Dice / Shaping Juror Narratives In Sexual Violence Cases: The Influence Of Rape Myths And Misconceptions

This thesis critiques the use of juries in sexual violence trials in New Zealand by analysing the role of narrative in jury decision-making. Specifically, it investigates the influence of the culturally-embedded ‘master narrative’ of myths and misconceptions about sexual violence, on both the narratives presented in jury trials and the narratives that jurors construct as part of their decision-making.

The thesis consists of two components. The creative component is a polyphonic novel about a fictional sexual violence jury trial. The trial concerns a group of teenage boys who invent a ‘dice game’ which leads to them being charged with multiple sexual offences. The novel broadly follows the chronology of the trial, with multiple narratives of the events presented by the lawyers and witnesses. Each chapter is narrated by a different juror, taking the reader inside the usually inaccessible jury room, and into the private worlds of the jurors to experience the effects of jury service on the characters’ lives. Through this polyphonic structure, I explore how jurors’ life experiences and values affect their narrative constructions of the alleged offending, and how the jury reconciles a multiplicity of voices and perspectives on contentious issues of alleged date-rape, intoxication, consent and social media misuse to arrive at their verdicts.

The critical component questions whether we can rely on juries in sexual violence trials to deliver justice in a society where the master narrative of sexual violence misconceptions is culturally-embedded. Drawing on the New Zealand research data of eight acquaintance sexual violence trials in the Trans-Tasman Jury Study, I use a qualitative analysis of the juror interviews in the context of the court documents. With the story model of juror decision-making as a framework, I analyse jurors’ narrative construction and conclude that some jurors were influenced by the master narrative, and that at times this affected the jury deliberation. In addition, I found that the adversarial trial process exacerbated lawyers’ use of the master narrative in these cases, and that judicial instructions were not always fully understood by jurors, nor effective in ameliorating this influence. This potentially impacts the efficacy and factual robustness of jury deliberations in sexual violence cases.

Specifically, I analyse jurors’ responses to the primary narrator in these trials, the complainant. The research data suggests that the pervasive over-emphasis by the defence of the myth that women commonly make false allegations of sexual violence, discouraged jurors from relying on the prosecution evidence, particularly complainants’ testimony, especially where there was not compelling ‘hard evidence’. Further, the research data suggests that some jurors had preconceived expectations of the setting of sexual violence, or the characterisation of genuine rape victims and rapists, based on the master narrative paradigm of ‘real rape’. Finally, by analysing some of the actions of the complainant during and after the sexual violence – aspects of the plot – I conclude that some jurors, encouraged by the defence, determined the credibility and plausibility of the complainant’s narrative by comparing her actions to their expectations of a ‘real victim’.