This chapter will discuss the psychological processes by which pretrial publicity (PTP) can affect jurors’ and judges’ decisions. Pretrial publicity includes all media coverage (traditional and social media) of cases making their way to trial. Although many jurors believe they can ignore what they have read or heard about the case, and many judges believe they can effectively rehabilitate jurors exposed to PTP, this is typically not the case. These efforts and their effectiveness are examined in detail. Both positive and negative PTP can influence decisions in a variety of trial types (including civil and criminal). Jurors tend to examine this information through lenses such as predecisional influences that tend to focus on a particular side. Research also suggests they employ long-established narratives such as the story model in these situations. The chapter will synthesize this body of research and offer future directions and implications for the legal field.

Chapter 2 focuses on voir dire, or the questioning of prospective jurors. The traditional view is that this stage is supposed to enable judges and lawyers to determine which prospective jurors are biased and need to be removed and which are unbiased and can serve on the jury. The transformation view is that voir dire has little value as a means of finding jurors who have subtle biases, but it has a lot of value in helping to transform citizens into impartial jurors. Other than in extreme cases of bias, there is little evidence that the kind of biases that everyone has can or should be identified during voir dire. Instead, voir dire really begins the process of helping prospective jurors to put aside their private concerns, to understand the need to manage their own biases, and to see themselves as part of a group endeavor. There is often a moment when prospective jurors stop formulating their excuses and start thinking about serving. At that moment, a transformation begins in earnest. This chapter also describes how voir dire can be reformed to bring about the transformation of citizens into jurors even more effectively than current practice does.

How does a group of strangers, many of whom are initially unhappy about serving as jurors, become a jury that works together as a group to reach a unanimous verdict based on the evidence that was presented to them during the trial and who leave their experience satisfied with the job they have done and with the jury system? The answer lies in the jury process and the way in which it transforms citizens into jurors. The various stages of the jury process, including the summons, voir dire, instructions, and deliberations, help citizens to step into their role as jurors. The final stage, the post-verdict interview with the judge, helps jurors to leave their role as jurors behind and to resume their lives as private citizens who will serve as emissaries for the jury. Although the jury process carries out this transformation of citizens into jurors reasonably well, there is still room for improvement. Each of the stages of the jury process can be improved upon by looking at the process as a whole rather than each stage in isolation, and by ensuring that any reforms further the transformation of citizens into jurors.

This chapter deals with a range of matters relating to the facilitation of proof (mostly found in ch 4 of the Act) and ancillary matters (found in ch 5 of the Act). Although these provisions are somewhat technical, many are important in practice, as they allow decisions to be reached without evidence having to be taken on some issues. They also regulate the ways in which certain kinds of information, such as that contained in public documents and registers, may be used. Other aspects of proof, such as the standards of proof applying in civil and criminal proceedings, as well as judicial notice, are dealt with in Chapter 1 of this book. Warnings, although falling within ch 4 of the Act, are discussed together with discretions and limiting directions in Chapter 12 of this book.

Trial by jury in Russia is an ongoing legal and political experiment that has been carried out for the last 155 years. Throughout this period several governments in Russia attempted to use the jury trial to legitimize courts in the eyes of citizens by involving them in the administration of justice. At the same time, the government exercised close control over lay participation through various legislative and judicial mechanisms. We analyze legislative changes affecting the jury over the course of its history in Russia and we identify and examine three main controlling mechanisms. These include the relationship between the Russian government and the jury trial; the change in types of cases that juries can hear in Russia, especially in relation to crimes against the state; the diminishing role of the defense with respect to juries; and the increasing role of the government in influencing jury composition. This chapter also explores the significance of adversarial and inquisitorial elements of the Russian jury trial in Tsarist and modern times.