Mock jury trials in Taiwan—Paving the ground for introducing lay participation.

Abstract

The first mock jury study in Taiwan, in which 279 community members watched a videotaped trial, investigated how jurors' estimates of the relative undesirability of wrongful conviction versus wrongful acquittal predicted individual decisions and how decision rules affected outcomes. The percentage of jurors who viewed wrongful conviction as more undesirable increased from 50.9% to 60.9% after deliberation and jurors' postdeliberation acquittal rate (71.7%) was higher than predeliberation acquittal rate (58.8%). Jurors' estimates of the undesirability of wrongful conviction were not correlated with their predeliberation votes but became positively correlated with their postdeliberation decisions. The unanimous rule facilitated jurors' change of vote, predominantly from conviction to acquittal, than the simple majority rule. Jurors reaching a verdict under the unanimous rule viewed deliberation and the verdict more positively. This study indicates that deliberation can ameliorate the problem of most Taiwanese citizens not viewing wrongful conviction as more undesirable than wrongful acquittal. It also suggests that Taiwan should adopt a unanimous rule for its proposed lay participation system.