A crucial discourse on our jury system

Channel 4's The Jury: Murder Trial (26-29 February 2024) delves into a real-life murder case, re-enacting the trial with two separate juries of ordinary citizens. The show explores whether both juries reach the same verdict as each other and the real trial's jury, and sheds light on the challenges of understanding jury decisions.

The programme exposes the intricate psychological dynamics at play within juries, revealing the impact of bias and influential personalities. Based on a real murder trial, the case prompts jurors to grapple with the complexities of human behaviour and the thin line between self-control and rage. Personal experiences of domestic violence and challenging life experiences among jurors, and the presence of dominant personalities with a big influence, highlight the susceptibility to bias and external influences in the decision-making process. The Jury underscores the psychological challenges jurors face in setting aside personal sympathies, navigating conflicting evidence, and reaching a verdict beyond reasonable doubt. The programme further highlights the complexities and uncertainties within the criminal justice system, showcasing the strengths and potential pitfalls of jury trials.

I was privileged to have supported this project. As a case study in supporting a true crime series, thoughtful consideration was given to addressing the mental health requirements of all participants throughout the entire production life span, from development of the project through to post-filming aftercare and the emotive trajectory associated with broadcast. This included extending offers of  support to the jury cast, those individuals and families involved in the real case, and the production team.

The production company meticulously deliberated on ethical considerations pertaining to the profound impact on the real families affected by both sides of the real case. This involved offering avenues for consultation on the project, facilitating access to support, providing opportunities to review the final edit, and ensuring a right to reply.

The preview reel was crafted with sensitivity to prevent re-exposure of the families to emotionally charged and graphic material, with an awareness that viewers may not be in control of exposure to the unpredictability of advertised TV an web-based previews. Additionally, careful thought was given to the launch locations of any marketing campaigns, with a strategic aim to avoid direct geographic proximity to the affected families, thereby being respectful and prioritising their well-being and minimising potential distress.

The Jury: Murder Trial further underscores the imperative for psychological support and debriefing specifically tailored for jurors who are exposed to potentially distressing material. Currently, jurors are directed to consult with their GPs for access to NHS talking therapies and the Samaritans if they encounter any emotional distress or mental health challenges subsequent to their jury service. It is illegal for them to discuss their verdict which may in itself be traumatic.

As the exposure to emotive and graphic material emerges throughout the trial, and chipping away at personal sensitivities for the cast based on lived experiences, as per established trauma-informed protocols, the jury cast were offered opt-ins for support throughout the recreated murder trial, as well as debriefing post-trial (and pre-broadcast), ensuring a holistic approach to mental health care for all involved parties. 

Whilst the jury cast were supported throughout the production, based on emerging needs and a planned duty of care, this approach underscores the necessity of a more extensive conversation regarding mental health support within the criminal justice system, and the gap in adequately assisting jurors who, following their pivotal service, may be referred to lengthy NHS waiting lists, rather than an effective approach specifically designed for the jury experience and exposure.

This has been raised previously by The British Psychological Society in highlighting concerns about the lack of psychological support for jurors after high-profile cases. The BPS has urged the Government for improved psychological assistance, including a dedicated counselling service, a 24/7 support line, and online services for jurors, modelled after Scotland's approach.

There is hope The Jury: Murder Trial therefore not only prompts a crucial discourse on our existing jury system, but also underscores the psychological impact on jurors and the need for dedicated psychological support for jurors and victims within the criminal justice system.

What's the Story? An exploration into the decision-making of jurors

A review from Dr Lee Curley, a Lecturer at the Open University.

Channel 4's The Jury: Murder trial explores how two juries reach a verdict in a real-life murder trial which was reenacted to them live, in a courtroom using real actors. The programme has made the public aware about non-consistent and biased decision-making in jurors, something that psychologists have been studying for decades (see Curley, Munro and Dror, 2022, for an extensive review on the effect of bias in the criminal justice system).

The most widely cited model of juror decision making, the Story Model, seems to explain the evaluative and decision processes of the mock jurors in this study. Within this model, it is proposed that jurors create stories during a trial to make sense of the evidence and allow them to reach a verdict. However, these stories are not just created through the evidence provided – rather they are informed by pre-trial beliefs/experiences/bias (such as a bias towards the prosecution or a bias towards the defence), knowledge of similar trials, and our everyday understanding of what makes a decision. If jurors have created more than one competing story, they then choose the story which is most unique, that is more complete and that is the most coherent.

Jurors at the end of the trial may learn about different verdict categories (Guilty = beyond reasonable doubt; Not Guilty below) from the judge; and potentially prior experiences/knowledge. Jurors then choose the verdict which best matches their chosen story. For example, in the show, if the murder fitted the story more, then a guilty verdict was reached, whereas if manslaughter fitted the story more, then a not guilty verdict was reached.

In the Channel 4 programme, however – and in real-world trials – jurors may have some knowledge about verdict categories from the beginning of the trial; due to instructions from the judge or prior knowledge. Carlson and Russo (2001) suggest that this knowledge may actually bias story construction. They suggest that jurors may start a trial, with a preference for a certain verdict category (e.g., Guilty or Not Guilty). This may be informed by specific pre-trial biases, which cause them to favour the prosecution or defence. From this, the jurors preferred, or leading, verdict may influence how jurors construct a story. Carlson and Russo say: "Driven by the goal of coherence, new evidence is distorted toward the currently leading verdict to make it more compatible with the currently dominant story." Other types of bias, such as rape myths, may also influence story construction in a similar guise.

However, jurors do not make individual decisions; rather, the jury makes a group decision. And, the jury deliberations were the most interesting part of this programme for psychologists/criminologists like ourselves. In the study, jurors with biases towards a certain outcome (murder vs manslaughter) used their stories to convince other jurors. It was clear that strong personalities (those high in extraversion and do an extent those low in agreeableness) were able to dominant the construction of the jury narrative, causing jurors with other stories to distort their own stories to conform to part of the group. In a similar vein to the classic Asch line study, jurors disregard their previous evaluations of evidence to fit in and conform with the group. It even seemed that the unanimous verdict rule utilised in England and Wales intensified the pressure on jurors, with disconfirming jurors feeling pressure 'not to fail the others' by causing a hung jury; some jurors even commented explicitly on the pressure they felt.

Now, of course, the participants were not randomly selected, they knew that their decisions lacked consequence and no academic could claim systematic patterns from two trials. Nevertheless, this study does show that the mighty wizard might not be so powerful after all, and that our jury system is standing on a house of cards. The legal system suggests that our criminal justice system is fair and equal, and that juries lie at the heart of that. However, research from ourselves and colleagues over the world have shown in experiments, questionnaires, meta-analyses, systematic reviews and post-trial interviews that some jurors, some of the time, can be biased and influenced by non-relevant factors. It is time that researchers were given access to real-world jury deliberations to study this in more detail.