Scottish jury research: findings from a mock jury study

Annex G - Video observation record sheet

Juries mainstage video observation record - primary coder version - confidential when complete

General

• These observation sheets will form a key part of the data for the study, so please ensure you complete fully, and discuss any issues you are not sure about with a colleague.
• Completed sheets should be saved to: O:\CES\17-016941-01 Juries\Mainstage\Analysis\Completed observation sheets\Observation sheets - primary coders. They should be clearly labelled with the Jury date, location and reference letter, your initials, and marked 'Confidential'.
• Notes on the content (section 3) - should be completed with reference to output from NVivo coding of the transcript (e.g. data coded under relevant nodes).
• Notes on the dynamics (section 4) will usually draw more on viewing the video of the deliberations.

Process for adding new codes:

• The codes below have been developed following viewing of the pilot deliberation films and the first 8 mainstage films, as well as extensive discussion within the team and with the Scottish Government.
• If you feel that there are additional themes that are not fully captured by the codes listed here, please raise this with the rest of the research team in the first instance. If we agree a new code is needed:
  • This will be added to the node list in NVivo
  • An updated version of this observation sheet (and the secondary coder sheet) will be issued
  • We will then to check the relevant sections of transcripts for juries that have already been coded to see whether additional coding is required. We expect that most new codes will be additional sub-themes under - so it should usually simply be a case of inspecting what was coded under the top-level node, and adding further sub-coding where appropriate.

1. Basic Details (See Jury record sheet/Excel outcome log - please take from this rather than estimating)

Jury date and location
Jury ID letter
Rape trial or assault trial?
Number of verdicts
Number of jurors deliberating
Number of spare jurors
Trial video ID
Session researcher (who supervised the jury?)
Deliberation observation sheet completed by
Length of deliberations in minutes
Unanimous Condition: Was the additional direction read out? At what time?
Verdict returned (Guilty/Not Guilty/Not Proven/Hung)
Individual juror verdicts at start (from questionnaires)
Individual juror verdicts at end (from questionnaires)
Roughly how long did this observation sheet take to complete? (Note if possible how long each section took)

2. Overview of Deliberations

Please make brief notes here (no longer than half a side or so) summarising what you view as the key points - key issues focused on, general impressions of quality of discussion, overall jury dynamics, extent/nature of discussion of NP verdict. Also include brief notes on whether jurors appear to be engaging seriously with their task and treating it (as far as possible) as 'real'.

3. The Content

This section focuses on the content of the deliberations - what was said. The dynamics of how things were said and the interactions between jurors should be logged in section 4.

a) Discussion of the Evidence

Purpose is to map the range of issues of evidence discussed in each jury - less concerned with content/what they thought of each.

Discussion of the law/specific legal tests and of the Not Proven verdict are covered in sections b) and c).

Issue	Was it discussed? (Y/N - with reference to the coded NVivo data)	Brief notes on any particularly salient points re. quality / extent of discussion. Focus on quality/extent rather than precise Content.
Credibility	code rows below
3.1.1 - Demeanour of the accused on the stand (inc. comments that seemed honest)
3.1.2 - Demeanour of the complainer on the stand (inc. comments that seemed honest)
3.1.3 - Demeanour of the witness on the stand (inc. comments that seemed honest)
3.1.4 - Believability / wider credibility of the accused (e.g. whether found story plausible or thought motivated to lie)
3.1.5 - Believability / wider credibility of the complainer (e.g. whether found story plausible or thought motivated to lie)
3.1.6 - Believability / wider credibility of the witness (e.g. whether found story plausible or thought motivated to lie)
3.1.7 - Difficulties of choosing between conflicting accounts in general (he said/she said etc.)
3.2 - Level of Consumption of Alcohol By Parties Involved
3.3 - Injuries	code rows below
3.3.1 - Complainer's injuries - discussion of their nature/likely cause
3.3.2 - Accused's injuries - discussion of whether/why not injured
3.4 - Position of Parties during incident	code rows below
3.4.1 - Fact intercourse took place on floor (Rape Trial)
3.4.2 - Position during intercourse (e.g. account of arm across chest, her underneath etc.) (Rape Trial)
3.4.3 - Position of parties during fight (Assault Trial)
3.4.4 - Position of witness during incident/likelihood of seeing incident (Assault)
3.5 - Possession/Ownership of Knife (Assault)
3.6 - Behaviour of Accused Before/During/After The Incident	code rows below
3.6.1 - Accepting wine (Rape Trial)
3.6.2 - Nature of conversation before incident (Rape Trial)
3.6.3 - Coming up again after dropping TV in car (Rape)
3.6.4 - Leaving scene after the incident (Both)
3.6.5 - Why didn't phone ambulance (Assault)
3.6.6 - Other aspect of behaviour of accused
3.7 - Behaviour of the Complainer Before/During/After the Incident	code rows below
3.7.1 - Two previous phone calls (Rape Trial)
3.7.2 - Offering wine/inviting him over (Rape Trial)
3.7.3 - Reaction during incident (Rape Trial) - e.g. level of resistance/whether shouted for help
3.7.4 - Phonecall to sister (Rape Trial)
3.7.5 - (Timing of) phonecall to police (Rape Trial)
3.7.6 - Showering (Rape Trial)
3.7.7 - Arguing with partner (Assault)
3.7.8 - Picking up the knife after being stabbed (Assault)
3.7.9 - Other aspect of behaviour of complainer
3.8 - Behaviour of witness before/during/after incident (Assault)
3.9 - Other elements of evidence - see above on adding new codes
3.10 - Missing evidence (any discussion around things that weren't part of the evidence - e.g. previous sexual relationship)

b) Discussion of the Law/Legal Tests

Purpose is to map the range of legal issues raised in each jury.

Discussion of the evidence and of the Not Proven verdict are covered in sections a) and c)

Issue	Was it discussed? (Yes/No - with reference to the coded data)	Brief notes on any particularly salient points re. quality / extent of discussion. Focus on quality/extent rather than precise Content.
4.1 - Self-Defence (Assault)	code rows below
4.1.1 - General discussion of plausibility of the self-defence argument
4.1.2 - Specific references to reasonable belief in imminent danger of attack
4.1.3 - Specific reference to violence as last resort
4.1.4 - Specific reference to reasonable amount of force to stop an attack
4.2 - Legal Tests For Rape	code rows below
4.2.1 - Whether evidence suggests complainer consented or not
4.2.2 - Whether accused had reasonable belief in consent
4.3 - Corroboration	code rows below
4.3.1 - Discussion of meaning of corroboration
4.3.2 - Discussion of whether witness' account corroborates complainer or not
4.4 - Reasonable Doubt/ Standard of Proof	code rows below
4.4.1 - Discussion of meaning of reasonable doubt / standard of proof
4.4.2 - Discussion of whether evidence leaves reasonable doubt /reaches standard of proof or not

4.5 - Misunderstandings of Legal Issues	On how many separate occasions was this misunderstanding expressed? (Discussion in one section of the deliberations counts as one occasion, even if statement is repeated during this section. If a statement is made, then re-introduced after a change of topic, this counts as 2 separate occasions).	On how many of the occasions it was raised was this misunderstanding challenged? (See left for definition of how to count separate occasions)	Summary notes on what was discussed and what happened as result of any challenge to misunderstandings. Does challenge result in corrected understanding among jury (as far as you can tell), or do misunderstandings persist?
4.5.1 - Belief that need to prove innocence in order to be found Not Guilty
4.5.2 - Assault - misunderstanding of fact 'self-defence' is a legitimate defence for assault (i.e. think guilty because stabbed him, regardless of whether it was self-defence)
4.5.3 - Other probable misunderstanding (describe on right) - additional codes to be created if necessary, using process above.
4.5.4 - Other Legal Issues/Aspects - see above on adding new codes

c) Discussion of the Not Proven Verdict

For this section, in contrast with b) and c), we are also more interested in the detailed content of discussion of Not Proven, not just the range of points made.

i. How much substantive discussion of the Not Proven verdict was there? I.e. discussion of its meaning/how it compares with NG. If reasons for choosing NP were given - e.g. as part of the round table - but without any elaboration on why it was chosen over NG or what people think NP means, then note this separately below. (delete as appropriate and add brief notes, including noting number of words coded under 'Not Proven' theme in NVivo, so we can check consistency of interpretation)

• None at all
• Only minimal/brief references
• In some detail

ii. What correct, incorrect, and other statements were made about the NP verdict? Complete table with reference to NVivo coded data

Statement	On how many separate occasions was this statement expressed? (Discussion in one section of the deliberations counts as one occasion, even if statement is repeated during this section. If a statement is made, then re-introduced after a change of topic, this counts as 2 separate occasions).	On how many of the occasions it was raised was this statement challenged? (See left for definition of how to count separate occasions)	Summary notes on what was discussed and what happened as result of any challenge to statements about NP. Does challenge result in corrected understanding among jury (as far as you can tell), or do misunderstandings persist?
5.1.1 - Can be retried if NP (F)
5.1.2 - NP verdict goes on accused's criminal record (F)
5.1.3 - You should use NP if have not proven innocence (F)
5.1.4 - Legal consequences of NP are same as NG (T)
5.1.5 - Cannot be retried if NP (T)
5.1.6 - Do not get any kind of record if NP (T)
5.1.7 - 'Stigma' attached to NP verdict
5.1.8 - 'NP means Guilty but can't prove it'
5.1.9 - Would normally have NP in Scotland (2 verdict conditions)
5.1.10 - Other statement about NP verdict - see above on adding new codes

iii. (How) is NP compared to Not Guilty? And to Guilty? (Summarise with reference to nvivo coded data)

iv. Where Jurors are considering or go for a NP verdict, what, if any, reasons do they give for choosing it over Guilty or Not Guilty? (Summarise with reference to NVivo coded data)

v. Anything else noteworthy about how NP is discussed?

4. Observations of Juror Dynamics/Interactions

Include time stamps of specific examples of interactions that demonstrate observations where possible

i. Foreperson:

• Which juror was foreperson? (Record number, gender - will get age from SPSS)
• How was this decided (e.g. vote/someone nominated self or what?)
• At roughly what stages/times?
• What were the numbers for each verdict at each vote?
• Note whether jurors were asked to go round and explain their verdict at each stage (i.e. how many 'round tables' like this did they have after votes?)

ii. Dominant Jurors:

• Were there any dominant jurors, meaning in this case any jurors who contribute very obviously substantially more than most other jurors?
  • Note their juror number and genders (will get age from SPSS).
• What, if any, impact did this dominance appear to have on other jurors (e.g. changing mind, not contributing, or challenging dominant jurors? Acknowledging that may be difficult to judge this)

iii. Contributions By Jurors

It is difficult to define what counts as 'minimal contributions' - sometimes people make few but lengthy contributions, for example. However, broadly speaking, someone would be classed as only having contributed minimally if they make fewer than 3 contributions, excluding:

• non-verbal contributions (nodding)
• simple agreement (e.g. 'yes I agree' with no expansion)
• very short contributions that are only made directly in response as part of a 'going round the table' after a vote to explain their verdict.

If someone makes fewer than 3 contributions, but one or more contribution is more extended, you may decide they have nonetheless contributed more than minimally (please note where this is the case).

As you watch the video, tick off jurors when you feel confident that they have contributed more than minimally, based on the criteria above.

Juror number	Space to tick off contributions	Juror number	Space to tick off contributions
1		9
2		10
3		11
4		12
5		13
6		14
7		15
8

• How many jurors contributed only minimally (i.e. did not meet descriptions above)? Note any you were not sure about (and x-check with the secondary coders' rating).
• Note their juror numbers, genders (will get age from SPSS)
• Overall, how frequently did you observe jurors apparently wanting to contribute but being unable to do so (e.g. being cut off/interrupted/obviously wanting to interject but being unable to do so)?
  • Not at all in this jury
  • Only very occasionally
  • Only during specific sections of discussion (say which), or
  • Regularly throughout the jury?

iv. Attempts To Persaude/Influence Other Jurors:

• Did jurors try directly to persuade others in the jury to change their verdict?
• In what direction? How did they try and persuade them?
• How hard did they appear to try?
• What was the outcome of these attempts?

v. Tone Of Discussion

• Was the overall tone of discussion between jurors (delete/highlight as appropriate):
  • always/almost always completely calm (can use if very occasionally slightly heated - if more than that use another code)
  • occasionally more heated/animated
  • frequently more heated/animated?
• Please add notes on the focus/nature of any more heated/animated disagreements. Were these resolved or not?

vi. Any other observations on juror interactions?