course he did. If he didn't, he wouldn't have gone to trial. A DA is not going to take a case to trial unless there's more than just the type of gun used. BUT that's very important to consider.

If you are on trial after a self defense shooting, you will have a variety of problems. It's not going to help you if you have added to your problems by having chosen a "hot button" gun or having used handloaded ammunition or having used a gun in which a safety device had been disabled. These are potential "wild cards" that are within your control. You can make the choice ahead of time to avoid them.

We really to get over this "a good shoot is a good shoot" business. If you are on trial after a self defense shooting, someone doesn't think it was a "good shoot." Either the DA decided that he had something to prosecute or the grand jury concluded that there was probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed and that you did it. There is a dispute about whether the shooting was justified, and determining whether it was a "good shoot" is now going to be up to the judge and/or jury.

If you need to use your gun in self defense, there is no way you can know ahead of time whether in your particular case there will be ample evidence to support your claim of self defense or if, when the smoke clears, the evidence will be sparse that you were justified in using lethal force.

Everyone who has ever been on trial after a self defense shooting probably thought at the time that he was in the right. But the fact that he wound up on trial shows that in the aftermath the prosecutor found good reason to challenge the claim of justification and to believe that he could get a jury to agree.

...Is a person with a carry permit more likely to be excused from the jury on a shooting case, or picked?

The prosecutor will get him off the jury as fast as he can. The prosecutor will do everything possible to keep anyone with any knowledge of, or interest in, guns off the jury.

 

[eye5600]

I suspect that like many other kinds of discrimination, the effects can be mitigated if they are known in advance and planned for. It would be interesting to have after-the-fact interviews with the "jurors" to know how they appraised the various "defendants."

It could be, for example, that they tended to assume that the females were ignorant of firearms, scared, and not in control of themselves or the situation. There could be background info that could counter that, e.g. if the woman shot regularly, was a hunter, had training in self-defense, etc.

 

[Kindrox]

Interesting read. Brings to mind another question... Is a person with a carry permit more likely to be excused from the jury on a shooting case, or picked?

It probably depends on the strength of the case. If the defense is strong I am sure the prosecution wants you off the jury. If the defense is weak the prosecution probably still wants you off the jury.

I seem to be an expert at not getting on a jury. They always ask about civil lawsuit involvement and I think they don't want anyone on the jury who knows anything about law.

 

[eye5600]

I wonder what it means that there were shotguns in the mix of guns, but virtually no mention of shotguns in the results.

Also they made the point that they had the a priori expectation that females would come out worse than males. It makes me worry about bias.

Perhaps we should all give our wives very expensive semi-automatic shotguns with glossy walnut stocks for Christmas.

 

[General Geoff]

The prosecutor will do everything possible to keep anyone with any knowledge of, or interest in, guns off the jury.

Wouldn't that preclude the notion that you are being judged by your peers?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Wouldn't that preclude the notion that you are being judged by your peers?

In any case, that's the way it is. The notion of who are the defendant's is peers is very broad. If taken to an extreme, the normal criminal defendant would have a jury of gang members.

 

[Trebor]

Wouldn't that preclude the nation that you are being judged by your peers?

Nope, jurors don't have to have the same interests, hobbies, or backgrounds as the defendent.

They only have to non-felons and able to say they will consider the evidence impartially. Race can possibly play a factor if the overall jury make-up can be shown to be biased one way or the other (all white jury with a black defendent, for example) but even there it isn't a hard and fast rule.

In short "Jury of your peers" means other private citizens without felonies. That's about it. It's up to your lawyer to try to stack the jury with people sympathetic to you and up to the prosecutor to try to stack the jury the other way.

 

[General Geoff]

By intentionally removing all gun owners, that would be negatively biasing the jury; If the jury is supposed to be a random selection of law abiding, impartial citizens, statistically about HALF of the jury would be made up of gun owners.

 

[Kleanbore]

Makes me happy that I live in Missouri, with maybe the strongest Castle law in the country. If someone someone breaks into your house and is a threat, it wouldn't matter if you shot them with a belt fed machinegun (assuming that you owned the gun legally). You can't be charged or sued.

Don't believe it. The fact that deadly force was justified under the law can serve as an "absolute defense to criminal prosecution or civil liability", but nothing actually prevents the filing of charges, because should it go that far, it will be the jury that will decide the facts--decide whether the use of force was justified under the law.

Should it not go to criminal trial, there can still be a civil trial to establish the facts. The likelihood of such a development is now reduced by the provision in the law that makes a losing plaintiff liable for court costs and expenses incurred by the defendant.

By the way, the intruder need not actually break in, though the physical evidence of a forcible entry would be very advantageous to the homeowner after the fact.

Also by the way, the same provision in the law ("absolute defense") applies if the shooting occurs in the street or on the courthouse lawn. Make no mistake about it, if you shoot someone there can be charges--it's just that if it is found that the facts are that the actor reasonably believed that deadly force was necessary to protect himself or herself or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony, the actor will be acquitted.

The actor has the burden of "injecting the issue of justification" whether the shooting occurs in the street or in the home. In the case of the latter it should generally be much more clear cut, in my humble lay opinion.

Also in my lay opinion, the "absolute defense against criminal prosecution" does not seem to really constitute a change in long-standing law. Self-defense has been permitted for more years than I know.

The "castle" doctrine is a change--you don't have to retreat from your home now, and your defense of justifiability is much easier. I'm told be people who should know that bad case law led to that amendment.

The civil protection is also a change. Before that provision was enacted, one could be justified under the criminal section--and even be acquitted in court--and still face civil judgments. Such occurrences led to the change in the law.

In any case, I'll try to handle everything that is under my control in such a way as to minimize risk should the unthinkable happen. That includes avoiding unwise internet postings, stupid signs, the use of hand loads or ammunition advertised in a manner that could be damaging, and the selection of "mean guns."

 

[HKUSP45C]

Wouldn't that preclude the notion that you are being judged by your peers?

In the US, you have no right to a "jury of your peers" just an "impartial jury."

The jury of your peers theory stems from English common law and was a way of ensuring that a rich land owner wouldn't have to be judged by the riff-raff. It's an antiquated and silly system and one I'm quite happy we don't employ here in the US.

 

[General Geoff]

Ok, given the impartial jury notion instead of a jury of peers.

A juror who decides you are guilty for using a "scary looking" AR-15 in an otherwise justified shoot is not impartial.

 

[9mm+]

It was a very eye-opening article for me. I was surprised by the observation from Anderson that teaching women to shoot "dis-empowers" them, which was corroborated through comments by feminist academicians examining the role of women using guns in mainstream cinema. Despite the advancement of women to achieve parity with men, I can only conclude that society still expects men to provide the majority of protection against violent incidents.

 

[Frank Ettin]

..If the jury is supposed to be a random selection of law abiding, impartial citizens, statistically about HALF of the jury would be made up of gun owners....

I've never seen anything that requires a jury to be a random selection.

Ok, given the impartial jury notion instead of a jury of peers.

A juror who decides you are guilty for using a "scary looking" AR-15 in an otherwise justified shoot is not impartial.

If you ever find yourself on trial, feel free to challenge the jury selection process. Let us know how it works out.

Makes me happy that I live in Missouri, with maybe the strongest Castle law in the country. ...

DOn't know about you, but I travel to other states from time to time. I may have to defend myself in a variety of places.