The trial of the Rev. Alexander Fletcher, A.M., before the lord chief justice of the court of common sense, and a special jury /

Plates attributed to Robert Cruikshank.

The trial of Sir Francis Burdett, Bart. at Leicester, on Thursday, March 23d, 1820, before Mr. Justice Best, and a special jury ...

Mode of access: Internet.

Rapports du Jury international.

Mode of access: Internet.

Brickwood's Sackett on Instructions to juries; containing a treatise on jury trials and appeals with forms of approved instructions and charges annotated; also erroneous instructions with comment of the court in condemning them ...

Paged continuously.

Rapports du Jury international,

At head of title: Ministère du commerce, de l'industrie et des colonies. Exposition universelle internationale de 1889 à Paris.

Fixed or variable noise in contrast discrimination? The jury's still out

The ability to distinguish one visual stimulus from another slightly different one depends on the variability of their internal representations. In a recent paper on human visual-contrast discrimination, Kontsevich et al (2002 Vision Research 42 1771 - 1784) re-considered the long-standing question whether the internal noise that limits discrimination is fixed (contrast-invariant) or variable (contrast-dependent). They tested discrimination performance for 3 cycles deg-1 gratings over a wide range of incremental contrast levels at three masking contrasts, and showed that a simple model with an expansive response function and response-dependent noise could fit the data very well. Their conclusion - that noise in visual-discrimination tasks increases markedly with contrast - has profound implications for our understanding and modelling of vision. Here, however, we re-analyse their data, and report that a standard gain-control model with a compressive response function and fixed additive noise can also fit the data remarkably well. Thus these experimental data do not allow us to decide between the two models. The question remains open. [Supported by EPSRC grant GR/S74515/01]

Improving civil jury decision-making: Evidentiary and procedural issues

The civil jury has been under attack in recent years for being unreliable and incompetent. Considering the myriad causes for poor civil juror decision-making, the current investigation explores both procedural and evidentiary issues that impact juror's decisions. Specifically, the first phase of this dissertation examines how jurors (mis)use evidence pertaining to the litigants when determining liability and awarding damages. After investigating how jurors utilize evidence, the focus shifts to exploring the utility of procedural reforms designed to improve decision-making (specifically revising the instructions on the laws in the case and bifurcating the damage phases of the trial). Using the results from the first two phases of the research, the final study involves manipulating pieces of evidence related to the litigants while exploring the effects that revising the judicial instructions have on the utilization of evidence in particular and on decision-making in general. ^ This dissertation was run on-line, allowing participants to access the study materials at their convenience. After giving consent, participants read the scenario of a fictitious product liability case with the litigant manipulations incorporated into the summary. Participants answered several attitudinal, case-specific, and comprehension questions, and were instructed to find in favor of one side and award any damages they felt warranted. Exploratory factor analyses, Probit and linear regressions, and path analyses were used to analyze the data (M-plus and SPSS were the software packages used to conduct the analyses). Results indicated that misuse of evidence was fairly frequent, though the mock jurors also utilized evidence appropriately. Although the results did not support bifurcation as a viable procedural reform, revising the judicial instructions did significantly increase comprehension rates. Trends in the data suggested that better decision-making occurred when the revised instructions were used, thus providing empirical support for this procedural reform as a means of improving civil jury decision-making. Implications for actual trials and attorneys are discussed. ^

Jury decision making and the Story Model: How do deliberation style and evidence order influence the story that juries create?

This study investigated the utility of the Story Model for decision making at the jury level by examining the influence of evidence order and deliberation style on story consistency and guilt. Participants were shown a video-taped trial stimulus and then provided case perceptions including a guilt judgment and a narrative about what occurred during the incident. Participants then deliberated for approximately thirty minutes using either an evidence-driven or verdict-driven deliberation style before again providing case perceptions, including a guilt determination, a narrative about what happened during the incident, and an evidence recognition test. Multi-level regression analyses revealed that evidence order, deliberation style and sample interacted to influence both story consistency measures and guilt. Among students, participants in the verdict-driven deliberation condition formed more consistent pro-prosecution stories when the prosecution presented their case in story-order, while participants in the evidence-driven deliberation condition formed more consistent pro-prosecution stories when the defense's case was presented in story-order. Findings were the opposite among community members, with participants in the verdict-driven deliberation condition forming more consistent pro-prosecution stories when the defense's case was presented in story-order, and participants in the evidence-driven deliberation condition forming more consistent pro-prosecution stories when the prosecution's case was presented in story-order. Additionally several story consistency measures influenced guilt decisions. Thus there is some support for the hypothesis that story consistency mediates the influence of evidence order and deliberation style on guilt decisions.

O Sistema Único de Saúde como observatório de direitos universais: uma reflexão a partir das Ciências Sociais

Há uma ampla bibliografia sobre a crise da modernidade. Uma certa vertente compreende que estão ameaçados vários pilares da vida social moderna, dentre eles as conquistas representadas pelos direitos universais. A literatura da Saúde Coletiva também aponta o Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS) como uma ocorrência contrária ao movimento mundial de flexibilização daqueles direitos. Os princípios de universalidade e integralidade, além de constituírem um desafio institucional, financeiro, político e social, expressam também a decisão da sociedade de implementar direitos universais. Utilizamos o instrumental teórico de Souza Santos para caracterizar o SUS como um observatório sobre a efetivação de tais direitos. Ressurge a importância do remodelamento institucional e das deliberações democráticas no estabelecimento do contrato social.

The effect of defendant gender on juror decision-making

Research investigating the role of stereotypes in jury decision-making has typically considered stereotypes as acting as peripheral cues in determin ing the credibility of experts or likelihood of guilt of defendants — with counter-stereotypic courtroom participants faring less well. The present study investigated the possibility that the extent to which courtroom participants are stereotypic can alter the mode of information processing. Students (N = 78) read a transcript of a case in which either a male or female allegedly committed an armed robbery. As predicted, the female counter-stereotypic defendant was distracting and effortful processing only occurred when the defendant was male. The male was seen as more guilty and the prosecution's case was more convincing when the prosecution had a strong, but not weak, case. There were no effects of case strength for the female defendant. Results are discussed in terms of the role of stereotypes in the jury decision-making.