Juror competence in serious frauds since Roskill: a research‐based assessment

Abstract

Reviews the frequent doubts expressed about the ability of jurors to cope with the demands on them in fraud cases. Refers to the Roskill and Auld Reports and to the Criminal Justice Bill Clauses 36 and 37. Reviews the simulation experiments for the Fraud Trials Committee (Roskill), the research for the Auld Report, and the simulation and participant tasks for the Maxwell Trial, including giving a verdict on Kevin Maxwell’s guilt. Analyses the results in terms of reasoning in consideration of prosecution and defence evidence, reasoning that moved beyond consideration of the trial evidence, and comprehension of evidence. Concludes that the studies show that it is possible to establish indicators of competence in reasoning if people can be interviewed or will answer questionnaires.

Citation

Honess, T.M., Levi, M. and Charman, E.A. (2003), "Juror competence in serious frauds since Roskill: a research‐based assessment", Journal of Financial Crime, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 17-27. https://doi.org/10.1108/13590790410809004