dfsdf
I would like to say something about implied bias. Judge Mark Bennett made a good discovery in his “Unraveling the Gordian Knot of Implicit Bias in Jury Selection”. He looked into the Project Implicit, a programme which was originally launched at Yale University then aided by National Institute of Mental Health in 2003 and now is a collaborative effort among many top US universities. After years’ accumulation of data, the findings of the project are summarized as follows:
1) Implicit bias are widespread 2) People are mostly unaware of their implicit biases 3) Implicit biases predict behavior 4) People differ in levels of implicit bias.
In light of these findings, jurors, who are impliedly biased, have greater likelihood to take the opposite move.
When it comes to this case, the jurors gained their perception from the transcript leaked during the pre-trial period. Inevitably, even if the jurors purport to receive no influence upon the verdict, their claims are worth questioning because of the human propensity for self-justification. In this sense, it necessitates a hearing to judge the impact of bias and whether or not the impact was prejudicial, in which all interested parties permitted to partake.
Also, as this leakage was caused by the government side, the prosecutors have the onus probandi to demonstrate that such an impact didn’t ever exist or would not suffice to alter the jurors’ minds. Once the impact proves to be harmful enough, a new trial shall be granted to enable a fair justice.
1) 举证责任在政府 书证泄漏之过失
2) 听证会决定陪审团成员是否受影响
3) 内隐偏见的危害性
1) Implicit bias are widespread 2) People are mostly unaware of their implicit biases 3) Implicit biases predict behavior 4) People differ in levels of implicit bias.
In light of these findings, jurors, who are impliedly biased, have greater likelihood to take the opposite move.
When it comes to this case, the jurors gained their perception from the transcript leaked during the pre-trial period. Inevitably, even if the jurors purport to receive no influence upon the verdict, their claims are worth questioning because of the human propensity for self-justification. In this sense, it necessitates a hearing to judge the impact of bias and whether or not the impact was prejudicial, in which all interested parties permitted to partake.
Also, as this leakage was caused by the government side, the prosecutors have the onus probandi to demonstrate that such an impact didn’t ever exist or would not suffice to alter the jurors’ minds. Once the impact proves to be harmful enough, a new trial shall be granted to enable a fair justice.
1) 举证责任在政府 书证泄漏之过失
2) 听证会决定陪审团成员是否受影响
3) 内隐偏见的危害性
