Does knowledge of a previous, overturned conviction have a negative impact on Defendants' aquittal chances?

[dstebbins]

This is the best board I can think of to place this in, since it concerns how the human brain operates, so I'm placing it in the "neuroscience" boar.

 

Suppose Mr. Defendant gets convicted of X Crime. However, as it turns out, the prosecutor did not disclose some potentially expulpatory evidence to the Defense, and as a result, his conviction gets overturned.

 

So, Mr. Defendant goes into a new trial. During the second trial, the parties never attempt to hide that the Defendant was convicted before, and that this was his second trial. The jury is fully aware that he has been convicted before, but they don't know the reason it was overturned.

 

Would the jury - assuming the jury were all average people - be more inclined to re-convict the Defendant if they were aware of the previous conviction?

 

The reason I think an average person might be subconsciously swayed in that direction is because, as far as they are concerned, the Defendant is already considered guilty. The status quo is "guilty," and thus, they are simply being asked to re-affirm what has already been decided. Therefore, even if they may not be aware of it themselves, they may sub-consciously hold the Defendant to the burden of proof.

 

If my hypothesis is correct, that might be grounds for having prior convictions be blanketly inadmissible, if those convictions had been overturned, seeing as how they were overturned for a reason, and thus, evidence that it even existed would carry no probative value, thus making them "more prejudicial than probative."

 

Remember that, in order for my hypothesis to be true, the statistics must show, not just that Defendants have a higher chance of conviction on a second trial, but rather, that their odds of conviction go up if the jury knows about the prior conviction! For example, I read a study that says that Defendants face an 88% conviction rate, regardless of whether they are represented by private attorneys or Public Defenders (in fact, quelling that particular rumor - that public defenders were worse than private attorneys - was the whole point of that article).

 

Now take those Defendants who, for whatever reason, have had their convictions overturned. Those who are now facing their second trial. Seperate them into cases in which the jury was aware of the previous, overturned conviction, and where there was no evidence, on the record, indicating that the jury was any the wiser that this wasn't his first trial. Measure the conviction rates then.

 

Are the Defendants in the second category convicted significantly less often than those in the first category?

[John Cuthber]

Good question.

If I was on the jury and knew that it was a re-trial I might think "this guy's conviction was overturned so the evidence against him must have been 'dodgy` in some way. If the evidence against him wasn't sound, that suggests he's innocent".

 

I'm not in a position to say which view would be more common. Would they think he's guilty because he was found guilty; or innocent because the conviction was unjustified?

In a way, its not a second trial, but (to an extent) a third.

The first was the original trial. The second was the hearing where they decided the evidence was flawed and then he's on to a third "day in court" with a record of lost one :won one.

[dstebbins]

If I was on the jury and knew that it was a re-trial I might think "this guy's conviction was overturned so the evidence against him must have been 'dodgy` in some way. If the evidence against him wasn't sound, that suggests he's innocent".

 

I'm not in a position to say which view would be more common.

But what do the statistics say?

 

In a way, its not a second trial, but (to an extent) a third.

The first was the original trial. The second was the hearing where they decided the evidence was flawed and then he's on to a third "day in court" with a record of lost one :won one.

Don't you think you're arguing semantics at this point?

Edited June 3, 2015 by dstebbins

[John Cuthber]

I doubt that statistics have been compiled. even if they were, it wouldn't be a randomised allocation to the two groups so it's not a legitimate tests.

 

It's not really semantics. There were, in fact, two hearing which discussed the case, prior to the second trial.

 

It might be interesting to see if a university psychology department would investigate this (it doesn't need to be real trials and, unless you have a lot of money, you are not going to get real lawyers etc.)

[dstebbins]

it wouldn't be a randomised allocation to the two groups so it's not a legitimate tests.

Huh?!

 

 

It might be interesting to see if a university psychology department would investigate this (it doesn't need to be real trials and, unless you have a lot of money, you are not going to get real lawyers etc.)

We don't need to spend the money on mock trials. We just need to get in touch with court reporters and ask them to take note of which re-trials expose the second jury to the fact that there was a previous conviction. The Court Reporters don't need to tell the attorneys (or even the judges, for that matter) that they're doing that, since disclosing this information does not, by itself, prejudice the rights of either party.

 

And besides, it's going to be public record anyway!

 

Then, we compare those stats to the second-conviction rates.

 

It would only cost us about $250 per month, per court reporter, to have those reporters compile those stats for us. That's a lot cheaper than staging mock trials and summoning jurors for the express purpose of making some data points, wouldn't it?

[John Cuthber]

You need to look into the world of bias in experimental design.

When you say

"We just need to get in touch with court reporters and ask them to take note of which re-trials expose the second jury to the fact that there was a previous conviction. "

you ignore the fact that the decision to tell them or not isn't going to be random.

Imagine that, in every case where it was clear that the prosecution had left out some exhortating detail, the defence made sure that this fact was pointed out to the jury but, where it was some "technicality" like the copper wasn't in uniform when he read the defendant his rights because he hadn't got his hat on they didn't point this out to the jury.

It's clear that in the first case the defendant isn't guilty - so the evidence that was used by the prosecution can't have been all that convincing (after all, it was wrong).

On the other hand, in the second case the evidence might be very convincing.

 

Wouldn't you expect a difference in outcomes because of that?

Well,, unless the two groups are assigned randomly (i.e. someone flips a coin, in advance, to decide whether or not to tell the jury, you are not comparing two similar groups so the outcomes may be different- but not for the reason you are looking at.

 

Like I said, it's not a legitimate way to test your original hypothesis.

 

if you don't do it properly, you might as well set fire to $250 per month.

Edited June 3, 2015 by John Cuthber