JURY DUTY AND POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER

by

Lisa Kyle
BA, Simon Fraser University, 2006
MSW, University of Northern British Columbia, 2016

DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN
HEALTH SCIENCES

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
November 2021

© Lisa Kyle, 2021

ii
Abstract
Research on jurors and juror symptomatology has been conducted for many years;
however, existing research has primarily been completed in the United States. What little
research was conducted in Canada is now several years ago. Further, there is sufficient
anecdotal evidence to suggest PTSD can and does occur as a result of serving jury duty. As
such, this research sought to explore the relationship between jury duty participation and
PTSD symptomology, as described by participants.
This research is qualitative and involved two stages. First, participants (n=14) were
asked to complete an online demographic survey that included a self-report measure for
PTSD, the PCL-5. Second, participants (n=12) were invited to complete a one-two hour
interview. Findings from the interviews were analyzed via thematic analysis.
This research found three participants who met the criteria for probable PTSD (when
using a cut-off score of 32). Overall, jurors in Canada echo previous research that states
sources of symptoms relate to viewing disturbing images, deliberations, sequestering, and
fear of making a mistake. New insight indicates fear associated with retaliation may be a
major contributing factor for symptomology. Further, jurors whose life experiences relate to
the trial type may be a contributing factor for symptomology.
Policy and practice recommendations include improving information for jurors before
they begin their service and providing more consistent follow-up support for jurors. Research
should continue to explore the relationship between jurors and symptomology.
Keywords: posttraumatic stress disorder, PTSD, jurors, jury duty, Canada, qualitative,
phenomenology.

iii
Table of Contents
Abstract

iii

Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………………..iii
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………….4
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………5
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………...6
Chapter One: Introduction…………………………………………………………………….7
Chapter Two: Background and Literature Review……….………………………………….13
Chapter Three: Methodology and Methods………………………………………………….76
Chapter Four: Findings……………………………………………………………………..103
Chapter Five: Discussion…………………………………………………………………...141
Chapter Six: Conclusion……………………………………………………………………167
References………………………………………………………………………………….169
Appendix A: Information Letter/Consent Form …………………………………………...201
Appendix B: Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement……………………………..206
Appendix C: Survey Questions…………………...………………………………………..207
Appendix D: Interview Guide……………………………………………………………...210

4
List of Tables
Table 1: Descriptive Phenomenology.……………………………………………………….86
Table 2: Example of Analysis Process…………………………………………………........97
Table 3: Participant Demographics………………………………………………………...104
Table 4: PCL-5 Results……………………………………………………………………..105
Table 5: Themes…………………………………………………………………………....108

5
List of Figures
Figure 1: A timeline of some of the major developments in the history of PTSD..………....38
Figure 2: Flow of understanding for methodological approach………………….………….78
Figure 3: Flow of understanding for discussion chapter…………………………………...141
Figure 4: Flow of understanding: Putting findings into context…………………………....149

6
Acknowledgements
First, to my family. My parents and my siblings, your support, not just in these last
five years, but in life, have made this possible today. My husband, you have always
encouraged me and the sacrifices you made along with me have made this degree possible.
To my little people, for taking my mind off graduate school; the smiles and laughs make
every day better.
To my supervisors. Dr. Shannon Wagner and Dr. Glen Schmidt. You have both given
me so much of your time, support, and encouragement when needed. Your knowledge and
guidance have made this possible.
To my committee members, Dr. Camp and Dr. Catharine Schiller. Your areas of
expertise and feedback were always supportive and encouraging. I truly believe this
document was elevated because of your input. To other all other faculty who have helped
shaped this document along the way, your perspective helped round out the development
stages of this dissertation, providing depth to the knowledge contained within.
To the participants of this research, for which I owe the success of this work. Of
course, this work would not have been possible without your contributions but more than
that, thank-you for your openness and genuine appreciation for this research.
Finally, to the 2016 Health Sciences cohort. Thank-you for your ongoing support,
encouragement, coffee dates, and study sessions. It has been my honour to have taken this
journey with each of you and I hope we continue to work and learn together for years to
come.

7
Chapter One
Definition of Terms
The literature review that follows draws from American and Canadian research; as
such, the terms provided offer clarification on the use of American and Canadian terms
related to the Criminal Justice System. United States sources represent the preponderance of
literature. Canadian terms are provided to give context to the current research.
Capital Murder: In seven of the United States of America states, a capital murder is any
murder that makes the perpetrator eligible for the death penalty (Bohm, 1999).
Criminal Court Case: Criminal cases involve Crown counsel prosecuting an individual
charged under a public law statute, outlined in the Criminal Code of Canada or in other
federal laws (Government of BC, n.d..). In Canada, criminal law is intended to prosecute
those crimes considered an offence against society and as such, it is the state that brings
forward criminal charges for prosecution (Department of Justice, 2015a). In criminal court,
guilt has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (Department of Justice, 2015a).
Foreperson: The foreperson chairs discussions of the jury and announces the verdict in the
courtroom (Canadian Judicial Council, n.d.).
Crown Counsel/Prosecutors: Crown Counsel are lawyers who act as prosecutors on behalf
of society as a whole. Crown Counsel representatives do not represent individual victims
(Ministry of Justice, 2016).
Grand Jury: A grand jury is utilized in the United States to help determine if charges should
be brought against a person (Find Law, 2019).

8
Anchor Points: Individual’s actions are guided by anchor points (Fisher, 1991). These
anchor points are based on prior experience and help people negotiate situations within a
defined parameter (Fisher, 1991).
Life-World: The life-world is a definition that acknowledges the context of a person, as
grounded in everyday experiences (Spiegelberg, 1982). The context of an individual’s lifeworld includes cultural contexts, temporal contexts, and individual attributes.
Phenomenology seeks to understand and give in-depth descriptions of phenomenon that
occur in the life-world (Speigelberg, 1982).

9
Introduction
Research Questions
What are the lived experiences of jurors with respect to jury duty related traumatic stress and
what are the unmet needs of those jurors?
Personal Positioning
I am writing this section to help the reader and me understand my position within this
research. My interest in the Criminal Justice System (CJS) goes back as far as I can
remember. My mother and I have always shared this interest in criminal behaviour, and it
was not unusual to find us reading true crime novels. For me personally, I think this interest
grew from curiosity and a genuine lack of understanding of what would lead someone to
engage in criminal acts. I grew up in a beautiful, supportive, loving, and stable home. I knew
nothing of hardship and lacked understanding about disparities in Canadian society. This
fueled my interest in the topic and curiosity continues to be the foundation of how I approach
working with people.
The other important component of my upbringing which has led to this research lies
in my parents’ teaching of being good and doing good. Though this is an abstract concept, it
has motivated many of my choices in life. This notion of being good really jumpstarted my
academic career. It was good to have an education; so I got an education. I guess you could
say I was your typical conformist in my early adulthood in terms of my beliefs about what it
meant to be good. More importantly, the motivation to do good planted the early seeds of
social justice and helping.
I have a Bachelor’s degree in Criminology, and a Master’s degree in Social Work.
During my undergraduate degree, I was required to attend court for one of my law classes. I

10
happened to have the opportunity to meet a Victim Services case worker, and from that
moment forward, my goal was to be able to work in this capacity. I volunteered as a Victim
Services case worker, then eventually had the chance to work as a case worker with the
Vancouver Police Department (VPD).
I remain interested in how the CJS functions and seek to promote changes related to
service gaps. These experiences influence how I approach research because I believe there
are injustices within the CJS. In my view, these injustices are because the CJS is an offenderbased system which can be problematic in maintaining wellness for victims of crime. I aim to
research experiences related to the CJS with the intention of increasing understanding around
service needs and best practices in the provision of services. These concepts translate to my
interest in jurors, and how the CJS may not be promoting wellness for jurors, as the system’s
focus is on ensuring a fair trial for the accused.
Having worked in a counselling setting and seeing individuals overcome difficult
experiences, I believe in individual resiliency, and that this can lead to change within the
individual through empowerment. This self-change can further trigger social engagement and
systemic change. My education has taught me that people are not given equal opportunities
in society and that there is systemic responsibility in this reality. This is connected to my
interest in service gaps within systems, such as the CJS. I believe that there is no objective
truth, and that knowledge is a social construction, which is in part influenced by these
structural inequities, promoting the status quo, and sometimes making change difficult. In the
case of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and jury duty, I believe that by sharing
experiences of those with PTSD after serving on jury duty, change in service is more likely
to occur.

11
My beliefs are consistent with the interpretive paradigm, which is broadly
conceptualized within the qualitative framework and relates to concepts of the subjective
nature of experiences. I believe that the researcher’s biases must be acknowledged (Tracy,
2013) and that the relationship within the research process is co-constructed between
participant and researcher (Breckenridge, et al., 2012). Shaver (2005) addresses this point
with a participant-centered approach to research, which inherently supports the respect for
human dignity. This concept aligns with the Canadian Association of Social Workers (2005)
Code of Ethics, which guides my practice and research. However, if I believe in a coconstructed process, I must also acknowledge the role of power and privilege within the
researcher role, and as an individual. As an educated Caucasian woman conducting this
research, I acknowledge I am likely in a position of power.
The self-reflective process of being aware of this position continued throughout this
research. Although I cannot say with certainty, I did not feel this had much of a suppressive
influence in the process of this research and during the interview process. In part, this was
because of the informed consent process, but also because the conversations in which I
engaged with jurors were positive; i.e. that jurors wanted their stories to be heard and shared
for the purposes of helping future jurors.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this research is to understand the lived experiences of those who have
served as jurors within Canada and to understand the unmet needs of those jurors who
experience trauma-related symptoms. In addition, the research seeks to add to the existing
body of knowledge on juror outcome following their service.

12
Further, this research includes the recognition of the need for preventative measures
(primary and secondary), acute treatment, and long-term planning and care services.
Ultimately, if individuals do not receive care, they may end up in the healthcare system; this
is particularly true if comorbid conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, or comorbid mental
health issues exist. If services can prevent these points of contact within the healthcare
system, burden to the healthcare system is reduced. Added burden relief extends to family
members and care-givers. This burden will be more fully explored in the discussion chapter
of this dissertation.

13
Chapter Two: Background and Literature Review
Introduction
The following review will examine the literature related to jury duty and outcomes
associated with PTSD. The literature related specifically to jury duty and PTSD is limited;
therefore, the association jury duty has with other psychological symptoms such as stress is
discussed. This review includes some background information on the role of trauma and
mental health and background information on PTSD. In order to inform the Canadian context
of this research, background information on jury duty and the Canadian legal system are
provided, moving onto an overview of existing literature on this topic. The literature begins
with positive outcomes associated with jury duty before moving onto negative outcomes,
which include sources of stress, the severity of outcomes, and strategies that have been
implemented to mitigate harmful effects. Finally, a brief discussion of the review is provided.
Role of Trauma and Mental Health
Research has found that between 80 to 90% of people are exposed to a traumatic
event at least once in their lifetime (Mills et al., 2011; Monson et al., 2015). It is recognized
that trauma and stressful life events can lead to psychopathology ranging in outcomes from
adjustment disorders to PTSD (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Outcomes are often
also associated with comorbid disorders such as depression and substance misuse (Sinha,
2008). Importantly, Lonergan et al. (2016) note that if all trauma-related disorders were
lumped together as one diagnostic entity, such as panic disorder and adjustment disorder, it
would be the most prevalent form of disorder.
Trauma affects all people differently. Some individuals exhibit an array of symptoms,
while others display resilient responses or only brief subclinical symptoms that do not meet

14
the criteria for any diagnostic category (Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT),
2014). The severity of response from an individual depends on many factors, including the
type of event, personal characteristics, and sociocultural factors (CSAT, 2014).
Vicarious Traumatization and Secondary Trauma
Vicarious traumatization (VT) and Secondary Traumatic Stress (STS) are understood
as reactions to emotional demands on caregivers from exposure to trauma survivors’
experiences (Figley, 1995). Certainly, other employment groups also experience VT and
STS, such as public safety personnel (PSP). PSP groups that may experience VT and STS in
a similar way to jurors include, but are not limited to, 911 operators, judges, and attorneys
(see: Alterio, 2020; Jaffe et al., 2003; Levin & Greisberg, 2003; & Mattison, 2012). The
experiences of these groups will be drawn on throughout this dissertation. VT and STS are
often written about and understood in similar terms, and as such, the distinctions between
these two concepts are discussed. The ensuing discussion will highlight that jurors may
experience STS as a result of serving on jury duty.
Vicarious Traumatization. Over the last two decades there has been an increase in
the literature on VT. Early literature developed out of therapists’ responses to Vietnam War
vets (Pearlman & Saakvitne, 1995). In 1990, McCann and Pearlman coined the term
Vicarious Traumatization to describe the internal changes occurring to therapists as a result
of cumulative exposure to trauma material from clients (Gulin, 2017). VT refers to harmful
changes in professionals’ views of themselves, others, and society as a whole as a result of
exposure to graphic or traumatic material and can be seen as a normal response to ongoing
traumatic exposure which results in challenges to a helper’s beliefs and values (Baird &
Kracen, 2006).

15
The Constructivist Self-Development Theory. The concept of VT is rooted in the
theoretical framework of the constructivist self-development theory (McCann & Pearlman,
1990). This theory integrates psychoanalytic theory with developmental cognitive
approaches and social learning theories and was originally used to understand the
psychological impacts of the trauma survivor (Gulin, 2017). More recently the constructivist
self-development theory has been applied to trauma therapists (Gulin, 2017).
One of the primary tenets of this theory refers to an individual’s frame of reference,
which relates to a person’s context for understanding the world (Gulin, 2017). A meaningful
frame of reference for experiences is an important human need and forms the basis for a
therapist’s worldview, identity, and spirituality (McCann & Pearlman, 1990). Challenges to a
specific area of identity for the worker may be associated with deterioration of long-held
beliefs about their identity and self-worth (McCann & Pearlman, 1990). For example, these
challenges may occur when working with sexual abuse survivors, when a therapist may
begin to question their own gender identity by questioning their own vulnerability to sexual
trauma (Gulin, 2017). Disruptions to an individual’s worldview that occur when working
with trauma clients change the therapist’s perceptions of the world and how and why things
occur (Gulin, 2017). A 911 operation may experience similar challenges to personal safety
after experiencing calls that involved injury by another person (Alterio, 2020).
Disruptions to worldview might include questions about human nature as inherently
evil, leading to cynical worldviews (Gulin, 2017). Spirituality is used broadly to include
beliefs about elusive elements of experiences and meaning, connecting with something
beyond the self (Pearlman & Saakvitne, 1995). Changes to spiritual beliefs are damaging to
an individual because a person may begin to have difficulty finding hope and meaning,

16
leading to a diminished capacity to connect to themselves and others (Gulin, 2017; Pearlman
& Saakvitne, 1995).
The Constructivist Self-Development theory also emphasizes the role of selfcapacities (McCann & Pearlman, 1990). Self- capacities refer to an individual’s ability to
remain positive, with a stable sense of self (Gulin, 2017). When self-capacities are disrupted,
individuals may turn to external sources of comfort, such as substances, overeating, and
overspending in an effort to numb negative affect (Pearlman & Saakvitne, 1995).
The concept of ego is another important factor in the Constructivist SelfDevelopment Theory that relates to a worker’s ability to meet their own psychological needs
while they relate to other people (McCann & Pearlman, 1990). This ability establishes
boundaries and means people can take the perspectives of others, yet still recognize their
own psychological needs (Gulin, 2017). Disruptions to one’s sense of ego may lead to
symptoms related to perfectionism and a reduced ability to empathize with a service user
(Pearlman & Saakvitne, 1995).
Furthermore, the Constructivist Self-Development Theory’s focus on developmentalcognitive theory describes the role of schemas and psychological needs (Gulin, 2017).
Schemas refer to an individual’s construction of reality through cognitive structures that are
then used to understand and interpret life experiences (McCann & Pearlman, 1990). VT is
described as disrupting schema in five areas: safety, trust, esteem, intimacy, and control, each
in terms of psychological need (Baird & Kracen, 2006).
Safety has been noted as the most vulnerable schema for which trauma therapists
experience disruptions (Pearlman & Saakvitne, 1995). Literature suggests that other
employment groups, such as 911 operations, are likely as vulnerable to have disruption to

17
their safety schema (Alterio, 2020). When safety is disrupted, individuals may feel less able
to protect themselves from imagined or real threats (Trippany et al., 2004). These concerns
for threats can extend beyond fears for their own safety to that of family members’ safety
(Trippany et al., 2004). Compromises to the safety schemas result in symptoms such as
hypervigilant behaviours; for example, repeatedly checking if a door is locked (Gulin, 2017).
Trust refers to a person’s ability to depend on others and themselves (Gulin, 2017).
When a person’s trust schema is impacted, an individual may feel less able to maintain
independence, may not trust their perceptions of others, and may not trust the value of their
own feelings (Gulin, 2017). These changes to the trust schema may manifest as an increased
reliance on other people for emotional needs (Pearlman & Saakvitne, 1995).
Esteem relates to one’s need to feel valued by self (self-esteem) and to value others
(other-esteem) (Gulin, 2017). When esteem is interrupted, a person may doubt their ability as
a professional, or may devalue others, which influences their ability to connect to others
(Gulin, 2017). This disruption is noted to be more likely to occur in therapists who work with
sexual assault survivors as a result of repeated exposure to human perpetrated acts (Pearlman
& Saakvitne, 1995). Again, it seems likely that the concept of esteem, and exposure to
human perpetrated acts, would be a contributing factor for PSP experiences with VT.
Intimacy refers to the need to feel connected and close to other people (Gulin, 2017).
When intimacy is disrupted, people typically experience emotional numbing which translates
to withdrawal from others (Gulin, 2017). Conversely, the individual experiencing disruption
to these schemas may find it difficult to be alone, and feel empty when disconnected from
others (Trippany et al., 2004).

18
Control refers to one’s ability to self-manage (Gulin, 2017). When disruptions to
control schemas occur, one’s ability to act freely in the world is compromised (Pearlman &
Saakvitne, 1995). An individual may compensate for disruptions to their control schema by
taking steps to maintain more control in their own life or may surrender control to others in
inappropriate situations (Pearlman & Saakvitne, 1995).
The Constructivist Self-Development Theory comprehensively conceptualizes VT
and provides the framework for understanding the presentation of symptoms in therapists
(Gulin, 2017). In practice, VT interacts with individual factors that may influence symptom
outcomes (Dunkley & Whelan, 2006) such as the amount of exposure and personal attributes
of the therapist, like personal trauma history.
Predictors of Vicarious Trauma. Factors which predict the development of VT have
received mixed reports in the literature, and will be discussed next. Literature related to
personal history of trauma, exposure amount, and coping ability are discussed. The terms
caregiver, helper, and therapist are used interchangeability to indicate anyone who is acting
in a professional role that is supportive in nature. The terms reflect those used by the
respective authors.
The development of VT has been linked to having a personal history of trauma
(Camerlengo, 2002; Dickes, 1998; Pearlman & Ian, 1995; Schauben & Frazier, 1995;
Truppany, 2000; Young, 1999). The notion behind this finding relates to the idea that
exposure to trauma material can reawaken a person’s own negative feelings, thus increasing
the likelihood of developing VT (Pearlman & Saakvitne, 1995). While the majority of
studies have found this relationship, others have not (Brandon, 2000; Pinsley, 2000; Weaks,
1999). Furthermore, literature has indicated a potential link between the amount of exposure

19
to the traumatic material and increasing VT development (Schauben & Frazer, 1995);
however, other literature contradicts this association and suggests that this link does not exist
(Brady et al., 1999; Dickes, 1998; Simonds, 1996; Young, 1999).
This discrepancy in the literature is of interest, given the focus of an individual’s
frame of reference as a primary factor in the Constructivist Self-Development framework in
which VT is understood. Coping skills of the worker are noted as a protective factor for VT
(Camerlengo, 2002; Creamer, 2002; Weaks, 1999; Young, 1999). Specifically, Camerlengo
(2002) found that problem-focused/task-oriented coping styles are associated with fewer
disruptions to cognitive schemas, while emotion-focused coping styles are related to more
schema disruptions. Further, these findings have been reported more recently (Bober &
Regehr, 2006; Michalopoulos & Aparicio, 2012).
Secondary Traumatic Stress. STS describes the sudden negative reactions therapists
or PSP can have in response to trauma survivors’ stories (Jenkins & Baird, 2002) or
knowledge of a traumatic event and a resulting desire to help that individual (Meischkle et
al., 2018). STS was a term coined by Figley, which he later renamed compassion fatigue
(CF) with the intention of highlighting the commonality of STS (Bercier, & Maynard, 2015).
STS mimics the symptoms of PTSD in caregivers/PSP, which are connected to the
patient’s/victim’s/service user’s experiences rather than the caregiver’s/PSP’s (Figley, 1995;
Pearlman & Saakvitne, 1995). STS may occur in providers working with those with PTSD
and close friends and family members of those with PTSD (Figley, 1995).
Indicators of secondary trauma have been summarized into three categories: reexperiencing of the patient’s traumatic experience, avoidance of situations that remind the
caregiver of the experience or numbing of response to reminders, and persistent arousal

20
(Figley 1995). Symptoms include hypervigilance, numbing, intrusion, arousal, and
avoidance, which parallel the symptoms of PTSD (Figley, 1995; Molnar et al., 2017).
One tool for measuring STS is the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale (STSS). This
scale is a 17-item, self-report measure designed to assess the frequency of symptoms such as
intrusion, avoidance, and arousal (Bride et al., 2004). Respondents answer questions on a
five-point Likert scale about how frequent each item was true for them in the past seven days
(Bride et al., 2004). Each STSS item corresponds to one of the PTSD symptoms. The STSS
scale has evidence of validity and internal consistency (Ting et al., 2005).
Predictors of Secondary Traumatic Stress. As is the case with VT, STS has mixed
results in the literature with regards to predictors of STS. The same factors related to
personal history of trauma, amount of exposure, and coping skills are briefly discussed in
relation to STS.
Literature has indicated the likelihood of STS increases with the amount of exposure
to traumatic material from clients including hours spent with trauma clients, the percentage
of the worker’s caseload, and cumulative exposure (Brady, et al., 1999; Creamer, 2002;
Myers & Cornille, 2002; Simonds, 1996; Wee & Myers, 2002); conversely, other authors
found this link does not exist (Nelson-Gardell & Harris, 2003). This inconsistency is
important; however, it does not represent the same foundational issue as the discrepancies
found with VT, as this does not call into question the primary conceptualization of the
framework of STS. Consistent with the primary tenets of STS, prior personal history of
trauma is not associated with the development of STS (Creamer, 2002; Follette et al., 1994;
Simonds, 1996). Similar to VT, coping styles have been suggested as a protective factor for
STS (Follette et al., 1994).

21
Differences between Vicarious Trauma and Secondary Traumatic Stress. VT and
STS differ in four primary ways: focus on symptoms versus theory, differences in symptoms,
mainly observable reactions versus more subtle changes in thinking, relevant populations,
and amount of exposure to trauma survivors (Jenkins & Baird, 2002). STS represents a
broader range of symptoms, whereas the focus in VT is cognitive disruptions (Gulin, 2017).
It is important to note there are some variances in how these concepts are defined. For
example, McCann and Pearlman (1990) suggest VT results from cumulative exposure to
client experiences of trauma, while Figley (1995) asserted that one severe exposure event
could lead to symptoms (Jenkins & Baird, 2002). These inconsistencies are common in the
literature surrounding VT and STS, which highlights the lack of clarity between these
concepts and in their individual constructs. For STS, the onset can emerge from a single
exposure, while for VT exposure occurs over time (Aparicio et al., 2013). Further, VT is only
applicable in trauma professionals, while STS occurs more broadly (Molnar et al., 2017).
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder
History of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder
Since the 1900s when the cluster of symptoms now referred to as PTSD was first
introduced, our collective understanding of this disorder has grown. This section will provide
a history of PTSD, and highlights both the evolving understanding of the disorder over time
and the changing nature of this diagnosis within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (DSM).
Culture and PTSD
In addition to the relevance of how the diagnostic criteria for PTSD have evolved, it
is prudent to mention the cultural contexts which occurred during changes to the diagnosis

22
and which may have influenced, or have been influenced by, such changes. Montgomery
(2017) offers some indication of the lessons which have been learned in relation to the
collective understanding of PTSD.
Before 1943, the terminology used to describe traumatic stress responses carried
pseudoscientific connotations, labelling people as inadequate, for example (Montgomery,
2017). As early as 1898, Canadian and American physicians were gaining knowledge of
what was then called “railway spine”, which included traumatic symptoms as a result of a
traumatic railway accident (Montgomery, 2017). While notions of railway spine brought the
concept of trauma into modern medicine, the introduction of shell shock during the First
World War propelled awareness of trauma responses into the forefront of thinking of
physicians, government, soldiers, and the general public (Montgomery, 2017).
In October 1943, acting on the advice of neuropsychiatric cases, individuals suffering
from trauma symptoms were labelled with exhaustion, later termed battle exhaustion, with
the intention of minimizing stigma (Montgomery, 2017). During this time, many soldiers
were labelled with battle exhaustion/combat fatigue, which resulted in the idea that these
problems could afflict ‘normal’ individuals (Copp & McAndrew, 1990). This change in
thinking set the stage for the growth in mental health research and literature (Houts, 2000).
Perhaps this stigma was partially reinforced in postwar Canada through groups which
attempted to defend traditional notions of masculinity (Montgomery, 2017). For example,
during this time in Canada, John Griffin, a consultant psychiatrist to the Director General of
Medical Services, believed that parents needed to take lessons from the army and instill
traditional male virtues in their sons (Montgomery, 2017). This quest was primarily
associated with reminding men of their duty to their country (Montgomery, 2017).

23
Throughout the 1980s, medical literature was mounting about PTSD; however, the
public focus remained linked to war trauma, and in Canada, peacekeeping trauma
(Montgomery, 2017). The introduction of PTSD into the DSM resulted from lobbying by
various groups seeking to offer help to alienated veterans (Montgomery, 2017). This factor
supports Shorter’s (1992) statement that, as cultural understanding changes, so too does the
legitimacy of any given illness.
Today, there is an understanding that, in order to best treat all those afflicted with
PTSD, we collectively need to better understand the contextual environment of trauma, and
strengthen biocultural models (Hinton & Good, 2016). These models acknowledge there are
likely different pathways produced through individual experiences which include
developmental environments, and meanings associated with traumatic experiences (Hinton &
Good, 2016).
The Harmony of Illusions
Allan Young’s The Harmony of Illusions discusses the idea that Posttraumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD), as a diagnosis, “is glued together by the practice, technologies, and
narratives with which it is diagnosed, studied, treated, and represented by the various
interests, institutions, and moral arguments that mobilized these efforts and resources” (p. 7).
This section is intended to provide the reader with an exploration of differing views of the
diagnosis of PTSD.
Young’s Argument
Young’s (1995) book is separated into three sections. First, Young provides
background on trauma up to WW1. Second, Young discusses the DSM and PTSD, and third,

24
the author’s fieldwork in a Veterans hospital in the U.S. is outlined, which delves into case
studies of four war veterans who may have PTSD.
Young (1995) suggests that the accepted concept of PTSD, and those traumatic
events which are at its core, are incorrect. Additionally, Young suggests PTSD is not
timeless and has no intrinsic truth. Instead, PTSD is a product of various contexts, such as
the practices and techniques used for diagnosis or the narratives which inform the interests of
the conditions in which it is studied and understood. Young suggests that throughout time,
scientists have responded to difficulties related to the internal logic of PTSD and
reinterpreted those in order to maintain the diagnosis within the DSM (Scandlyn, 2012). In
sum, Young argues PTSD is a historical product and a disease of time.
Specifically, Young’s (1995) concern with the PTSD diagnosis has to do with the link
between the memory of a traumatic event and the individual’s symptoms, and suggests this
link is created after the fact, by health care professionals, to make narrative sense out of those
symptoms (Scandlyn, 2012). Young argues this by stating “that, in most cases, it is not the
traumatic memory that produces the physical and emotional symptoms of the war
neuroses…but rather the reverse: the symptoms account for the memory” (p. 83). This notion
is a critical point in the diagnosis for PTSD. I will explore this conceptualization through
Young’s logic, breaking down PTSD into two auxiliary features of the etiological event,
which are then discussed and compared to the DSM-5 changes.
The first auxiliary feature Young (1995) discussed is the DSM- III-R’s categorization
of trauma events which are listed as “markedly distressing to almost everyone” (APA, 1987,
p. 250).

25
The content of the patient’s current distress, either his expressed emotion (grief, guilt,
etc.) or his embodied distress, is projected back over time, to the traumatic moment.
In this way, the projected distress infuses and connects the morally and experientially
heterogeneous events…with a new and homogeneous meaning. (p. 126)
This statement links Young’s (1995) approach to time; he suggests negative affect of
a traumatic event does not necessarily happen at the time of the event, but instead, sometimes
years later, through diagnostic practices (Young, 1995). Young’s (1994) argument seems to
rest on the idea that the diagnosis is rooted in a singular event, ignoring a myriad of things
which factor into the symptom outcomes of that event, which contrasts with other psychiatric
disorders categories within the DSM.
In the DSM-IV-TR, this feature changed to state a threat to “physical integrity”
(APA, 2000). Summerfield (2001) similarly argued that the notion of the traumatic memory
is not naturally occurring, but instead a construct of psychiatry, arguing that traumatic
memory as a fixed pathological entity is a recent phenomenon. Additionally, Summerfield
(2001) argued the DSM-IV maintained a lack of specificity in the link between present
symptoms and an index event, which would exclude other relevant factors about the
individual. Further lack of specificity is noted in that the differential diagnosis of PTSD
requires a traumatic event, but that unifying event is intrinsically heterogeneous (Young &
Brealau, 2016). Lastly, Summerfield argued that the diagnosis still poorly defined the
difference between normal distress, as well as the physiology of pathological distress in the
DSM-IV.
The second auxiliary feature Young (1995) discusses is the range of traumatic
experience noting the “traumatic event [is] outside the range of usual human experience” (p.

26
127). This statement is linked to time in the sense that it is connected to the meaning of
unusual, which is contingent, meaning it is specific to any given culture, or to subgroups
within a cultural context (Young, 1995).
Young’s Argument Within DSM-5
The first auxiliary feature is still relevant within the current edition of the DSM
because the etiological event remains a requirement for diagnosis. Some have argued that
removing this requirement would align the PTSD diagnosis more closely with other
psychiatric diagnoses by focusing only on symptoms (North et al., 2009). Further, if criterion
A had been removed, it may have eliminated some of the heterogeneity associated with
PTSD, along with some of the problems this heterogeneity creates (Hinton & Good, 2016).
Conversely, others have argued that removing criterion A would distort the integrity
of the diagnosis, stating “without exposure to trauma, what is posttraumatic about the
ensuing syndrome?” (Breslau et al., 2002, p. 927). Further, Hinton and Good (2016) argue
removing criterion A may impact funding resources for PTSD due to the large financial input
Veterans Affairs gives in the pursuit of research, and for compensation to assist in alleviating
symptoms.
In the DSM-5, the definition regarding the second auxiliary feature of the traumatic
event has been changed to state “actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual
violence” (APA, 2013, p. 271). PTSD symptoms are linked conditionally to trauma
exposure, and in the DSM-5, assessment for PTSD symptoms is appropriate only when
criterion A is satisfied via a qualifying exposure (Pai et al., 2017). In this way, each symptom
is anchored to the qualifying exposure through a temporal or contextual relationship (North
et al., 2009). The conceptualization of PTSD in the DSM-5 is clearer (Pai et al., 2017).

27
Trauma exposure has been more objectively defined and the subjective responses, previously
criterion A2, have been moved to symptom criteria (Pai et al., 2017).
Discussion
I do not discount Young’s (1995) argument. I can appreciate some of what he is
saying in relationship to the context of diagnosis, and the potential role of discourse, social
order, and culture on a diagnosis such as PTSD. Certainly, everything in any given cultural
environment is a product of such examples, and this concept aligns with the constructivist
perspective, to which I subscribe. In response, I pose two questions: First, does it matter if
this is a product of a cultural context for the present study? Second, is it possible to suggest
that only the mechanisms for recognizing and diagnosing the disorder have been invented as
a byproduct of context, thus weakening the argument that PTSD is not timeless?
To argue that PTSD is representative of a given cultural context certainly has merit as
a worthwhile area of study; however, if I agree that PTSD has been created out of the
political discourse post-Vietnam war, and has continued to gain acceptance on the coattails
of this discourse, then the disorder still exists within the current cultural context. What has
evolved since Vietnam is a more broadly defined disorder which is generally accepted by
public knowledge to potentially impact many individuals. This is the context in which this
research is being conducted. Notwithstanding the difficulties associated with the
heterogeneity of the traumatic event, this research operated within the definitions proposed in
the DSM-5 and in this sense is not limiting to the research.
Additionally, I suggest PTSD has existed, perhaps with some variation of form,
throughout history, even if the reasons for recognizing the disorder were founded out of
political and cultural environments, such as the Vietnam War. I both accept Young’s (1995)

28
argument about the difficulties associated with a differential diagnosis due to the
heterogeneous nature of the etiological event and still believe the disease has persisted
throughout time.
While I do not discount some of the challenges that exist within psychiatric diagnosis,
the process of diagnostic criteria development is iterative (Pai et al., 2017). Further, the
environment in which we collectively live influences funding and compensation based on
these diagnoses. This notion that funding requires a diagnosis, alone, supports the need for
the diagnosis. This is of course then tied to the political discourses of the time, but I believe
the goal remains the same, to provide those with traumatic memory a way to overcome the
severe symptoms which can accompany those memories.
The above discussion suggests a significant challenge exists to address how jurors
come to understand their symptoms as PTSD. I agree this is an important and relevant factor
associated with this research, particularly because the literature is so limited in this area.
Further, understanding how jurors come to view their symptoms as PTSD certainly speaks to
the broader challenges associated with the diagnosis of PTSD, and would arguably reflect
several societal factors. This research was developed with the idea that consideration for
contextual and environmental factors of individual jurors would be explored. Of further
interest was juxtaposing these individual contexts against the broader societal contexts
relevant to PTSD and the individual. These concepts will be evident in the findings chapter
and explored in depth in the discussion chapter.
The challenges inherent in a PTSD diagnosis have been well documented since its
introduction in the DSM-III. Young’s (1995) argument has certainly been well accepted by
critics of the DSM, particularly related to PTSD diagnosis. Noting these challenges is

29
important in terms of understanding both the context of diagnosis, and the experiences of the
individual; however, this research will be conducted with the understanding of PTSD as a
real and accepted diagnosis within the DSM. Further, this research explores the lived
experiences and unmet needs of jurors with the understanding that PTSD can and does result
from serving as a juror in Canada.
Pre-DSM
During World-War II, the military had an interest in assessing the mental well-being
of its soldiers (Peck, 2014). Seeking a way to standardize this assessment, well-known
psychiatrist William Menninger was called to create a handbook which reflected these needs.
In 1943, the Medical 203 was created (Peck, 2014). Rooted in psychopathology, this
document became a universal dictionary for military psychiatrists (Peck, 2014). Causes for
diseases within the Medical 203 were not listed and it took a moral approach that had clear
distinctions between people considered ‘normal’ and those ‘abnormal’. Arguably, this
document paved the way for the development of the first DSM (Peck, 2014).
During the time following the Vietnam War (post 1975), it was clear soldiers were
suffering psychological consequences as a result of combat; however, psychiatrists had no
diagnosis to give in the DSM-II (Scott, 1990). During this time, psychiatrist Chaim Shatan
wrote for the New York Times on what he called “post-Vietnam syndrome” which occurred
nine to 30 months after serving in combat and included symptoms such as guilt, rage,
numbing, alienation, and feelings of being scapegoated (Scott, 1990). This piece began to
garner support for the legitimization of the disorder.

30
DSM
The widespread interest in PTSD across various disciplines is logical based on the
major events of the 20th Century including two World Wars, the Hiroshima atomic bombing,
mass genocide, and various natural disasters (Wilson, 1994). The understanding of PTSD has
roots within the psychodynamic approach, which began to spread between 1959-1960
(Montgomery, 2017). Later, the understanding of PTSD shifted from Freudian psychology to
a biological psychiatry approach (Montgomery, 2017). This section offers some background
on the DSM changes and conceptualization of PTSD, while discussing the impact of
Sigmund Freud’s conceptualization of trauma on the understanding of trauma responses.
Other notable researchers, such as Horowitz are discussed throughout.
DSM-I
How Freud understood trauma is relevant to this discussion as his notions formed the
foundation for thinking about trauma from about 1895 until the end of the Vietnam War in
1975 (Wilson 1994). Freud’s way of thinking was essentially written into the DSM (APA,
1952) criteria for gross stress reaction (GSR), the earliest category for what would later be
codified as PTSD (Wilson, 1994). GSR was placed into a category of transient situational
personality disorders, which represented the notion that acute reactions were meant to
resolve quickly (Wilson, 1994). If symptoms persisted, alternative diagnosis would be
considered (Wilson, 1994).
Freud stated that war neuroses create a conflict between the superego (rules and
standards for behaviour) and id (unconscious, instinctive, primitive behaviours) exist, in that
neurosis is a form of coping with external threats, resulting in a change in ego state
(expressed impulses of id in an appropriate way) (Wilson, 1994). Further, Freud would argue

31
that what leads to trauma symptoms are acute and transient in nature (Wilson, 1994). In this
way, if symptoms persisted, they were not caused directly by an event, but instead traits of
the individual.
DSM-II
The psychoanalytic bias of the DSM-I remained consistent in the DSM-II. In 1968,
the classification which would later be known as PTSD, was termed adjustment reaction of
adult life. This conceptualization recognized that there were stressor events which constituted
possible threats of personal injury or death to an individual (Wilson, 1994); however, the
categorization in DSM-II was inadequate for the representation of traumatic stress responses.
In the years leading up to the DSM-III, Horowitz (1986) was working on what would
form much of the DSM-III’s framework for PTSD. Horowitz drew available literature from
the Second World War, Vietnam veterans, and Hiroshima survivors. The product represented
a departure from past thinking in which he affirmed that it is difficult to know how much a
stress response is the result of predisposition and how much is a result of general stress
response tendencies (Horowitz, 1986; Montgomery, 2017). This meant that predisposition to
stress responses was no longer believed to be the primary factor in long-term stress responses
to traumatic events (Montgomery, 2017). Additionally, Horowitz (1986) stated the concept
of stress responses as phased, and thus, there was the provision for stress responses to be
delayed. Although these responses were noted in earlier works, they were previously
associated with weaknesses in the individual (Montgomery, 2017).
Soon after, a task force for the DSM-III, the Committee on Reactive Disorders, was tasked
with finding existing literature on the disorder and assessing whether it should be added to
the DSM (Scott, 1990). This task force used the name ‘catastrophic stress disorder’, and

32
acknowledged this disorder could occur from non-combat events, and symptoms could
present immediately following trauma exposure (acute PTSD), or later (delayed PTSD)
(Andreasen, 2004). The American Psychological Association accepted the findings and
recommendations to add the disorder to the DSM but changed the name to posttraumatic
stress disorder (Scott, 1990).
DSM-III
The Vietnam War set the stage for a collective understanding of trauma (Shepard,
2003). This understanding then led to the development of PTSD within the DSM-III. DSMIII emerged with PTSD listed as a separate diagnostic entity and placed within the anxiety
disorders because emotional distress was among the primary affective symptoms associated
with trauma (Wilson, 1994). Like other diagnostic classifications, the symptoms listed were
not meant to be considered exhaustive (Wilson, 1994). Wilson (1994) suggests a close look
at the diagnostic criteria reflects Freudian notions that the impact of trauma is systemic and
thus influences emotional expressiveness, ego-states, and interpersonal and object relations
(Wilson, 1994).
However, the biological psychiatric influences began to take hold, coinciding with
campaigns by veterans and psychiatrists to list PTSD within the DSM-III (Montgomery,
2017). In a sense, the DSM-III was a watershed with a shift to a biological basis for etiology.
For the first time, the DSM recognized and legitimized trauma symptoms as stemming from
outside the individual, removing notions of over-mothering (Montgomery, 2017). This
edition of the DSM also categorized civilian trauma and military trauma under the same
classification (Montgomery, 2017).

33
During the time of the DSM-III, researchers such as Lifton (1988) conceptualized
PTSD as normal reactions to abnormally stressful life-events which would formulate
predictable, expected, and normative symptoms following certain events. However, others
argued that symptoms occurred on a continuum which considers personal traits and
environmental factors (Wilson, 1989).
Arguably, the structure of a PTSD diagnosis has remained unchanged from the DSMIII onward (Young & Breslau, 2016). In memory logic form, this structure is described as:
(A) → (B)→ (C+D) (Young & Breslau, 2016); meaning, the traumatic event creates a
memory, which is traumatic. This traumatic memory provokes a fight or flight response,
characterized by symptoms such as an exaggerated startle response. The individual then
adapts to this memory and symptom responses through forms of avoidance and numbing
(Young & Brealeu, 2016).
In the DSM-III, a traumatic event was conceptualized as an experience that was
outside the range of normal human experience. In this sense, PTSD occurred as a result of
torture, war, rape, natural disasters (such as flooding, or volcanos), and human made
disasters (such as car accidents and explosions) (PTSD: National Center for PTSD, 2016).
PTSD symptoms were categorized in the DSM-III in three clusters: the re-experiencing of
the trauma, numbing of responsiveness to the external world, and a collection of
miscellaneous symptoms (Brett, Spitzer, & Williams, 1988).
DSM-III-R
The disorder has been further refined by the American Psychiatric Association (APA)
in subsequent editions of the DSM (Hamner, 2014). The DSM-III-R was published in 1987
and changes relevant to PTSD included an emphasis that the disorder occurs as a result of

34
specific types of events which include serious threat to oneself or a loved one, the sudden
destruction to one’s community or home, and witnessing death or mutilation (Brett et al.,
1988). The DSM-III-R defines a stressor as an event which would result in significant
distress to almost anyone, and which falls outside the range of normal human experience
(Brett, et al., 1988). Further, changes include clarification of symptoms specific to children,
which relate to how symptoms are expressed (Brett et al., 1988). Another change includes
the specification regarding onset and duration of symptoms, which stipulates that PTSD must
last a period of at least one month, in order to eliminate expression of transient grief or
adjustment reactions (Brett, et al., 1988).
In the DSM III -R, the list of traumatogenic events is reflective of a departure from
earlier versions of the DSM (Young, 1995). The first departure is related to guilt, which is
added to the list (Young, 1995, p. 126). The second departure is the notion of the distressing
nature of the event itself (Young, 1995). In the DSM-III-R, criterion A attempted to clarify
that stressors associated with the onset of symptoms, were external events that were outside
the usual range of human experience, and which would be “markedly distressing to almost
everyone”. This amendment stated that traumatic exposure had to be severe, and that the
more extreme the event, the higher chances of traumatic consequences such as PTSD
(Wilson, 1994).
DSM-IV
The DSM-IV (1994) diagnostic criteria for PTSD assessed symptoms within three
clusters: intrusive recollections, avoidant/numbing symptoms, and hyper-arousal symptoms
(American Psychological Association, 1994). The DSM-IV refined the diagnosis based on
research regarding the validity of the construct (Hamner, 2014). Critiques of this version of

35
the DSM on the assessment of posttraumatic syndromes questioned the lack of specificity in
relationship to the etiology of Criterion A events (Rosen, Spitzer, & McHugh, 2008). This
critique rests on the notion that reports of PTSD have been noted following non-lifethreatening events (Rosen et al., 2008). Furthermore, concerns regarding overlap of
symptoms with other disorders and alleged pathologizing of normal events were noted
(Brewin et al., 2009).
DSM-IV-TR
In 2000, the DSM-IV-TR stated that for a PTSD diagnosis, an individual must have
been exposed to a traumatic event, and have symptoms related to the re-experiencing of the
event, such as nightmares or intrusive thoughts (APA, 2000). Further, numbing and avoidant
behaviours and having a restricted range of affect were noted (APA, 2000). Two symptoms
of arousal, such as sleep disturbances or outbursts of anger were required for a PTSD
diagnosis in this version of the DSM (APA, 2000). Further, the stipulation that the traumatic
event be outside the normal range of human experience was removed, highlighting that
events such as car accidents could be a trigger for PTSD (APA, 2000).
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in the DSM-5
In 2013, the DSM-5 was introduced which altered the definition of traumatic
experiences to be more specific, stating exposure relates to actual or threatened death, sexual
violence, or serious injury (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). While PTSD had
previously been classified as an anxiety disorder, it is now included in a new chapter under
Trauma and Stress Related Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). This change
follows the acknowledgement that PTSD is not solely a fear-based anxiety disorder, as was
made explicit in the DSM-III and the DSM-IV (PTSD: National Center for PTSD, 2016).

36
Specifically, PTSD in the DSM-5 is classified under eight symptom criteria. Category
A criterion relates to the stressor, which states a person has been exposed to a catastrophic
event involving injury or actual or threatened death, or physical threat to oneself or another
person (APA, 2013). Indirect exposure includes learning about accidental death or sexual
violence to a loved one (APA, 2013). Media exposure is not considered a traumatic event;
however, repeated indirect exposure to difficult materials related to the consequences of a
traumatic event is considered traumatic, for example, repeated exposure to details of a child
abuse crime (APA, 2013).
Category B criterion defines the intrusive recollection of symptoms (APA, 2013).
This criterion includes symptoms of flashbacks, intrusive daytime images of the event(s), and
nightmares. These symptoms may provoke panic, terror, despair, grief, or dread for an
individual (PTSD: National Center for PTSD, 2016).
Category C criterion defines avoidance symptoms (APA, 2013). This criterion relates
to behavioural strategies of an individual to cope with potential symptoms by decreasing the
likelihood of exposing themselves to trauma-related stimuli (PTSD, National Center for
PTSD, 2016). Behavioural strategies are manifested in avoidance techniques, such as
avoiding the location of the trauma.
Category D criterion defines negative cognitions and mood criterion symptoms
(APA, 2013). This criterion reflects alterations in belief or mood that persist after exposure to
a traumatic event (PTSD: National Center for PTSD, 2016). For example, individuals with
PTSD sometimes believe they are inadequate, or weak following exposure to a traumatic
event. Further, individuals may have altered expectations about the future, believing nothing
good can ever happen to them (PTSD: National Center for PTSD, 2016). These altered

37
cognitions represent negative appraisals of the past, present, or future (PTSD: National
Center for PTSD, 2016). This symptom criterion also includes one’s diminished enjoyment
from usually pleasurable activities and withdrawal from others (PTSD: National Center for
PTSD, 2016).
Category E criterion defines alterations in arousal or reactivity symptoms (APA,
2013). This criterion includes symptoms related to hypervigilance and startle reactions in an
individual with PTSD (PTSD: National Center for PTSD, 2016). Further, reckless and selfdestructive behaviours, which may include impulsive acts such as reckless driving or unsafe
sex are symptoms related to Category E criterion (PTSD: National Center for PTSD, 2016).
The final three criteria relate to the functional aspects of the disorder. The Category F
criterion specifies that symptoms must persist for at least one month before a diagnosis is
made (APA, 2013). Category G relates to the functional significance criterion, which states
that the survivor must experience significant occupational or social distress as a result of the
symptoms (APA, 2013). Finally, Category H specifies the exclusion criterion that the
symptoms are not due to substance use, medication, or other illness (APA, 2013).
A timeline of some of the most prominent milestones in the development of PTSD as
it occurs in the DSM-5 is presented in Figure 1. Symptoms in the DSM-5 relate to the
presence of one or more intrusive thoughts, persistent avoidance of stimuli, negative
alterations of cognition and mood associated with the event, and changes in arousal and
reactivity associated with the traumatic event (APA, 2013). There has been a considerable
amount of data collected that quantifies the causes, rates, and effects of posttraumatic events.

1980
American Psychiatric
Association Accepted
disorder into DSM- III and
named it "Posttraumatic
Stress Disorder"

2000
DSM-IV-TR Stipulation that
the traumatic event be outside
the range of normal human
experience was removed from
criteria.

1987
DSM-III-R
Emphasis on specific types
of events including threat to
self or loved ones, loss of
community and witnessing
death.

1994
DSM-IV Assessed symptoms
within three custers: intrusive
recollections,
avoidant/numbing symptoms,
and hyper-arousal symptoms

2013
DSM -5 PTSD is classifed
under eight symptom criteria
A-H.

Soon after, Committee on
Reactive Disorders is formed:
Referred to as "catastrophic
stress disorder"

Post 1975
Referred to as "post-Vietnam
syndrome"

Figure 1. A timeline of some of the major developments in the history of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

1968
DSM II. Redefined as
Adjustment Reaction of Adult
Life.

1952
DSM-I. Gross Stress
Reaction added to DSM.

38

39
International Classification of Diseases
The following is a brief introduction to the International Classification of Diseases
(ICD). Between 1979-1998, the ICD-9 classified reactions of acute reaction to stress and
adjustment reaction following exposure to traumatic events (Turnbull, 1998). These reactions
were considered transient and aligned with terms such as catastrophic stress and combat
fatigue (Turnbull, 1998). The ICD-10 criteria for PTSD refer to the importance of the events
which precipitate the onset of symptoms in almost anyone and emphasize symptoms
beginning within six months of a traumatic event, but with no minimum duration
requirement (Stein et al., 2014).
The World Health Organization (WHO) is proposing changes to the ICD-10
diagnostic criteria for PTSD, which are predicted to lower the rates of diagnosis (Brewin et
al., 2009; Westfall, 2018). The proposed changes are in keeping with suggestions to
eliminate nonspecific symptoms found in other conditions and symptoms will fall within
three core clusters (re-experiencing, avoidance, and hyperarousal) (Stein et al., 2014). Stein
et al. (2014) suggest these changes should improve the global applicability and clinical utility
of the PTSD diagnosis.
Types of Events That Lead to PTSD
Various types of events can lead to PTSD and PTSD type symptoms, although it is
important to note that not all people develop PTSD after experiencing traumatic events (US
Department of Veterans Affairs, 2016). Events that precipitate the onset of PTSD may
include witnessing human caused events such as mass shootings, or a serious road accident
(US Department of Veterans Affairs, 2016). Military combat or terrorist attacks (US
Department of Veterans Affairs, 2016), being a victim to violent personal attacks, or

40
prolonged sexual abuse or neglect may lead to PTSD or PTSD type symptoms (Kessler et al.,
1995). Other common causes of PTSD are natural disasters such as fire, (Marshall et al.,
2001), floods, earthquakes, and tsunamis (Galea et al., 2005). Other research suggests media
reports following disasters such as terrorist attacks, and natural disasters may also have a role
in increased stress reactions for viewers (Schuster et al., 2001); this media coverage could be
harmful to some people (Schuster, et al., 2001). As mentioned, under the DSM-5, electronic
exposure is only applicable when viewed within the context of a work environment, as with
jurors. Another important factor associated to the onset of PTSD is the role of comorbidity.
Comorbidity
High occurrences of substance and alcohol misuse in conjunction with PTSD have
been commonly reported in the literature (see: Davidson et al., 1991; Kessler et al., 1995).
Among those with PTSD, 52% of men and 28% of women are said to have experienced
alcohol dependency (Kessler et al., 1997). Further, 35% of men and 28% of women are
reported to have co-occurring drug dependency and PTSD (Kessler et al., 1997). Although
the concept of self-medication has received mixed support in the literature (Pimlott Kubiak,
2004), research suggests trauma exposure typically precedes substance abuse disorders
(Chilcoat & Breslau, 1998). Sadeh and McNiel’s (2015) findings that comorbidity of PTSD
and substance abuse disorders is frequent may indicate a shared etiological and risk
mechanism for both disorders.
Jacobson et al. (2001) indicate that of those seeking treatment for substance use, the
lifetime rates of PTSD are as high as half, with 25-33% of those individuals meeting the
criteria for current PTSD. Pimlott Kubiak (2004) found that women with co-occurring PTSD
and substance abuse disorders are significantly more likely to relapse after treatment than

41
women with only substance abuse disorders. This suggests that inattention to PTSD in
women may diminish successful treatment for substance abuse disorders (Pimlott Kubiak,
2004). In men, those with both PTSD and substance abuse disorders relapsed; however,
neither finding reached statistical significance (Pimlott Kubiak, 2004).
Danielson et al. (2010) collected data from 269 adolescents with a child sexual
assault history, seeking to understand instances of risky behaviour and depression in their
sample. As part of this study, findings indicated a link between PTSD and depression, with
nearly 80% of their respondents reporting both disorders (Danielson et al., 2010). This is
consistent with literature reported in adult populations, and is suggestive of a shared
vulnerability of these conditions following a traumatic experience (Danielson et al., 2010).
Garieballa et al. (2006) explored the relationship between PTSD and traumatic
experiences of those in a forensic ward as a result of criminal activity. Their study included
fifteen Sudanese and sixteen German participants, men and women (Garieballa et al., 2006).
Of those participants, 39% met the criteria for current PTSD, and 55% for lifetime PTSD
(Garieballa et al., 2006). Garieballa et al., (2006) indicate that 60% of their subjects
displayed comorbid anxiety symptoms and 64% depression symptoms. As such, the
researchers suggest assessment of PTSD and comorbid anxiety and depression should be part
of the clinical assessment of forensic patients (Garieballa et al., 2006).
PTSD Prevalence Rates
PTSD is among the top six most common mental disorders according to research
examining prevalence in the general population in the United States (Lonergan et al., 2016).
Reports related to rates of PTSD in the general population vary considerably. In Canada,
Stein, Walker, Hazen, and Forde (1997) found the prevalence of current PTSD to be 2.7%

42
for women and 1.2% for men. Current PTSD was defined as the presence of symptoms
within the month prior to interviewing (Stein et al., 1997). Their study consisted of 1002
people who were interviewed via telephone and PTSD was assessed with the Modified PTSD
Symptom Scale, which they then modified for the DSM-IV.
Kessler and Wang (2008) reported the prevalence of lifetime PTSD is estimated to be
6.8% of the general population in the United States. The study used Version 3.0 of the World
Health Organization’s (WHO) Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI)
(Kessler, & Wang, 2008). Their sample consisted of 9282 people, ages 18 and older, and was
part of a subsample of the National Comorbidity Survey completed between February 2001
and April 2003 (Kessler and Wang, 2008). The U.S. National Comorbidity Survey further
indicated that the lifetime prevalence of PTSD in women was 9.7% and 3.6% in men (PTSD:
National Center for PTSD, 2016). While Goff et al. (2007) suggest estimated rates for
women specifically as 3.4% in the general public, Sadock and Sadock (2003) cite rates
between 5-12% within community samples. Lonergan et al. (2016) indicate lifetime rates
between 6-8% in the general population.
McFarlene and Bookless (2001) sampled 141 general hospital psychiatric inpatients
in Australia, using a structured diagnostic interview and found the prevalence of lifetime
PTSD to be 28%. These findings indicate higher rates of PTSD in subpopulations, such as
psychiatric inpatients. Additionally, PTSD prevalence rates may vary based on the type of
event exposure. For example, Bryant (2007) indicates higher reported rates of PTSD
symptoms due to human caused trauma such as mass shooting (33%), violent assault (19%),
or a motor vehicle accident (14%) when compared to a natural disaster such as a typhoon

43
(7%). Furthermore, the effects of human caused events have been shown to persist longer
than those of natural disasters (Green & Lindy, 1994).
The rates provided above represent some examples of reports on PTSD prevalence.
The studies are varied in origin, type, population, and size, and represent part of the
complicated picture that makes up understanding prevalence rates of PTSD. This is
evidenced with lifetime rates of PTSD in the above noted studies ranging between 3.6% and
28%. This information is provided to suggest the importance of this research, and support the
development of this research in gaining further clarity about the circumstances that may lead
to PTSD. Even on the lower end of reported rates, PTSD occurs often. Further, the context in
which the trauma occurred is important to understanding the prevalence, and persistence of
PTSD in certain populations; which, I suggest, may translate to the potential differentiation
between serving as a juror on different trial types.
Risk and Resilience Factors for PTSD
By understanding risk and protective factors for any individual in the development of
PTSD is an important factor in developing good proactive mental health supportive measures
(Kyron et al., 2021). As such, this section will briefly explore some of the known risk and
protective factors for PTSD symptomology both in PSP populations and more broadly. These
factors will be explored in the relation to the findings from this research in the discussion
chapter of this dissertation. As such, the risk and resilience factors discussed here do not
represent the full scope of this large literature base.
Neuroticism has been noted in the literature related to PSP as a consistent predictor of
PTSD symptoms; however, when assessed prior to workplace recruitment no association
exists (Kyron et al., 2021). This lack of association may suggest the relation between

44
neuroticism and mental health outcomes changes as a result of adverse experiences,
consistent with the literature relative to the general population (Lockenhoff et al., 2009).
Kyron et al. (2021) note that “negative views of self and self-efficacy prospectively predicted
PTSD” in PSP research (p. 527). For PSP, these negative views of self might be due to early
life disruptions or to long term exposure to trauma information on the job (Kyron et al.,
2021).
In PSP exposure to prior traumatic events is consistently associated with future PTSD
symptoms (Kyron et al., 2021) and is consistent with findings from wider populations
(Brewin et al., 2000; Ozer et al., 2003). Regeher (2014) suggests the connection between
prior trauma and symptom outcomes may be linked to the undermining of coping skills due
to early age trauma experiences. For example, Regeher states that women who are raped and
have positive early life experiences are more able to mobilize effective coping strategies,
such as seeking support, thus reducing the impact from the traumatic experience.
Kyron et al. (2021) suggests that identifying prior trauma events may be an important
screening tool for PSP, in particular those with prior military experience; however, I would
suggest such a tool would need to be implemented with caution or perhaps better used as a
tool for the implementation of preventative measures against future PTSD symptomology.
Social support is consistently noted as a protective factor in the development of
PTSD symptoms in both pre-operational and operational studies of PSP (Kyron et al., 2021).
This finding is consistent with prior reviews of social support as a protective factor against
the development of PTSD symptoms (Brewin et al., 2000; Digangi et al, 2013; Ozer et al.,
2003; Trickey et al., 2009).

45
Workplace factors are noted as a potential influence on the development of PTSD
symptomology (Kyron et al., 2021). Linked to this notion are studies that have noted the
availability of workplace resources as a protective factor against the development of PTSD
symptoms (Marmar et al., 2006; Meyer et al., 2012).
PTSD Health Outcomes
PTSD is associated with poor health outcomes, as supported by reported links
between PTSD and poor physical health (National Centre for PTSD, 2016). Though these
associations may not be causal, current thinking suggests neurochemical changes following
traumatic experiences may result in vulnerabilities for conditions such as hypertension and
cardiovascular disorders (National Center for PTSD, 2016). The following
Other behaviours such as smoking, substance misuse, and lack of exercise may also
mediate this relationship (National Center for PTSD, 2016). Physical health consequences
include somatic symptoms such as pain and neurological symptoms (North et al., 2004) that
have been described in terms of the physical manifestation of psychological distress
(MacFarlane et al., 1994). Findings indicate the most commonly reported symptoms include
experiencing back, leg, arm, and joint pain (Cyr et al., 2014). These consequences impact
overall quality of life for individuals and may have other impacts such as loss of job or
relationship (Diene et al., 2012; Lonergan, et al., 2016).
PTSD can impact the individual’s ability to function within social and family
settings, as well as impact the health of their family members (Green et al., 2006; Vogt et al.,
2017). One study examined 524 post 9/11 male and female veterans seeking to understand
the effects of PTSD on family quality of life (Vogt et al., 2017). Findings suggested about
half of men reported experiencing impairments in family functioning and parental abilities;

46
while women reported similar difficulties in intimate relationships, they did not report
similar impairments in parental functioning (Vogt et al., 2017). Furthermore, behaviours
associated with PTSD may impact family members, especially if the individual displays
anger and hostility, or if comorbid conditions are present, such as depression (Green et al.,
2006). Experiences by family members vary in severity and symptoms including, sympathy,
negative feelings towards the traumatized family member, anger over the event, guilt and
shame, and even drug and alcohol use as a way of escaping negative feelings (National
Centre for PTSD, 2016). Sleep disturbances in family members have also been noted
(National Centre for PTSD, 2016). Further, these consequences extend to impact
communities due to increased health care costs associated with poor physical health, and lack
of community participation from the individual suffering from PTSD (Hidalgo & Davidson,
2000).
This research does not specifically explore the physical symptoms that may result
from serving as a juror or the impact of symptoms from jury duty on family members;
however, it is important to understand the potential totality of consequences jurors may
experience from PTSD and trauma symptoms.
I suggest it is possible PTSD can occur as a result of jury duty, and as such, this
possibility warrants exploration. Under the DSM-IV-TR, passive participation in traumatic
events, such as news coverage, could lead to PTSD diagnosis, which had relevance to juror
diagnosis of PTSD, due to the passive nature of jury participation. In the DSM-5, criterion
A4 notes that exposure to media coverage no longer applies for PTSD diagnosis, unless the
exposure is work related. Jurors are serving in a non-voluntary role, receive monetary
compensation, are required to employ decision-making skills, follow directions, and are

47
required to be exposed to graphic and difficult images and information. For these reasons, I
argue jurors are acting within a working capacity and as such, are eligible for PTSD
diagnosis.
Furthermore, with consideration that human caused events tend to lead to higher rates
of PTSD, it is plausible jury duty could have these outcomes. If we can understand the
situations which cause PTSD, we will be better able to move forward with preventative
measures and services for the disorder.
PTSD and Suicide
Mental disorders are one of the most significant risk factors for suicidal ideation and
suicidal behavior (Krysinska & Lester, 2010). Studies have shown that between 71% and
99% of suicide victims across all age groups have a psychiatric diagnosis (ArensaultLapierre et al., 2004; Cavanagh et al., 2003). For example, a meta-analysis on diagnosis of
psychiatric disorders in suicide found 87% of people who completed suicide had a diagnosis,
primarily alcohol/substance abuse, personality disorders, psychotic disorders, and affective
disorders (Arensault-Lapterre et al., 2004). Cavanagh et al. (2003) examined case series of
psychological autopsies and found mental disorder as the most strongly associated with
suicide, with approximately 90% of individuals having a psychiatric diagnosis.
PTSD is associated with increased incidence of prior and current suicidal ideation
(Ullman & Brecklin, 2002) and suicide risk (Kotler et al., 2001). There have been a number
of studies that have explored the association between PTSD and suicide while controlling for
other variables. Ullman and Brecklin (2002) explored demographic variables, alcohol abuse,
sexual assault history, and depression using a multiple regression. When controlling for other
psychiatric disorders such as depression, the association between PTSD and lifetime

48
attempted suicide was not statistically significant; however, the association between suicidal
ideation and PTSD remained statistically significant (Ullman & Brecklin, 2002). Conversely,
Davidson et al. (1991) previously controlled for depression, and the association between
PTSD and lifetime suicide attempts remained statistically significant. Other research
suggests the association between PTSD and suicide risk for current suicidal ideation remains
after accounting for controls, such as depression; however, this association does not exist for
prior attempts of suicide when accounting for controls (Clum & Weaver, 1997; Krysinka &
Lester, 2010; Mazza, 2000; Wunderlich et al., 1998).
Using a logistical regression controlling for substance abuse, persistent suicidal
thoughts and borderline personality disorder, the effect of PTSD on lifetime suicide attempts
remained statistically significant (Maloney et al., 2007). Conversely, Fordwood et al. (2007),
Oquendo et al. (2003), and Yen et al. (2003), found no statistically significant association
after controlling for psychiatric disorders. Similarly, after controlling for psychiatric
disorders, Phillips et al. (2005) found no significant association between lifetime suicidal
ideation and PTSD.
Krysinka and Lester’s (2010) meta-analysis found no association between PTSD and
subsequent completed suicide; however, a moderate link between PTSD and prior suicide
attempt and suicidal ideation remained. Krysinka and Lester suggest this lack of association
may mean other comorbid disorders have more predictive power in relation to suicidality.
Krysinka and Lester further suggest pre-trauma personality and psychiatric condition
research is needed to shed light on the link between PTSD and suicidality.
More current research sought to link the symptoms of chronic PTSD (C-PTSD) with
suicide attempts from 50 patients that had been hospitalized in a psychiatric ward and who

49
were evaluated one week following a suicide attempt using the ICD-11 Trauma
Questionnaire (Pinheiro et al., 2016). Results suggest a statistically significant relationship
between C-PTSD symptoms and suicide attempt; suggesting C-PTSD as a relevant risk
factor for suicide attempts (Pinheiro et al., 2016).
This research does not specifically explore suicidal ideation but it is still important to
note this as a possible consequence of any instance of PTSD. Anecdotal evidence and
literature from outside of Canada suggests a link between jury duty and PTSD. As such, the
next portion of this chapter will describe jury duty in Canada that provides the context for the
literature review that follows.
Jury Member
A juror is a community member who is selected to serve in the process of
determining whether a person charged with an offence is innocent or guilty (Ministry of
Justice, 2014). In order to be eligible to serve as a jury member you must be at least 18 or 19
years of age, depending on the province, and be a Canadian citizen (Government of BC,
n.d.). Jurors are asked to participate in the legal system, often without previous knowledge of
or experience with the system, and are further asked to set aside their biases and personal
experiences to decide the guilt or innocence of a peer (Macpherson, 2014). Additionally,
jurors are given very little preparation for jury duty in terms of the nature of the information
to which they may be exposed (Feldmann & Bell, 1993; Ferguson, 2015). This lack of
history taking may mean individuals with past traumatic history similar to the alleged events
in the trial being held could become serving jury members, and would be at risk for further
traumatization or harm.

50

Juror Decision-Making
Different theoretical models exist for understanding jury decision-making, but
because jurors sit in trial and hear the same evidence and can still have differing views of
guilt or innocence, interpretations are derived from various other places such as an
individual’s personal knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and experiences (Schuller & Yarney,
2001). Researchers have been unable to find consistent demographic or personality variables
which relate to jurors’ decisions (Kassin & Wrightsman, 2013). However, some research has
found a relationship between personal attitudes and beliefs and jurors decision-making
processes (McAuliff & Bornstein, 2012; Miller et al., 2011). For example, in the United
States where the death penalty exists, personal beliefs about the death penalty might
influence juror decision making.
Certainly, these beliefs could pertain to the notion of jurors and their susceptibility to
negative consequences as a result of making a death penalty sentencing decision. Canada
does not have a death penalty, but it is still worthwhile to collect information, within Canada,
relating to minimum sentencing decisions as a potential factor in the development of trauma
experiences.
Role and Importance of Jurors in the Canadian Legal System
The premise of jury duty in Canada is to provide those accused of a crime the
opportunity to be tried by a group of fellow citizens; this service is considered a civic duty
(Department of Justice, 2015b; Miller, 2008). Those who serve as a jury member receive
some monetary compensation for their service. These rates vary by province. In British
Columbia (BC), rates begin at 20 dollars per day, up to a maximum of 100 dollars per day

51
(Government of BC, n.d.). In Ontario, jurors receive 40 dollars per day from day eleven to
forty-nine, then 100 thereafter (Ministry of Attorney General, 2018).
In Canada, an individual accused of an indictable offence, those that are the most
serious offences under the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC) and that can carry a sentence of
five years or more, can decide to be tried by a judge in provincial court, by a judge in a
superior court, or by a judge and jury in superior court (Department of Justice, 2021). It is
important to note that some indictable offences, such as murder, mandate they be tried by a
judge and jury, unless Crown counsel agrees to a trial by judge alone (Department of Justice,
2021).
Jurors are summoned using names on the provincial voter registry and individuals can
request an exemption from serving as a jury member if exemption criteria are met
(Government of BC, n.d.). Possible exemptions range from previously arranged firm travel
plans to being a full-time student. If an individual meets the criteria listed for exemption, that
person must submit a request to be formally exempt to the sheriff at the courthouse in which
that person was summoned.
If an individual is not exempt from the jury pool, the next step in the process involves
the opportunity for defence and Crown counsel to challenge prospective jurors (Government
of BC, n.d.). Crown and defence will challenge or agree with a juror’s participation
(Government of BC, n.d.). Challenges for cause fall under section 638(1) of the CCC, as
follows:
A prosecutor or an accused is entitled to any number of challenges on the ground that

52
(a) the name of a juror does not appear on the panel, but no misnomer or
misdescription is a ground of challenge where it appears to the court that the
description given on the panel sufficiently designates the person referred to;
(b) a juror is not impartial;
(c) a juror has been convicted of an offence for which they were sentenced to a
term of imprisonment of two years or more and for which no pardon or record
suspension is in effect;
(d) a juror is not a Canadian citizen;
(e) a juror, even with the aid of technical, personal, interpretative or other support
services provided to the juror under section 627, is physically unable to perform
properly the duties of a juror; or
(f) a juror does not speak the official language of Canada that is the language of
the accused or the official language of Canada in which the accused can best give
testimony or both official languages of Canada, where the accused is required by
reason of an order under section 530 to be tried before a judge and jury who speak
the official language of Canada that is the language of the accused or the official
language of Canada in which the accused can best give testimony or who speak
both official languages of Canada, as the case may be.
If an individual is selected for jury duty, that individual will swear an oath and
become a juror (Government of British Columbia, n.d.). A criminal law jury is comprised of
12 individuals (Department of Justice, 2015b). Alternate jurors may also be chosen. If at any

53
time a juror is unable to serve, the alternate juror will take the place of that juror
(Government of BC, n.d.)
Canadian jurors are subject to law, which prevents post-trial discussions and
expressly prevents discussion about jury deliberations (Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46,
s 649). Section 649 of the CCC (1985) states:
Every member of a jury, and every person providing technical, personal,
interpretative or other support services to a juror with a physical disability, who,
except for the purposes of
(a) an investigation of an alleged offence under subsection 139(2) in relation to a
juror, or
(b) giving evidence in criminal proceedings in relation to such an offence,
discloses any information relating to the proceedings of the jury when it was absent
from the courtroom that was not subsequently disclosed in open court is guilty of an
offence punishable on summary conviction.
Minimum Sentencing
Mandatory minimum sentencing exists around the world, in various forms. The
climate which sparks these minimum sentences is a complex combination of political goals
and public opinion aimed at satisfying the goals of retribution and general deterrence (see:
Barkase, 2020). Canada has several minimum sentencing requirements. For example, all
individuals convicted of murder serve a life sentence, with varying periods of time before
parole eligibility (Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46. s 235). As a more specific example,

54
those convicted of first-degree murder reach parole eligibility after serving twenty-five years
(Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46. s 745).
The notion that the public sees the CJS as too lenient has been evident for years (see
Belden et al., 2001; Cullen, et al., 2000; Webster & Doob, 2015; Roberts, 2007); however,
literature supports the idea that the public, in practice, is in favour of proportional
punishment (Roberts, 2007; Hough & Roberts, 2012), that is, one that is based on a case-bycase assessment. For example, when Canadians were asked generally their view on minimum
sentences for murder, almost all Canadians indicated support (Roberts, 1988). Similarly, in a
2005 poll, 74% of participants stated sentencing in Canada is too lenient (Roberts, Crutcher,
& Verbrugge, 2007). However, when individuals were asked the same question in relation to
a specific case, a man sentenced to life imprisonment after the murder of his severely
disabled daughter, three quarters of respondents supported a lesser sentence (Reid, 1999).
More recent research has also suggested the details of a specific case may influence
sentencing opinions (Hough & Roberts, 2012). When confronted with specific cases, a
preference for a less punitive punishment is noted (Hough & Roberts, 2012). Research by
Roberts (2003) suggested the difference in views applies to capital punishment decisions and
parole eligibility for life prisoners in Canada (Roberts, 2003) though more current research
may be needed to explore this notion today.
The above suggests a potential link between minimum sentencing decisions in
Canada and experiences of stress. In particular, this link may be evident in those cases in
which people favour less punitive forms of justice. Further, Antonio’s (2008) findings that
indicate only slightly higher rates of emotional upset following death penalty decisions
versus minimum sentencing ones, in combination with Chopra’s (2002) stress link to

55
minimum sentencing, suggests the possibility that minimum sentencing decisions may be
noteworthy and confirms the need for further clarification and research.
Literature Review: Juror Experiences
The following review provides an exhaustive representation of the literature on the
experiences of jury duty, dating back to Kaplan’s 1985 exploration of the psychological
effects on jurors. Most of the research done has set out to explore the negative consequences
of jury duty; however, positive reports are noted throughout the literature. As such, this
section begins with positive juror experiences. The remainder of the literature explored
below is primarily focused on the psychological impact of jury duty, as this is most relevant
to the research; however, there exists a body of literature that has sought to explore options
for best dealing with the negative consequences of jury duty, which is summarized
accordingly. Though the literature is brief, the role of sex is explored. Finally, efforts focused
on reported negative impacts are provided as a baseline to make potential recommendations
following this research.
Positive Juror Reports
This section is limited in length compared to the literature available on reported
negative experiences of jurors. This difference is not necessarily an indication that jurors are
more likely to have negative experiences but is likely reflective of the focus of research
related to juror experiences and efforts directed at service provision.
Although there have been reports of negative impacts to those who serve on jury duty
(Kaplan & Winget, 1992) many jurors also report positive juror experiences. Diamond
(1991) stated that attitudes related to jury duty are not negatively influenced after juror
service, but rather have a favourable impact on their attitudes towards jury duty in 76% of

56
jurors surveyed. Jurors report an increased interest in their government processes as a result
of jury service (Informed Citizens, 1956).
Cutler and Hughes (2001) cited previous bodies of research supporting high levels of
satisfaction with jury duty and found similar results in their research. It is worthwhile to note
that the studies cited by Cutler and Hughes sought information such as satisfaction levels
relevant to the juror’s treatment from the judge and lawyers. Cutler and Hughes examined
jurors via the use of surveys that were distributed to all persons who reported for jury service
for two one-week periods in each county of North Carolina. A total of 1478 jurors responded
to the survey. Juror reports indicated instructions from the judge were clear and
understandable (Cutler & Hughes, 2001). This research reported high levels of satisfaction
with the verdict, the deliberation process, and the process of the trial (Cutler & Hughes,
2001). High levels of willingness to serve again were also noted (Cutler & Hughes, 2001).
Bornstein et al. (2005) conducted research using structured interviews and a survey
that looked at participants’ perceptions of the court system and which factors cause stress
immediately following trial and then one month after trial. Participants served on both
criminal and civil court cases. Bornstein et al. reported findings congruent with overall
positive juror experiences, indicating, for example, that 40% of jurors, if summoned again,
would try to be selected for jury duty. Overall, jurors found the trial selection process to be
fair and indicated that the accused received a fair trial (Bornstein et al., 2005). Jurors found
staff within the CJS to be respectful and reported positive communication skills from all
players (Bornstein et al., 2005). Fifty-seven percent of jurors felt an improved sense of
understanding about how the CJS works following their service (Bornstein et al., 2005).

57
Miller’s report summarized previous research related to common sources of stress for
jurors, then offered several intervention models that may help reduce serious consequences
to jurors, post-trial. Similar to Bornstein et al.’s findings, Miller (2008) argues that most
people who serve as jurors report positive outcomes.
Jurors have reported personal gains associated with jury duty. Tocqueville (1966)
described jury duty as an effective means of education for society, arguing that jury duty may
boost an individual sense of civic duty and levels of public engagement. Diamond (1991)
notes research that suggests high levels of juror satisfaction and highlights favourable
attitudes and the observation of fairness of the trial process as key factors of those
satisfaction levels (see: Shuman et al., 1994; & Simon, 1975). Positive outcomes include
admiration for the legal system, reports of validation for their efforts, and increased
engagement in civic life (Miller, 2008). Jurors often indicated they would like to serve again
(Miller, 2008).
Kelly (1994) examined the severity of psychological symptoms with 350 people who
participated in structured interviews focused on traumatic stress symptoms. Participants
served on 44 different murder trials. Kelley (1994) cited instances of increased selfconfidence, increased maturation, and an increased appreciation for families, leading to more
time devoted to family life.
Like previous studies, Culter and Hughes’ (2001) results revealed high levels of
satisfaction and service did not alter opinions of court for most who served. Specifically,
jurors who served and reached a verdict experienced an increase in voting rates (Gastil et al.,
2008). Gastil et al., suggested juror service thus translates to faith in government processes;
indicating this is because these government institutions are built on faith in the system and

58
experiencing those processes sustains that faith. Gastil et al. went on to claim that the
deliberation process helps motivate private citizens to become public citizens through the
reinforcement of confidence in both government institutions and fellow citizens. This
suggests that citizens may become more engaged in civic life overall, as a result of positive
juror experiences.
Miller (2008) similarly stated that for many people, jury duty is the most impactful
thing they have done for their community. For example, jurors reported new respect for the
legal process and system after service (Miller, 2008). Miller suggested people often feel less
validated in their job environments when compared to high levels of feeling valued as a
juror. Wolff (2011) indicated that 83-88% of all juror respondents in her study stated
satisfaction with their experience as a juror, noting that jurors felt the experience was overall
rewarding. While these reports provide a broad picture of the jury experience, more
important for the current research is what might cause distress in jurors.
Sources of Distress
A variety of research has explored what leads to distress in jurors. Commonly
reported sources of distress include viewing disturbing evidence and the deliberation process,
including being sequestered. Research by Kaplan (1985) found that those who served as
jurors indicated viewing disturbing evidence, hearing difficult testimony, past juror trauma,
and feelings of isolation during trial as contributing sources of stress. In 1992, Kaplan and
Winget (1992), studied juries of four criminal trials, two murder cases, one obscenity, and
one child abuse case. Forty jurors were interviewed, one who described extreme difficulty
over imposing the death penalty, as she identified with the defendant who had experienced

59
childhood difficulties. Kaplan and Winget found deliberation and sequestration as significant
sources of distress.
Cusack (1999) studied capital murder trials immediately post-trial using structured
and semi-structured open-ended questions on stress and traumatic stress. Results indicated
fear of retaliation, deliberation, and deciding over the death penalty were most associated
with stress. Additionally, type of trial has been noted as a significant source of stress, with
murder trials and crimes against people as most distressing (Palmer, 2005a; Palmer, 2005b).
Similarly, Bornstein et al. (2005) found criminal cases as significantly more associated with
hypervigilance than civil cases (p<0.05). Other stressors indicated include disruption to daily
life, the complexity of the trial, viewing difficult evidence, and decision-making (Bornstein
et al., 2005). Importantly, jurors indicated the complexity of the trial and decision-making as
the two most stressful elements of serving jury duty (Bornstein et al., 2005). Wolff (2011)
reported similar findings indicating that 42% of participants had difficulty with the
deliberations and the associated discussions during that time. These findings are consistent
with previous reports that juror interactions impact satisfaction levels with service (Delipsey,
1994). Specifically, higher rates of satisfaction are found when jurors have come to a
unanimous ruling during deliberations (Delipsey, 1994).
In 2008, Antonio found deliberation and sequestration as a source of distress where
32% of jurors indicated being emotionally upset, describing evidence and witness testimony
as difficult. Antonio (2008) used data collected for the Capital Jury Project looking at the
psychological impact of serving on capital murder charges. The Capital Jury Project was
aimed at understanding the decision-making processes of jurors across several states in the
United States, beginning in the 1990s (Bower, 1995). This research utilized in-depth

60
interviews that included both structured and unstructured narrative accounts. Findings
indicated jurors found anxiety around fear of reprisal from the accused or victim’s family
(76.9% women, 23.1 % men) (Antonio, 2008). Eight of 130 participants in this study went to
counselling after serving jury duty to help cope (Antonio, 2008).
Bertrand, Paetsch, and Anand (2008) conducted a repeated survey interview on jurors
from three different murder trials administered immediately post-trial and three months
following trial. The top three stressors were indicated as the deliberation process, deciding on
a verdict, and fear of making a mistake. Further, 30% of jurors in their study found viewing
and hearing evidence as disturbing (Bertrand et al., 2008). Palmer (2005b) found
deliberations, disturbing verbal evidence, and the length of trial as sources of stress.
Chopra (2002) invited those who had served jury duty within the last two years from
within the Vancouver BC area to discuss experiences related to service. Chopra interviewed
those who had served on criminal cases that were both person-centered such as murder, and
non-person centered, such as arson. Importantly, her findings stated 70% of reported
stressors were related to the deliberation process, in part due to fear of making a mistake
(Chopra, 2002).
The above reports indicate a variety of sources of distress for jurors. Of note, the
deliberation process and viewing difficult evidence are commonly reported among the
studies, which indicates the importance of these factors as possible contributors to PTSD
symptoms as well as other related disorders.
Psychological Impact of Jury Duty
Although jurors often report overall positive experiences, reports of perceived
inequities are noted. Jurors have made reports that they feel less important than other players

61
in the courtroom, being moved in and out without explanation, and waiting for long periods
of time (Chopra, 2002). Additionally, jury duty has been cited as being a cause of economic
difficulty due to low honorarium rates for those who serve (Chopra, 2002).
Furthermore, research has suggested those who have served jury duty may become
vicariously traumatized (Robertson & Davies, 2009) and recently, research has begun to
explore the role of vicarious trauma in the legal arena (Lonergan et al., 2016). This research
has found that criminal lawyers scored significantly higher on vicarious trauma measures
when compared to non-criminal lawyers (Vrklevski & Franklin, 2008 as cited in Lonergan et
al., 2016). Additionally, symptoms such as sleep disturbance, feelings of depression,
hypervigilance, loss of appetite, and nightmares have been noted in judges (Chamberlain, &
Miller, 2008 as cited in Lonergan et al., 2016). These findings suggest the importance of
exploring juror symptoms following their service (Lonergan et al., 2016).
Depression and Generalized Anxiety
Multiple reports of generalized anxiety and or depression have been noted in the
literature (Chopra, 2002; Delipsey, 1994; Palmer, 2005b; Shuman et al., 1994). Kaplan
(1985) who conducted interviews on 16 jurors that served on a highly publicized murder
trial, found most jurors in his research met the criteria for mood or anxiety disorder.
Costanzo and Costanzo (1994) who studied the stress associated with jury duty in those who
have served death penalty trials found that 81% of their sample indicated stress from serving
jury duty. Wolff (2011) indicated 54% of jurors stated some anxiety over deciding on a
verdict. Palmer (2005b) conducted interviews with structured and semi-structured questions
examining mental and physical health of jurors who served on violent crime trials. In High
Court, during trial, 15% of respondents reported depression, while 7% made this report post-

62
trial (Palmer, 2005b). In District Court, 10% reported depression during the trial (Palmer,
2005b).
Shuman et al. (1994) reported on 312 questionnaires given to jurors who had served
on 26 different criminal trials either traumatic, such as murder or sexual assault, or nontraumatic, such as robbery or possession of a controlled substance. Shuman et al. (1994)
suggested that jurors serving on traumatic trials, were almost six times as likely to develop
symptoms consistent with depression than those serving on non-traumatic trials (12.3% vs
2.6%). This effect diminished over time but did persist during the deliberation process (7%
vs. 1.3%) and remained after the trial ended (1.4% vs. 0%). The Public Health Agency of
Canada, using data collected in 2012, suggests approximately 5.4% of Canadians aged 15
and over have symptoms which meet the criteria for a mood disorder in the previous 12
months; depression accounting for 4.7% of that number, according to the Canadian
Community Health Survey (CCHS) (Pearson et al., 2013). These percentages from the
CCHS suggest mood disorders occur at higher rates in juror populations than that of the
general population.
Delipsey (1994) studied symptoms of 61 jurors who had served jury duty on one of
six different murder trials. Participants completed an interview which was aimed at
understanding stress symptoms and traumatic distress immediately post-trial, and three and a
half weeks following trial. Delipsey found 36% of respondents, who had no prior history of
anxiety, identified levels of stress that were of clinical significance, and likely met the
requirements for anxiety or mood disorder after serving jury duty according to the Global
Severity index of the Symptom Checklist (SCL)-90. The SCL-90 is a brief self-report
psychometric questionnaire designed to evaluate a broad range of psychological symptoms.

63
At three and a half weeks following trial 18% scored above the SCL-90 cutoff for
depression. Within 30 days of the completion of the trial, most of jurors’ stress was below
the threshold range according to the SCL-90.
Trauma and PTSD
Multiple studies have reported on the prevalence of traumatic stress symptoms in
juror populations (Chopra, 2002; Horowitz, 1986; Palmer, 2005a, Robertson et al., 2009;
Wolff, 2011). Horowitz (1986) indicates that many experiences described by jurors resemble
clinical symptoms of PTSD. According to Kaplan (1985), four jurors met the criteria for
clinical diagnosis of PTSD after finding the defendant guilty and sentencing that individual
to death. Kaplan and Winget (1992) conducted in-depth interviews with 40 jurors, 27 of
which reported experiencing one or more physical or physiological symptom such as:
gastrointestinal distress, heart palpitation, nervousness, headaches, depression, sexual
inhibition, anorexia, faintness, numbness, chest pain, hives, and flu symptoms. Seven of the
jurors had severe illness, which included peptic ulcer reactivation and hives, anxiety,
increased alcohol use, phobia, hypertensive episodes, depression, and PTSD (Kaplan &
Winget, 1992). Kaplan and Winget (1992) found that one juror in their study met the criteria
for PTSD, while 67.5% of jurors experienced symptoms consistent with PTSD and
depression including: nightmares, intrusive thoughts, insomnia, avoidance, hypervigilance,
interpersonal difficulties, and substance misuse. Additionally, many jurors reported feeling
unsafe during the trial (Kaplan & Winget, 1992) contributing to overall negative
psychological effects from trial.
Costanzo and Costanzo (1994), examined negative psychological symptoms in 27
jurors who served capital murder trials. This research involved in-depth interviews aimed at

64
understanding the penalty phase deliberation experiences of jurors. Eight participants
reported insomnia and/or nightmares while another participant experienced alcohol misuse
later requiring treatment (Contanzo & Costanzo, 1994). Other symptoms ranging from
irritability to weight gain were also reported (Costanzo & Costanzo, 1994). Bornstein et al.,
(2005) suggest symptoms are most significant in long or high-stakes trials, such as imposing
the death penalty, as suggested by Constanzo and Costanzo’s (1994) findings, and can last
for several months following trial as suggested by Shuman et al. (1994).
Chopra (2002) found 11.3% of her study participants likely met the criteria for PTSD
(Chopra, 2002). Symptoms included disturbing memories (21%), numb and detached
(11.3%), more tense (11.3%), avoidance (3.8%), increased fearfulness (18%), insomnia
(33.8%), and nightmares (25%) (Chopra, 2002). Chopra determined one third of her research
participants reported stress reactions consistent with PTSD.
According to Antonio (2008), 68% of their 1198-person juror sample reported
emotional upset and forty jurors commented on nightmares relating to what they had viewed
(62.5% women, 37.5% men). Antonio reports that jurors who served on capital trials that
resulted in the death penalty reported only slightly more emotional upset when compared to
jurors who served on life sentence trials. Furthermore, whether the trial ended in the death
penalty or not had little impact on jurors’ experiences with sleeping and eating (Antonio,
2008). Opheim (2004) conducted a study which used a between group comparison of jurors
who ranked photos seen during trial as distressing or not distressing. No significant
differences in trauma symptoms were noted between those who ranked evidence as
distressing when compared to those who ranked evidence not distressing (Opheim, 2004).

65
This reported lack of difference contradicts earlier findings that stated more
significant PTSD symptoms when jurors had to make death penalty decisions when
compared with jurors who made decisions on life sentences only (Cusack, 1999). McGrath
and Ryan (2004) also found the responsibility of finding someone guilty with knowledge of
the death penalty was difficult for jurors. Although there is no death penalty in Canada,
jurors who had to decide on minimum incarceration time before parole eligibility reported
stress linked to the task (Chopra, 2002).
Robertson et al. (2009) conducted exploratory research which examined stress within
the English legal system using a web-based questionnaire on 64 participants, the majority
(95%) of which served on criminal trials. Robertson et al. (2009) found one juror who met
the criteria for PTSD. Overall, symptoms during and after trial included restless sleep (22%
during, 8% after), sadness (17% during, 6% after), isolation (14% during, 3% after),
headaches (13% during, 3% after), walking at night (11% during, 5% after), flashbacks (11%
during, 5% after), and increased feelings of tension (11% during, 5% after).
Further, Palmer (2005a) conducted a repeated measure analysis of variance
immediately post-trial, and at one- and three-months post-trial on 201 jurors. This research
explored variables which predict incidence of PTSD. Homicide and child victim trials were
reported as significantly more related to PTSD severity, as were length of trial and the
deliberation process. This research used a modified version of the Posttraumatic Stress
Diagnostic Scale (PDS) which is a self-report measure which parallels the PTSD diagnostic
criteria for the DSM-IV, taking approximately 15 minutes to complete (Palmer, 2005a).
Palmer (2005a) found that 35% likely had PTSD post-trial. At one-month post-trial, 14%
(126 jurors remained participants) met the criteria for probable PTSD, and at three months

66
post-trial 27% of participants still in the study (62 jurors remained participants) met this
criterion.
Wolff (2011) examined psychological symptoms in 280 jurors who served on felony
criminal cases, such as murder, using structured and semi-structured open-ended questions
assessing for overall juror experiences related to stress, processing being a juror, and
availability of services. Reported symptoms included difficulty sleeping (43%), trouble
concentrating (27%), somatic symptoms such as nausea (18%), hypervigilance, such as
feeling on guard (43%), anger (16%), and flashbacks (39%).
The above research represents some discrepancies in findings; particularly on the role
of deciding on the death penalty. The death penalty is one of, if not the most, severe
sentencing decisions a juror can make. Despite there being no death penalty in Canada, there
is evidence that jurors experience stress when required to find individuals guilty of crimes
which have minimum incarceration requirements before parole eligibility (Chopra, 2002). As
such, further research in the Canadian context is needed to explore the relationship between
juror difficulty when faced with decisions involving minimum sentencing decisions.
However, there are many other factors that contribute to juror populations’ experiences with
trauma and PTSD.
Role of Sex
While gender and sex are often used interchangeably, they are distinct in meaning. As
such, it is important to define these terms before exploring sex related literature. First, gender
refers to the socially constructed concepts related to the roles, behaviours, and expression of
identity of an individual (Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), 2019). Gender
influences how people are perceived by each other and themselves. Considerable diversity

67
exists in how gender is understood and expressed (CIHR, 2019). Second, sex refers to an
individual’s biological features which include reproductive/sexual anatomy (CIHR, 2019).
Sex is categorized as male and female but there are variations in how these biological
attributes are expressed (CIHR, 2019). The literature related to symptomology has used the
term gender in reference to biological differences, and as such, the literature review below
will be understood in terms of sex differences.
Multiple studies indicate higher rates of symptomology in women than in men
following jury duty (Antonio, 2008; Bornstein, 2005; Chopra, 2002; Huber, 2008; Kaplan,
1985; Kaplan & Winget, 1992; Kelley, 1994; Palmer, 2005a; Robertson et al., 2009; Shuman
et al., 1994; Wolff, 2011). For example, Bornstein et al. (2005) found women reported
experiencing more stress than men, and elements such as trial length, impacted reported
stress levels. More women than men reported symptoms (Chopra, 2002; Kaplan & Winget,
1992; Kelley, 1994; Wolff, 2011) and more women had probable PTSD (Chopra, 2002;
Shuman et al., 1994). Palmer (2005b) found PTSD symptoms were most prevalent in women
in High Court trials. The literature suggests these differences may relate to instances of
reporting, in which women would be more likely to report symptoms, rather than actual
differences in symptomology (Kaplan & Winget, 1992; Kelley, 1994; Shuman et al., 1994).
Antonio (2008) sought to explore differences between male and female jurors
following their service. Although men did report becoming emotionally upset by the trial
(50.4%), this was reported more often by female jurors (70.8%), and female jurors also
reported more sleep and eating disturbances when compared to men (47.7% women, 23.7%
men). Further, more female jurors reported viewing photographs of the crime scene and

68
victims and testimony as difficult (73.2 % women, 26.8% men). Feelings of isolation were
also reported more often by women (78.8% women, 11.2% men).
Robertson et al. (2009) recruited 64 participants who completed a survey interview
which explored psychological distress, traumatic stress, and anxiety in jurors of which
primarily served on criminal trials. Main findings indicate the deliberation process as highly
distressing, as was being sequestered and viewing disturbing evidence. Higher distress scores
were observed for person-centered crimes. Additionally, literature suggests women who have
had prior trauma similar to the trial type showed higher rates of PTSD symptoms, than men,
with and without prior trauma (Palmer, 2005a; Robertson et al., 2009) In response to these
difficulties, the following literature has explored ways in which to mitigate these reported
symptoms.
Reducing Symptoms
Many of the interventions set up to mitigate stress for jurors, take the form of either
pre-trial education about what to expect from the court system, or post-trial debriefings led
by mental health professionals (Bornstein et al., 2005; Nordgren & Thelen, 1999) or judges
(Kelley, 1994).
Shuman et al. (1994) reported on 152 questionnaires given to jurors who had served
on trials that involved crimes against an individual. Shuman et al. suggested that mitigating
the negative impact of jury service could be achieved in a number of ways. First, limiting the
traumatic content that jurors are exposed to, and second, modifying how jurors are selected
for jury duty with the intention of eliminating those with prior trauma experiences similar to
the trial case (Shuman et al., 1994). The following literature addresses some of these

69
recommendations, while indicating gaps in knowledge in terms of best practices for the
provision of service in jurors.
Orientation
Bradshaw et al. (2005) sought to assess the impact of a juror orientation video on
juror knowledge, and subsequent comfort with the legal system during jury duty. This study
used the Juror Knowledge and Comfort Scale (JKCS) which consisted of seven multiple
choice questions and sought to understand a juror’s knowledge of the legal system and the
level of comfort individuals felt toward serving jury duty. This comfort level is examined to
increase the number of citizens responding to jury summons (Bradshaw, et al., 2005).
Bradshaw et al. indicate that those jurors who served previously had significantly higher
knowledge and comfort scores with regards to the CJS. Authors found that jurors exposed to
the orientation videotape scored significantly higher on both the knowledge scale and
comfort scale, than those jurors who did not watch the videotape. A multivariate analysis of
variance found jurors exposed to the orientation video reported significantly higher levels of
comfort than jurors in the control group F(6, 496) = 15.06, p <.05, η2 = .18. To address
foreperson concerns about how to manage their role discussed earlier, Chopra (2002)
suggests that providing forepersons with a handout detailing some of this information may be
helpful.
During Trial
Other research has begun to explore how the jury process might be altered to better
support jurors during trial. Relevant to the current research, O’Conner (2003) suggests two
areas of the jury system that require further attention. First, the conditions related to jury duty
need to focus on improved treatment of jurors (for example, sufficient breaks for jurors),

70
which will lead to better civic opinions of jury service (O’Conner, 2003). Second, the
conduct of jury service means jurors can do nothing more than listen to the proceedings
without being allowed to take notes, then deliberate based on a set of instructions that are
potentially unclear to them (O’Conner, 2003). The treatment of jurors and conduct of jury
service as discussed by O’Conner, is relevant to the current discussion as it may offer insight
into a potential area for positive change for jurors.
Chopra (2002) states that during difficult testimony, the judge should make note of
how the jurors are coping with the information to determine if a break might be warranted for
the jurors. Additionally, during trial proceedings, jurors may feel stress that they may come
in contact with the defendant’s lawyer, family, or friends (Chopra, 2002). As such, Chopra
suggests sheriffs should be mindful of this possibility and seek to minimize the chances of
this occurring during the trial proceedings.
Debriefing Background
The primary purpose of psychological debriefing (PD) is the prevention of the onset
of disorders that may occur as a result of traumatic stress (Everly & Mithcell, 1997). Its
origins are rooted in an effort to maintain group morale and minimize psychological impact
in soldiers following combat (Rose et al., 2009). In the 1980s the method became more
prominent when it was used in civilian groups for professional helpers, such as police
officers and firefighters (Arendt & Elklit, 2001; Rose et al., 2009). The concept of debriefing
has become a comprehensive approach termed Critical Incident Stress Management (CISM)
(Mitchell & Everyly, 1998), in which Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD) is described
as the fourth component in a structured, seven phase therapy (Rose et al., 2009). The process
of PD involves promoting emotional processing or catharsis by recollecting or reworking the

71
traumatic event (Rose et al., 2009). Further, sessions usually involve education about typical
stress reactions (Bryant, 2007). The primary characteristic of this method is that it occurs as a
single session, 24-72 hours following the traumatic incident, and occurs in a group setting led
by therapists (Arendt & Elklit, 2001).
PD has been the subject of debate for a number of years (Arendt & Elklit, 2001). In
the early years of the debate, research found no empirical evidence for PD as a treatment
following a critical incident (Bisson & Deahl, 1994). Later, recommendations that the use of
PD cease were made based on the notion that there is no evidence that debriefing can prevent
symptoms related to traumatic experiences, such as PTSD (Wessely et al., 1997). In 2009,
Rose et al. conducted a meta-analysis on 15 randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness
of PD following traumatic events and report there is no evidence that debriefing reduces the
risk of developing PSTD. As a result, Rose et al. (2009) made the recommendation that the
practice of PD cease. Importantly, studies have reported a significant increase in the risk of
PTSD in those receiving PD three years following the traumatic event and PD intervention
(Hobbs et al., 1996). Hobbs et al. (1996) studied patients in a hospital setting who were road
accident victims through a randomized controlled trial. Similarly, Bisson et al. (1997) studied
patients in a burn unit via randomized controlled trial, and found an adverse effect at 13
months follow-up for those participants in their study who received PD following a traumatic
event.
Conversely, during this time, multiple studies were published indicating the efficacy
of the method (Everly, & Boyle, 1999; Everly, & Mitchell, 1997; Everly et al., 2000). When
participants are asked about their perception of the effectiveness of the intervention a number

72
of studies found moderate to high degrees of satisfaction (Bisson et al., 1997; Carlier et al.,
2000; Kenardy et al., 1996; Small et al., 2000).
Given the lack of clarity on the effectiveness of PD, and substantial evidence which
indicates little to no positive effect, and in some cases adverse effects from PD, the focus
should shift instead to research which determines assessment tools following traumatic
events in order to direct the provision of services. Following the principles of evidence based
practice, the use of PD should not continue on the basis of perceived value from clients
(Rose et al., 2009); however, debriefing has been popular in the literature relating to
mitigating the negative health impacts.
Debriefing Literature Related to Jury Duty. Bornstein et al. (2005) studied jurors’
perceptions of the court system and elements that impact stress immediately following the
trial. Specifically, this research studied the effectiveness of a post-trial debriefing, which was
reported as helpful by jurors (Bornstein et al., 2005). Bornstein et al. (2005) note that the
decision to provide debriefing services to jurors is one made by the judge and occurs on an
ad hoc basis following what would be considered more difficult cases (Bornstein et al.,
2005). The debriefing was perceived as helpful to jurors, but stress levels did not
significantly differ pre and post debriefing (Bornstein et al., 2005). At one month following
trial, stress levels were lower; although, no significant difference in PTSD symptoms was
observed (Bornstein et al., 2005).
Sometimes, juror debriefing is the responsibility of the judges to carry out following
difficult cases, a practice that many judges feel ill-equipped to manage effectively
(Washington Victim Services, as cited in Kelley, 1994). Chopra (2002) agrees on the
importance of debriefing stating that, because Canadian jurors are not able to speak to family

73
members about the deliberation process, which her research indicates as the most stressful
element of jury duty, post-trial debriefing by the judge and/or qualified mental health
professionals takes on importance, regardless of the trial type. Bornstein et al. (2005) note
that research is limited on the effectiveness of the debriefing process for jurors specifically.
Support workers for jury members, much like those available to witnesses, may be an
important avenue for mitigating some of the stress resulting from jury duty (Robertson et al.,
2009). Other research states that jurors may benefit from more post-trial information about
their roles and rules of disclosure, as jurors report unease over what they could speak about
following trial (Kelley, 1994).
Post-Trial Support
Though orientation videos and debriefing have been most noted in the literature to
date, Nordgren and Thelen (1999) suggest a five-level service delivery approach post-trial
for jury members that matches the intervention strategy to the intensity of the reaction from
the juror. This approach includes the following support options: written materials, judicial
discharge instructions, flexible defusing of juries, jury stress debriefing, and individual
therapy (Nordgren & Thelen, 1999). Nordgren and Thelen make this suggestion as they
indicate juror’s reactions vary significantly and therefore, the multi-level approach not only
provides the best fit of service for jurors, but is additionally most cost-effective for the court
system.
At the time of writing, jurors in Canada have different access to counselling services
depending on the province in which they served (Previn, 2019). For example, New
Brunswick has no limit to the number of sessions a juror may receive, whereas, in Quebec,
juror support is given at the discretion of the judge (Previn, 2019). Previn (2019) quotes a

74
former juror’s difficulty finding support following his service stating that psychologists were
hesitant to provide service due to Section 649 of the CCC. I will explore this along with the
finding of the current research in the discussion chapter of this dissertation.
Discussion
This research sought to bring the context of Canada and the DSM-5 into the existing
literature. Instances of PTSD following jury duty have been anecdotally reported in the
media. This research sought to add to existing literature by providing current research within
the Canadian context. Literature relevant to the Canadian context is important in relation to
the CJS because differences in legal systems related to jury duty, such as not being able to
speak about deliberations post-trial, may impact individual outcomes. Furthermore, the
provision of services to jurors post-trial is given on an ad-hoc basis, at the discretion of the
judge presiding over the trial.
Of note, PTSD prevalence rates vary based on the type of event exposure. For
example, Bryant (2007) indicated higher reported rates of PTSD symptoms due to human
caused trauma when compared to natural disasters. Furthermore, the effects of human caused
events have been shown to persist longer than those of natural disasters (Green & Lindy,
1994). Research suggests that media reporting of disasters such as terrorist attacks and
natural disasters may have a role in increased stress reactions for viewers and may lead to
PTSD type symptoms (Schuster et al., 2001). The potential for passive participation in
traumatic events, such as news coverage previously mentioned, leading to outcomes
consistent with PTSD type symptoms, is of interest to this study. This passive participation
remains applicable because under the DSM-5 exposure to difficult materials applies to
diagnosis when viewed within a work setting, as is the case with jurors. Because human

75
caused events tend to lead to higher rates of PTSD, it is plausible jury duty could have these
outcomes under the DSM-5 criteria.
Finally, given the potential health implications resulting from PTSD discussed
previously in this chapter, it is prudent that research seek to understand if PTSD occurs
following jury duty, outside of anecdotal reports. Further, hopefully findings inform the
development of large-scale research done at the provincial or national level on jurors.
Furthermore, this research aims to provide a foundation on which to support the
standardization of policy and practice implications related to the provision of service to
jurors following their service.
Conclusion
In summary, the existing literature strongly suggests PTSD as an outcome from
serving jury duty, even with no previous trauma experiences. Importantly, the causes for
distress in jurors, such as the sequestering process and viewing difficult evidence, may
indicate the need for the standardization of services to jurors. The limitations in the current
body of knowledge discussed above, including a lack of Canadian context suggest the need
for future exploration of the topic.

76
Chapter Three: Methods and Methodology
Introduction
This chapter will introduce the chosen methodology and methods for this research.
The methodology section begins with an overview of structural theory, which serves as the
grand theory that informs this research. Next, constructivism is discussed, along with
phenomenology, which together inform the epistemological stance of this research.
The methods section discusses practical matters associated with recruitment and data
collection. I will discuss the use of a demographic survey and the PCL-5, which is a selfreport PTSD measure. I also discuss the use of interviews for this research. Then, I provide
an overview of thematic analysis, which was my chosen method of analysis for the
interviews with participants. I begin this chapter with a discussion on the use of two
paradigms for this research.
Mixing Phenomenology
The incompatibility thesis states that qualitative and quantitative methods cannot be
integrated due to the incompatibility of paradigms; however, this argument has been largely
discredited (Teddlie & Tashakkoi, 2009). By discarding the incompatibility thesis, flexibility
in the epistemological approaches across paradigms is supported. My epistemological choice
is rooted in my axiological belief that pragmatism is inefficient at addressing latent values
within the research (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Further, my epistemological approach
informs the process of my chosen research design.
This research moves from using descriptive statistics to phenomenological methods
by using the initial phase to capture demographic information and PTSD symptoms that were
then further explored in the phenomenological phase. Participants in the second phase of

77
research then provided rich experiential accounts of jury duty (Mayoh & Onwuegbuzie,
2015). In this sense, the descriptive statistics in this research are included within the broader
qualitative framework (Mayoh & Onwuegbuzie, 2015).
One example of this type of research is illustrated by Thornton et al. (2011). In their
research the quantitative portion included a self-report measure, followed by
phenomenological inquiry (Thornton et al., 2011). This was justified as a way of gathering a
more holistic understanding of the phenomenon being studied (Thornton et al., 2011).
Further, by remaining open to new developments from the initial phase of research there is
an opportunity to explore unexpected aspects of the phenomenon being researched (Mayoh
& Onwuebyzue, 2015). Similarly, the research remained flexible to unexpected findings
related to jury duty experience. I will now move into a thorough discussion on my
methodological approach.
Methodology
This section is intended to describe the methodological approach used in this
research. Structural theory broadly represents the foundation and driving force behind the
research. Constructivism represents a more specific epistemological approach that outlines
my understanding of the nature of knowledge. Finally, phenomenology further guides the
chosen methods described in the next section. See Figure 2 that outlines the flow of
understanding for my chosen methodology. This flow will be discussed further in this
section.

78

Structural Theory

Constructivism

• Informed need and
justification for research.
Rooted in belief that there is
a service gap for jurors.
Structural theory informed
the theoretical approach.
• Primary tenet of subjectivity of
knowledge which highlights need to
deeply understand experiences of
participants.

• Describes the lived experiences of participants.
Guided research decision for semi-structured
interviews as they provide flexibility to the
Descriptive
Phenomenology process.

Figure 2: Flow of understanding for descriptive phenomenology approach.
Grand theory: Structural theory
There are varying understandings of structural theory by discipline. For example,
structuralism is distinct from structural theory and is described as an intellectual movement
that studies the underlying structures of language (Powers, 2010). This research is rooted in
social work understandings of structural theory. Structural theory is introduced as the grand
theory that informs my research philosophy. Structural theory is a critical theory that
suggests human nature and culture are understood in terms of their relationship to a system.
As such, human culture must be understood in terms of broader, overarching structures, such
as the CJS.
One of Canada’s most prominent structural social workers is Robert Mullaly (1997)
who frames structural social work as an applied critical theory that primarily seeks to liberate
people from oppression. The strength of the structural approach lies in linking individual
problems with structural determinants of social life (Mullaly, 1997). Structural social work is

79
focused on systems which create and maintain oppression (Payne, 2005). Further, structural
social work maintains a commitment to humanitarianism, community, and equity (Payne,
2005).
Social Constructivism
Presently, there is debate within the literature around the terminology associated with
constructivism and constructionism (Franklin, 1995). Typically, constructivism is linked to
psychology and constructionism sociology; however, both terms maintain a post-modern
reference to the understanding of knowledge as subjective (Raskin, & Bridges, 2004). As
such, some believe the distinction is unnecessary (Furman et al., 2003). For the purposes of
this research both understandings will be discussed under the term constructivism.
Barker (2014) defines social constructivism as a theoretical model about the process
of knowledge creation, how it is acquired, and subsequently processed by the individual.
This model suggests knowledge does not seek a representation of truth, but rather validity
(Barker, 2014). In social constructivism, each person creates knowledge for themselves
based on their life experiences (Barker, 2014). By this definition, knowledge is relative, and
never objective (Barker, 2014). The lack of objectivity within social constructivist
epistemology aligns well with my personal practice model when working with individuals. I
believe people recall experiences through a lens that is shaped by their collective life
experiences. For me, this belief translates to research through the semi-structured
interviewing process.
Social constructivism emerged as a response to critiques of positivism (Houston,
2001) and is regarded as part of the postmodern movement in the 1940s and 1950s (Furman

80
et al., 2003). As the belief in objectivity received criticism, social constructivism took root
(Beck, 1992; Giddens, 1990; Seidman, 1998).
Further, social constructivist epistemology is rooted in Kuhn’s (1962) belief that a
researcher’s views of reality not only contain subjective elements but are also a result of
interactions between people (Kuhn, 1962). These interactions are relevant within the
researcher-participant relationship and indicate the need for personal reflection when
utilizing the constructivist standpoint in research.
Main Concepts of Social Constructivism
Fisher (1991) suggests the following eight elements as fundamental to constructivist
epistemology:
Realities are a construction of experience. In research, this acknowledges the
relationship between the observer and the observed. In this sense, reality is captured as the
ongoing unfolding of an individual’s experience. Each reality is partially shared with those
who share experiences and is simultaneously uniquely our own. This conceptualization of
reality means that when a person experiences something as real, it is real to that individual.
Truths are relative. In research, this concept means that truths are relative to the frame
of reference of the observer. In this sense, truthfulness depends on the consensus among likeminded observers (Segal, 1986).
Knowledge is a product of individual and social assumptions developed through
language. Knowledge is a complex interplay of shared and interpretive processes. This
conceptualization means that people are constantly recreating knowledge through the process
of using that knowledge. That use of knowledge then grounds that knowledge in
relationships and experiences. By grounding knowledge in this way, it becomes rooted

81
within a cultural context. In this sense, culture becomes the way in which people understand
shared experiences and in which cohesion is created.
Meaning is both an internal and social construction and is achieved through a process
of interpretation. In any interaction various constructions of understanding are occurring and
relate both to an individual’s self-concept and the characteristics that person attributes to
other people involved in the interactions.
The process of knowing is ongoing. This process of knowing involves ongoing
interpretation of events by the observer. Within this type of knowing, there is a relationship
between prior knowledge and the interpretation of current events, filtered through the
observer’s lens of understanding.
For example, a frame of reference could be the DSM and would represent an
objective way of knowing about the participant; however, other constructions of behavior
can be viewed in conjunction with this understanding and may include elements of
relationality. Relationality constructs may include understanding how the individual views
their own experience with PTSD as compared to others’ experiences. This research sought
both types of understanding of PTSD. By remaining open to different constructs, a picture of
the context of PTSD for individual participants may be understood.
Science is interpretive. Science is an interpretive process in which observers test
distinctions for their utility. These distinctions within science are consensually defined.
Constructivist theory utilizes the falsification position of hypothesis testing. This is an
alternative method to the traditional positivist position and seeks to determine the conditions
in which hypotheses are true. Constructivist hypotheses testing is described further in the
next section of this chapter.

82
The concept of recursively is an alternative to causality. Systems are recursive and
each element within a system provides the conditions of operations for other elements within
the system. The advantage of this perspective is that it takes the researcher beyond causality
and brings forth an understanding of the researcher’s role. This benefit is useful when
exploring the human experience.
Behaviour is indeterminate. People have choices that operate within the recursive
relations between the individual and their environment. Within the constructivist perspective
behaviour is indeterminant but people pattern their behaviour in a way that then provides a
measure of predictability.
The above factors are important when seeking to understand circumstances that may
lead to PTSD outcomes, and as such, represent a good fit for this research. Elements related
to the consensus of like-minded researchers, interpretation, hypotheses testing, and
recursivity are of interest to the current research and are discussed further below.
Constructivist Approach in Research
This research explored jurors’ experiences of PTSD through a constructivist and
phenomenological lens using thematic analysis for understanding the data. In research, four
primary factors associated with the constructivist approach are the role of meaning and
interpretation, the consensus of like-minded people, hypotheses testing, and the relationship
between researcher and participant. These concepts have been briefly explored above and are
expanded upon below.
The role of meaning and interpretation is an important consideration for the
understanding of participants’ experiences. For example, in this research, exposure to graphic
photos may be shocking, and may leave an individual feeling unsafe and vulnerable; for

83
another person, that information might still be shocking, but interesting, and may have no
traumatic consequences. In this way, meaning is associated to the events in a personally
constructed manner. Then, socially constructed language, potentially by the jury group or
possibly more broadly by society, is used to communicate this meaning.
Fisher (1991) describes collective understanding as a consensus of like-minded
people. In research, this is important as it clarifies the role of researcher findings. The
findings associated with this research capture only the stories of those represented and as
such the findings will lack generalizability; however, the findings add to existing knowledge
and together support a collective understanding of experience, and the types of conditions
that lead to varying experiences.
For research utilizing constructivist epistemology the conceptualization of hypotheses
testing is important. This notion of hypotheses is not concerned with truth but instead
usefulness and deals directly with the conditions of occurrence, resulting in an understanding
of the contextual nature of an individual’s experience. Fisher (1991) suggests that our
interpretations are hypotheses and over time we elaborate our understanding. These
interpretations are connected to the concept of recursivity and mean that in constructivist
research, hypotheses occur at the analysis stage. Further, hypotheses remain fluid
indefinitely.
Within constructivism, recursivity refers to the relationship between research and
participant and this relationship is co-constructed between these parties. This means the
influence of the researcher is not ignored. Instead, biases are explored and incorporated as
data, and become part of the comparative process (Breckenridge, et al., 2012). Breckenridge
et al. (2012) indicate constructivist epistemology is not a truth claim, but a snapshot of a

84
certain phenomenon, which is intended to be used and modified across time and is unique to
different situations. These concepts will be discussed throughout the next section, that will
explore how this research stance informed my chosen methodological approach.
Structural Theory and Constructivism
There are two main links between structural theory and constructivism within this
research. First, the structural context of the chosen phenomenon and second, the goals of the
research. These links are discussed further below.
First, this research explores people who have engaged in a large Canadian system, the
CJS. As such, using structural theory as the grand theory, which broadly focuses this
research, is justified. Second, one of the epistemological stances of this research is based in
the notion of subjective truth and that individuals create knowledge based on their past and
current experiences. Knowledge creation in this instance is directly occurring within a
structural environment and informs the context of their collective lived experiences.
As represented in Figure 2 structural theory broadly informs the need and justification
for this research. One of the primary guiding factors of this research is rooted in the belief
that individuals performing their civic service of jury duty are currently under-supported.
One of the goals of this research is to highlight the need for more juror support.
Descriptive Phenomenology
Phenomenology is a broad term that relates to a philosophical movement which
began in the early part of the 20th century (Mayoh & Onwuegbuzie, 2015).
Phenomenological philosophy encompasses an attempt to describe phenomenon in the way it
is manifested to the consciousness of the experiencer (Moran, 2000). The primary aim of

85
phenomenological philosophy is to understand an individual’s experience through their
consciousness (Giorgi, 2009).
Husserl is often recognized as the founder of the phenomenological movement (Klein
& Westcott, 1994). Husserl attempted to define a philosophical method that differed from the
natural sciences and sought to explore the experiences of conscious objects (Christensen et
al., 2017). The philosophical foundations of Husserl’s descriptive phenomenological
approach rest on the conceptualization of lived experiences and he sought to bring the human
experience back into the scientific method (Dahlberg, 2006). Furthermore, Husserl believed
in the complex and rich information captured within meaning associated with an individual’s
understanding of their life-world (Christensen et al., 2017).
In research, the focus is to describe the lived experiences in a way that is used as a
source of qualitative evidence (Mayoh & Onwuebbuzie, 2015). The strength of
phenomenology in research for describing the nature of lived experiences makes it the ideal
approach for experiential research within an interpretive paradigm (Mayoh & Onwuqgbuzie,
2015).
Descriptive phenomenologists believe that the lived experience of people always has
a descriptive emphasis (Mayoh & Onwuegbuzie, 2015). Commonalities are described and
represent a description of consistency among individuals or a group of individuals (Mayoh &
Onweugbuzie, 2015). This research describes experiences as ones that could be shared by
many and makes descriptive phenomenology a good fit (Gil, 2014).
Characteristics of Descriptive Phenomenology
Below, some of the primary characteristics of descriptive phenomenology are
explored: Intentionality, the natural attitude, reduction/bracketing, and essence. For a

86
representation of how I have conceptualized phenomenology for this research, please see
Table 1.
Table 1
Descriptive Phenomenology
Descriptive Phenomenology
Ontology
-

Multiple realities. Objectivity related to the extent in
which description is true to any given phenomenon.
- Although experiences are subjective there are elements
consistent to all those who have that experience.
Epistemology
- Data is based on a subjective reality.
Axiology
- The researcher acknowledges personal values and biases.
- Ongoing reflection considers influence of personal
beliefs on research.
Adapted from Mayoh and Onweugbuzie (2015)
Intentionality refers to the notion that consciousness is always the consciousness of
something and is often conceptualized as “aboutness” (Christensen et al., 2017). Experience
is understood as a collection of perception, memory, imagination, emotion, and thought, each
representing intentionality as the person brings their focus to a specific event or thing
(Crotty, 1996). Husserl’s phenomenology began from a point of consciousness and believed
consciousness was unified with its intentional object and could never be separate from that
object (LeVasseaur, 2003). This means that the object of consciousness is not necessarily a
physical object but can be a memory and as such, these structures of consciousness are
referred to as intensionalities.
For Husserl, the distinction of consciousness is between the ‘of’ (noesis) and the
‘something’ (noema) (Christensen et al., 2017). These terms are separated to differentiate
between directing consciousness towards something (noesis) and the actual act of
consciousness (noema) (Christensen et al., 2017). Christensen et al. (2017) state,

87
this is what Husserl was indicating as the difference between the object
intended and the object as it is intended and as such one must be
distinguished from the other in order for the moment of perception to
possess meaning.” (p. 117)
These distinctions are then related to the natural attitude, discussed next.
Husserl refers to the natural attitude (standpoint) as an experience that occurs within
the context of the life-world in which the individual exists (Christensen et al., 2017). These
experiences are ones in which a person is so fully engaged that there is no conscious thought
associated (Christensen et al., 2017). Christensen et al. (2017) provide an example of
someone opening a door. There is no conscious or reflective thought required for this process
to occur. Husserlian understanding of the natural attitude suggests a commonsense reality in
which there is an acceptance of the world or a taken-for-grantedness about the nature of
conscious experience (Christensen et al., 2017).
Bracketing is intended to suspend the beliefs and prior knowledge of the researcher to
understand data more clearly (LeVasseur, 2003). This practice involves a temporary
suspension of one’s own assumptions about a phenomenon in order to focus on the essence
of that lived experience (LeVasseur, 2003). Bracketing is a purge of assumptions in which a
transcendental ego is reached (LeVasseur, 2003).
Essence is what remains after bracketing occurs (LeVasseur, 2003). In descriptive
phenomenology, essence is articulated as structures and refers to experiential similarities
(Mayoh & Onwuegbuzie, 2015). By focusing on a specific lived experience in multiple
variations, universal themes can emerge from within those lived experiences (Mayoh &
Onwuegbuzie, 2015).

88
Tension between Husserlian and interpretive perspectives have emerged around the
concept of bracketing (LeVasseur, 2003). Husserl emphasized a temporary suspension of
theory and prior knowledge, not a permanent denial of them, but to phenomenologists, this
concept suggested a separation of thinking consciousness from being (LeVasseur, 2003). It
was this call to bracket all theory and knowledge, representing a transcendental state of ego,
that was unacceptable to the phenomenologists who followed Hussserl (LeVasseur, 2003).
LeVasseur (2003) suggests a new interpretation of Husserl’s notion of bracketing is
appropriate and can instead be a reflective move that cultivates persistent curiosity in any
given phenomenon. By Levasseur’s definition, the focus is on bracketing the natural attitude
of the researcher (LeVasseur, 2003).
As individuals we do in some ways bracket prior knowledge when we are curious
about something (LeVasseur, 2003). In this process, we assume we do not know or
understand something fully and in effect question our prior knowledge base (LeVasseur,
2003). The distinction between this form of bracketing and Husserl’s is that under
Levasseur’s (2003) definition of bracketing there is the possibility of finding new meaning
and experiences without the requirement of achieving a transcendental ego state. The current
research is described under this new definition of bracketing but uses a broader qualitative
term of reflexivity, discussed later in this chapter.
Rationale Within Health Research. Phenomenology is rooted in the concept that
individual truth is found in the lived experiences of people (Spiegelberg, 1965). As such,
phenomenology is well suited to explore holistic questions, particularly those that are not
well explored (Carpenter, 1995). Furthermore, clinicians must contend with and respond to
patients’ lived experiences of illness and as such, investigation of the human experience is

89
important (LeVasseur, 2003). For the current research, phenomenology provides the
opportunity to explore a range of factors that may influence health outcomes associated with
PTSD. The research sought to explore meaning which may otherwise not have been
explored. The findings provide rich narrative descriptions and interpretations that offer
information about what it is like to be a person in their life-world (Rodriguez & Smith, 2018)
Phenomenology and Constructivism
The link between phenomenology and constructivism is driven primarily by my
personal understanding of knowledge creation and the goals of this research. While
constructivism is an epistemological approach that seeks to understand the meaning of
knowledge, phenomenology is an approach that seeks to understand the meaning of lived
experiences.
As referred to in Figure 2 constructivism represents my understanding of knowledge
as subjective. For this research, this conceptualization of knowledge filters to the need to
gain in-depth information about a subjective experience. Descriptive phenomenology
represents the best fit for gaining this in-depth account from jurors. The subjective
experiences of each juror together inform an understanding of commonalities.
Further, Fisher (1991) clarifies the notion of subjective experiences within
constructivism by stating that individual actions are guided by anchor points. These anchor
points are based on prior experience and help people negotiate situations within a defined
parameter (Fisher, 1991). These anchor points may represent a conceptual link with the
notion of the collective understanding of meaning associated with lived experiences. The
findings of this research note commonalties within the data that further serve as anchor

90
points of experience among jurors. Together, structural theory, constructivism, and
phenomenology informed the analysis process.
Methods
This research used a qualitative approach to learn more about juror’s experiences
with trauma symptoms. Several characteristics of qualitative inquiry have been defined by
various authors (see: Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Eisner, 1991; Marshall & Rossman, 1999);
however, five broad tenets of qualitative research by Rossman and Rallis (1998) are briefly
discussed.
First, qualitative research is emergent (Rossman & Rallis, 1998). For example,
research questions may change throughout the process of inquiry or the method of data
collection may shift (Creswell, 2003).
Second, qualitative research is interpretive (Rossman & Rallis, 1998). This means the
findings do not represent objectivity but instead the researcher’s interpretation of the data.
Information is filtered through the personal lens of the researcher that is then situated within
a specific cultural and historical moment (Creswell, 2003). This interpretation involved
developing themes from the data and making theoretical connections from those themes
(Creswell, 2003).
Third, the qualitative researcher views phenomenon holistically (Rossman & Rallis,
1998). This means that qualitative research is often broad in nature and may factor many
social and political factors into analysis (Creswell, 2003).
Fourth, the researcher reflects on the self within inquiry and tries to be sensitive to
their personal lens and how it shapes the research (Rossman & Rallis, 1998). This means the
personal self is not separate from the researcher self and is acknowledged throughout the

91
research (Creswell, 2003). This notion of reflexivity is discussed as it relates to this research
within the rigour section of this document.
Fifth, qualitative research is primarily inductive (Rossman & Rallis, 1998); although
both inductive and deductive methods are incorporated into qualitative research (Creswell,
2003). Furthermore, the process of qualitative research is iterative, which involves ongoing
processes of analysis, problem reformulation, and back to analysis (Creswell, 2003). Due to
the emergent nature of this research topic, qualitative research is a good choice. The
remainder of the methods section will discuss participant criterion, recruitment, data
collection, data analysis, ethical considerations, and rigour.
Participant Criterion
The participant sample for this research aligns with requirements set out for jury duty.
This means participants must be over 18 or 19 years of age, depending on provincial and
territorial specific age requirements (age 18 in Ontario, Alberta, Newfoundland/Labrador,
Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Quebec, Manitoba,
and New Brunswick; age 19 in British Columbia and Yukon) and be Canadian citizens. Both
men and women were asked to participate if they had served on a jury at anytime, anywhere
in Canada. Conclusion of trial via juror decision was not required. This means that if a
unanimous decision was not reached by the jurors and a hung jury resulted, those jurors were
still eligible for participation in this research.
Recruitment
Recruitment for this research followed a non-probability, convenience sampling
method. Non-probability means that participant recruitment does not provide equal
opportunity for each member of a population to participate (Emerson, 2015). The sample is

92
not representative of the population. The convenience technique means participant selection
is based on who is easy to recruit (Emerson, 2015). Gaining access to prior jurors is difficult
due to limitations of access to the CJS and the size of the juror population. Many avenues for
recruitment were explored for this research. The use of social media including Facebook,
Instagram, and Twitter was effective in recruiting about half of the participants for this
research. The remainder were recruited through word of mouth. Recruitment occurred over a
one-year period between October 2019 and November 2020.
I recruited jurors from across Canada to participate in a survey that asked
demographic information about the juror and included a self-report measure, the PCL-5,
discussed in more detail later under data collection. Those participants who completed the
survey were asked if they would like to participate in an interview. I recruited a total of 14
participants to the survey and 12 participated in the interview process. I had a 100%
completion rate of the Survey Monkey survey. Interview length ranged from 45 minutes to
2.5 hours. Within phenomenological research, participant sample size is based on the quality
of the information gathered, rather than the quantity.
Saturation
In qualitative research, saturation is often used as a measure for the completion of
data collection (Saunders et al., 2018). Originally a grounded theory term, Glaser and Strauss
(1967) define saturation as:
The criterion for judging when to stop sampling the different groups pertinent to
a category is the category’s theoretical saturation. Saturation means that no
additional data are being found whereby the sociologist can develop properties of
the category. As he sees similar instances over and over again, the researcher

93
becomes empirically confident that a category is saturated. He goes out of his
way to look for groups that stretch diversity of data as far as possible, just to
make certain that saturation is based on the widest possible range of data on the
category. (p. 61)
From the perspective of grounded theory, Strauss and Corbin (1998) define saturation as a
“matter of degree” (p. 136). While more participants might add new information and
meaning to the individual stories, it may not further the overall meaning of the research and
may not assist in further answering the research question(s). This concept translates across
methodological perspectives and is applied in this research within a phenomenological
perspective.
Within phenomenological research, participant sample size is based on the quality of
the information gathered, rather than the quantity. Though saturation began as a grounded
theory term, it is now widely used within qualitative research (Mason, 2010) and is often
referenced in thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2019), the chosen method of analysis for
the current research.
When seeking guidance on sample sizes in the literature for phenomenological
research a wide range exists, where Creswell (1998) suggests between five and 25 and Morse
(1994) indicates at least six. At the stage of research development Braun and Clarke (2019)
recommend less of a focus on how many data items (ie. sample size) and more on the
meaning that will be generated through interpretation of data. Of further consideration is the
notion of diminishing returns related to more participants (Mason, 2010). There is an ethical
consideration that must be made when recruiting participants and exposing them to the

94
potential risks of participation when their involvement is not adding to the overall outcome
of the research.
In determining the completion of recruitment, the most important factor is that
sample size reflects the purpose and aims of the research. In the case of the current study, I
believe the unmet needs of jurors have been adequately explored. Moreover, the interviews
explored a range of trauma symptoms presented within the collected data. Data collection
for the current research stopped at twelve participants, as I believed saturation, based on the
above information, had been reached.
Data Collection
Survey
The initial research phase involved a survey that asked demographic information
about age, sex, marital status, parent status, ethnicity, trial type, location of trial, past
experiences with jury duty, length of trial, how long sequestered, past trauma experiences,
current diagnoses, and employment information. Further, the survey sought information
about symptom experiences following jury duty. Additionally, the survey included the
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5), that is a self-report measure for
PTSD and consists of 20 items corresponding to the DSM-5 symptom criteria (National
Center for PTSD, 2018). This measure is used as a screening tool for PTSD, and provisional
PTSD diagnosis (National Center for PTSD, 2018).
The PCL-5 reports on symptoms within the previous month (National Center for
PTSD, 2018). As such, the use of this tool for the current research has a timing limitation as I
was expecting to have participants who did not have current PTSD symptoms (National
Center for PTSD, 2018). The PCL-5 provides the closest survey equivalent to diagnostic

95
interview based on the DSM-5 criteria and as such, provides the most reliable and valid
measure for the purposes of this research, even with consideration of the extended timing
(National Center for PTSD, 2018).
The survey tool was developed using Survey Monkey. Survey Monkey is consistent
with the University of Northern British Columbia’s Research Ethics Board guidelines
regarding data management.
The decision to use a survey within the constructivist perspective is congruent with
my stance because the survey information primarily sought to provide the basis for the
interpretive qualitative phase of the research. The descriptive statistics phase of the research
sought to establish demographic background and capture the range of symptoms experienced
by jurors. Furthermore, PTSD research is primarily positivistic relying on surveys and
statistics to measure prevalence and symptom characteristics. The positivist lens is
incorporated into this research, in part, with the goal of maintaining some congruency with
established bodies of knowledge. Additionally, seeking to build a representation of the
context of the occurrences of PTSD within my sample relied on both structural aspects, such
as the characteristics of PTSD, and experiential characteristics, such as past exposure to
trauma or trial type. Because I wanted to understand both the occurrences of PTSD within a
sample, and the context of those occurrences, I used both descriptive statistics and qualitative
data.
Individual Interviews
Participants who completed the survey portion of this research were asked if they
would participate in an interview. The qualitative phase involved interviews with these
individuals. Interviews occurred face-to-face or via telephone/Skype. The interviews were

96
audio-recorded and, as the interviewer, I took notes during these interviews. The information
gathered was cross-referenced to the transcriptions during the initial coding phase. Interviews
were transcribed by a hired individual. The person hired to transcribe the interviews was
required to complete the Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement (see Appendix C).
Data Analysis
The data gained from the survey was used to denote any instances of PTSD from the
self-report measure. Descriptive statistics provided demographic information about the
participants and provided details related to the context of juror’s lives.
The data analysis phase of the research was conducted using a thematic analysis of
the interview data. Thematic analysis is flexible and pairs well with various paradigms
(Braun & Clarke, 2006). Approaching this research within the constructivist paradigm meant
that the analysis sought to provide context to individual stories (Braun & Clarke, 2006). I
used Braun and Clarke’s (2006) method for thematic data analysis.
Thematic analysis, as described by Braun and Clarke (2006) involves six phases of
analysis discussed below.
1) Familiarize yourself with the data. This step involved reading and re-reading the
transcripts produced from interviews. At this stage, notes were made about early impressions
of the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). I used a journal and wrote in the columns of the
transcripts themselves.
2) Generate initial codes. In this step, organization of the data began. Coding reduced
the data into chunks of meaning (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This phase of coding was done
manually and utilized different coloured highlighters to note different groups of meaning. I

97
also noted specific words that stood out as an important. After each transcript was complete,
the codes were reviewed and modified as needed (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
3) Search for themes. A theme is a pattern that represents something interesting or
important within a data set characterized by its significance to the research question (Braun
& Clarke, 2006). At the end of step three, codes were organized into broader themes that
relate to the research question (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
4) Review themes. In this step the preliminary themes developed in step three were
reviewed and modified when required (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Broadly, I reviewed the
themes to make sure they made sense based on the data collected (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
Further, this process reviewed the themes to determine if any sub-themes existed (Braun &
Clarke, 2006).
5) Define and name themes. This step was the final refinement of the developed
themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006). During this stage, I reviewed the themes and considered
how they related to each other, and how sub-themes related to the main theme (Braun &
Clarke, 2006). I used a concept map to help me organize these broader themes.
Table 2
Example of Analysis Process
2) Generate Initial Codes

3) Search for Themes

4) Reviewed, Modified, and
Combined Themes from Step 3.

Highlighted Quotes From
Transcript
“Didn’t know what
Sequestered Meant”

Lack of Information

Improving Juror Experience

98
“Afraid to Ask”

Uncomfortable with

Improving Juror Experience

Process
“Overwhelming at the

Uncomfortable with

Time of Selection”

Process

“Lack of Recognition for

Uncomfortable with

Jurors”

Process

Improving Juror Experience

Improving Juror Experience

The initial codes in the above table do not represent all the data that made up this theme but
provide some indication of the process taken during the analysis phase.
6) Produce a report. After the analysis phase was complete, I moved into the report
writing phase, captured in Chapter Four and Five of this dissertation. I used the themes to
expand on jurors’ experiences and provide examples to represent each idea, which formulate
my findings in Chapter Four. I then provide my interpretation of the findings in Chapter
Five, the discussion.
Answers from the survey were woven into the picture of what respondents said
during the interpretive phase of the research. For example, the qualitative component was
used to describe certain symptoms noted in the PCL-5. The qualitative component of the
analysis was an iterative process that involved ongoing personal reflection. I immersed
myself in the data, using thematic analysis as my guide.
In thematic analysis, manifest and latent themes are typically described. Latent
themes are those that describe underlying ideas or assumptions that are theorized as
informing the manifest content in the data, those that are explicit (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
Because I have chosen to situate this research within constructivist and phenomenological

99
methodological understandings, I describe latent themes as the meaning jurors associated to
their experiences and through the use of anchor points.
This research approached this phenomenon in a social constructivist/phenomenological way,
and without making a truth claim, by seeking to understand the circumstances that lead to
trauma after jury duty, as well as through an exploration of the range of jurors’ experiences,
some of which include PTSD type responses. Data is presented as the experiences of those
who participated in the research with the intention of providing a snapshot of the possible
consequences of serving jury duty, as well as contributing to the wider knowledge base on
the topic moving forward.
Ethical Considerations
This research was conducted in accordance to the Tri-Council Policy Statement:
Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS 2.0). I have completed the online
tutorial and my proposal was submitted to the University of Northern British Columbia’s
Research Ethics Board (REB) for approval prior to the commencement of research.
Participants were required to give informed consent before beginning both the survey
or interview (see p. 180: Information Letter/Consent Form). Participants were required to
read and consent to participation in the survey by reading and clicking “I agree” before
beginning the survey. Included in this process, the limits to confidentiality were discussed
and explained with each participant before beginning. Participants were notified that they
could withdraw from the study at any time. Pseudonyms are used to help protect the identity
of participants.
Data has been stored on a password protected computer accessible by the researcher
and supervisory team only. Consent forms from the survey are stored electronically on the

100
same password protected computer. Consent forms from interviews are stored in a locked
cabinet at UNBC accessible by the researcher and supervisor only. Survey information is
stored using sync.com, which is consistent with the University of Northern British
Columbia’s data storage guidelines. With sync.com information is stored within Canada.
When sharing files for transcription I used file sharing services available through sync.com.
Data will be stored in perpetuity of my time and associated with UNBC, utilizing UNBC’s
encrypted storage. Secure transfer of data will be maintained keeping with current
technology for data storage.
Rigour
In qualitative research, rigour is evaluated through methods of validity. Validity
refers to the extent to which findings represent the participant’s reality (Lincoln & Guba,
1985). This research utilizes methods of thick description, triangulation, reflexivity, and
member checking in order to achieve rigour in the research.
Thick description refers to the task of the researcher in providing detail and
interpretation of a phenomenon within a context (Ponterotto, 2005). Thick description refers
to research findings that not only give information about the meaning and interpretation of a
participant’s experience but offer abstract and general patterns of social life within a cultural
context (Holloway, 1997). It is the interpretive process that explores meaning, intention, and
motivation that characterizes thick description as opposed to simply amassing detail of a
phenomenon (Schwandt, 2001).
Multiple data collection types are often advocated for as a means to improve rigour in
research (Coyle & Williams, 2001; Creswell, 2002; Mactavish & Schleien, 2000). The use of
multiple methods of data collection seeks to provide an in-depth understanding of the

101
phenomenon being researched (Denzin, 2012) by understanding multiple perspectives of the
same phenomenon (Fusch & Lawrence, 2015). The use of triangulation is best described as a
strategy in which a richness and breadth of complexity can arise (Denzin, 2012). The type of
triangulation that occurred in this research is the use of multiple methods of data collection
via a survey and interview (Carter et al., 2014).
The process of self-reflection will be ongoing throughout the research process. This is
further used as a means for improving rigour within the research. Koch and Harrington
(1998) suggest researchers should approach the process through an ongoing self-critique and
appraisal of the product, being mindful of the location of the research. By being transparent
about the position of the researcher, readers can more easily understand the worldview of the
participants and the makers of the text, making decisions about the truthfulness of the text
more accessible (Koch & Harrington, 1998). Reflexivity in this research was done using a
journal and through memo/note taking during interviews. These methods were used to record
observations made and include my own thought processes throughout the data collection
phase.
Member checking is a technique used by researchers to help improve validity within
research (Creswell, 2003). The primary advantage of using member checks is that the
researcher can verify findings for completeness and representativeness (Cohen & Crabtree,
2006). Further, member checking provides the opportunity for participants to correct errors
and challenge any interpretations perceived incorrectly (Cohen & Crabtree, 2006).
Additionally, member checks minimize the risk of participants reporting that the researcher
misunderstood their contributions to the research (Cohen & Crabtree, 2006). The opportunity
to receive this feedback from participants in this research occurred twice. First, participants

102
had the opportunity to review interview notes at the completion of the interview.
Additionally, member checking occurred after the draft findings were completed. The draft
document was sent to each participant for participation to review for accuracy of their
account and changes were made accordingly.
Conclusion
The above is intended to provide preliminary justification for the chosen method of
this research. Primarily, this research used a two phased approach. Initially, information
about the instances of PTSD was explored within the sample. Secondly, interviews explored
the context in which symptoms are understood for jurors. The epistemological approach
justifies the methods by highlighting the importance of flexibility, and the viewpoint of the
participants. The design supports this philosophical stance, by not seeking generalizability,
but instead providing an example of the possible consequences, and to help guide future
research. Together, this research sheds light on the types of situations that may lead to
negative health consequences.

103
Chapter Four: Findings
This chapter is broken into two primary sub-sections. First, I will outline the
demographic information about participants in this research and report on the findings from
the PCL-5, PTSD self-report measure. The second sub-section will provide findings from the
interviews with participants. The findings of this research do not intend to attribute PTSD
symptoms to experience as a juror. Rather, the PCL-5 measure and interviews represent the
stories and experiences, as described and reported by participants. Findings from the PCL-5
and interviews are reported in a way that will draw connections, explored in more depth in
Chapter Six.
Survey Monkey Findings
Table 3
Participant Demographics

45-54

F

C

M

P/T

S (N/M)

Age

Gender

Ethnicity

Education

Employment

Marital

2d

3.5 d

7w

MUR

59,000

49,000-

S (N/M)

F/T

B

C

F

45-54

5

3d

3.5 m

4

MUR x

99,000

80,000-

MAR

F/T

HS

C

F

45-54

6

15-16 h

1m

Abuse

Child

79,000

60,000-

MAR

R

Post B

B + 1 yr

C

M

>55

7

8h

5d

Assault

79,000

60,000-

WID

R

M

C

F

>55

8

1d

1w

Rape

99,000

80,000-

M

F/T

HS

C

F

25-34

9

4-5h

3d

Criminal

59,000

49,000-

D

F/T

HS

C

F

35-44

10

3h

1w

MDR

59,000

49,000-

WID

U (CL)

COL

2yrs

I

F

>55

11

3d

8w

MDR

150,000

>

M

F/T

B

C

M

45-54

12

1d

7d

Firearm

Illegal

59,000

49,000-

D

F/T

HS

C

F

>55

13

n/a

3w

Minors

Abuse of

MDR &

150,000

>

M

F/T

M

C

M

35-44

14

some mental health treatment. Participant 2, 3, & 12 had two children living in their home, participant 14 had 1.

Murder. All trials reached a verdict. Hometowns not included to avoid identifying participants. Only participant 4 served on two trials. Participants 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 14 have received

C = Caucasian, M = Master’s, B = Bachelor’s, R = Retired, HS = Highschool, MAR = Married, WID = Widowed, U(CL) = Unemployed (currently looking for work), MDR =

sequestering

4d

1d

2-3 h

Length of

2-3d

4m

2w

MDR

and extortion

Kidnapping

79,000

60,00-

MAR

R

M

C

M

> 55

4

trial(s)

2w

YCJA

3w

3w

MDR

150,000

Length of

MDR

Type of

150,000

>

MAR

F/T

M

C

F

35-44

3

MUR

25,000

Income

>

MAR

F/T

B

C

F

35-44

2

trial(s)

<

Household

Status

1

Participant

104

105
Table 3 provides the demographic information about research participants, obtained
from the survey. The online survey had 100% completion rate. No jurors reported being part
of a hung jury; although, participant 14 was removed as an alternate before deliberations
began. This means he participated in the full trial but did not deliberate or participate in
determining a verdict.
PCL-5
Table 4 displays the questions asked in the PCL-5 and the frequency of each response
in the corresponding column. The numbers represent the order in which individuals
completed the survey. Participants were asked to base their answers on the time in which
their symptoms were most severe. Length of symptom persistence is discussed more in the
qualitative findings.
Table 4
PCL-5 Results
Symptom

Not at all

A little bit

Moderately

Quite a bit

1) Repeated, disturbing,
and unwanted memories
of the stressful
experience
2) Repeated, disturbing
dreams of the stressful
experience?
3) Suddenly feeling or
acting as if the stressful
event were actually
happening again?
4) Feeling very upset
when something
reminded you of the
stressful event.
5) Having strong
physical reactions when
something reminded you
of the stressful

5, 8, 9, 10

2, 7, 12,
13

1, 6, 11, 14

3, 4

1, 2, 7, 8,
10

5, 11,12,
13, 14

3, 4, 6, 9

1, 2, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12,
14
7, 8, 10

13

3

1, 2, 4, 5,
9, 11, 13

6, 12

3, 14

2, 4, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11

5, 12, 13

1, 14

3, 6

Extremely

106
experience (for example,
heart pounding, trouble
breathing, sweating)?
6) Avoiding memories,
thoughts, or feelings
related to the stressful
experience?
7) Avoiding external
reminders of the stressful
experience (for example,
people, places,
conversations, activities,
objects, or situations)?
8) Trouble remembering
important parts of the
stressful experience?
9) Having strong
negative beliefs about
yourself, other people, or
the world (for example,
having thoughts such as:
I am bas, there is
something seriously
wrong with me, no one
can be trusted, the world
is completely
dangerous)?
10) Blaming yourself or
someone else for the
stressful experience or
what happened after it?
11) Having strong
negative feelings such as
fear, horror, anger, guilt
or shame?
12) Loss of interest in
activities that you used to
enjoy?
13) Feeling distant or cut
off from other people?
14) Trouble experiencing
positive feelings (for
example, being unable to
feel happiness or have

7, 8, 10,
11

2, 4, 5, 9,
13, 14

1, 3, 12

6

5, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11

1, 2, 4,
13,14

12

3, 6

2, 4, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12

3, 5, 7, 13

14

1, 6

2, 4, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10,
11, 12

1, 13

3, 5, 14

2, 4, 6, 8,
9, 10, 11

7, 12, 13

1, 3, 5

2, 4, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10,
11, 12

1, 13

2, 4, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10,
11, 13
2, 4, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10,
11, 12, 13
2, 4, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10,
11, 13

12, 14

14

3, 5, 14

1, 5

3

1, 14

3

1, 12

3, 5, 14

5

107
loving feelings for people
close to you)?
15) Irritable behaviour,
angry outbursts, or acting
aggressively?
16) Taking too many
risks or doing things that
could cause you harm?

1, 2, 4, 7,
8, 9, 10,
11, 13
1, 2, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 13,
14
17) Being “super-alert”
1, 2, 7, 8,
or watchful or on guard? 10, 11, 13,
14
18) Feeling jumpy or
2, 5, 7, 8,
easily startled?
9, 10, 11,
13, 14
19) Having difficulty
2, 7, 8, 10,
concentrating?
12
20) Trouble falling or
2, 7, 8, 10,
staying asleep?
12
Numbers represent participant number.

5, 6

3, 12, 14

4, 6, 9

12

3, 5

1, 4, 6, 12

3

4, 6, 9, 13,
14, 11
1, 4, 9, 11

1

5

6, 13, 14

3, 5

3, 12

3

There are two ways in which the PCL-5 can make a provisional determination for
PTSD. First, summing all 20 items, ranging from 0-80, and using a cutoff score between 31
and 33 (National Center for PTSD, 2020). In this first method, items are scored as follows:
Not at all = 0
A little bit = 1
Moderately = 2
Quite a bit = 3
Extremely = 4
Second, following the DSM-5 diagnostic requirement of at least 1 Criterion B item, 1
Criterion C item, 2 Criterion D items, and 2 Criterion E items, scoring moderately (2) or
higher in each category (National Center for PTSD, 2020).
Criterion B items = Questions 1-5
Criterion C items = Questions 6-7

108
Criterion D items = Questions 8-14
Criterion E items = Questions 15-20
Table 5
PCL-5 Outcomes
Participant

Cut-off 31-33

Diagnostic Category

Participant 1

26

Probable PTSD

Participant 2

4

Participant 3

54 (Probable PTSD)

Participant 4

12

Participant 5

33 (Probable PTSD)

Participant 6

25

Participant 7

3

Participant 8

0

Participant 9

7

Participant 10

0

Participant 11

6

Participant 12

20

Participant 13

14

Participant 14*

32 (Probable PTSD)

Probable PTSD

No Criterion B

No Criterion C

*Disclosed a CAPS-5 diagnosis for PTSD during interview.
Bovin et al. (2016) indicated that the psychometric properties for the PCL-5 suggest
using scores between 31-33 as optimally efficient for probable PTSD. As such, three
participants in this research met the threshold for probable PTSD. Juror 14 disclosed a

109
CAPS-5 PTSD diagnosis and the remainder did not feel they met the threshold for probable
PTSD.
Most Common Symptoms
For the following sections, I define ‘most common’ as rankings in the PCL-5 chosen
by five or more participants. The most common symptoms were noted as ‘a little bit’ in the
following categories: Repeated disturbing dreams of the stressful experience (n=5), feeling
very upset when something reminded you of the stressful experience (n=6), avoiding
memories, thoughts, or feelings related to the stressful experience (n=6), avoiding external
reminders of the stressful experience (n=6), having difficulty concentrating (n=5).
Extremely and Quite a Bit Symptoms
Respondents reported ‘extreme’ PTSD symptoms in two categories: Having difficulty
concentrating (n=1) and feeling distant or cut off from other people (n=1). Participants
reported ‘quite a bit’ of symptoms in 15 categories most often in the following categories:
Feeling very upset when something reminded you of the stressful experience (n=3), having
strong negative feelings such as fear, horror, anger, guilt or shame (n=3), trouble
experiencing positive feelings (n=3), irritable behaviour (n=3), being super-alert or watchful
or on guard (n=3).
Low Score Categories
Participants reported low occurrences of symptoms in the following categories:
Suddenly feeling or acting as if the stressful experience was actually happening again with
12 respondents indicating no such symptoms and taking too many risks or doing things that
could cause harm, with 12 respondents indicating no such symptoms.

110

Interview Findings
Twelve of the fourteen participants who completed the survey, completed the
interview portion of this research. Juror 6 and 12 from the table did not complete the
interview process. I made three attempts to contact each participant by email with no
response.
Findings from the interview portion of this research are presented in five broad
categories. The first three categories reflect the themes of the findings. First, symptom
themes are organized within DSM-5 diagnostic categories. Second, general findings themes
are explored. Lastly, meaning themes are explored. Within each category, multiple themes
are presented and some sub-themes are described. These themes are related and overlap
occurs between the theme categories. These links will be noted throughout and will reference
other theme categories. Please see Table 5 for an overview of the categories, themes, and
sub-themes. The final two categories include other interesting findings and exceptions to the
findings.
Table 5
Themes
Theme Category

Theme

Sub- theme

Symptom Themes

Category B

Flashbacks

Category C

Avoidance

Category D

Isolation

Category E

Hypervigilance
Sleep disruption
Lack of Concentration
Anger/Irritability

111
General Themes

Positive Experience

Civic Pride
Knowledge of the CJS

Sources of Symptoms Lack of Information
Visuals
Testimony
Weight of Decision
Ruined Life of Convicted
Age of Accused
Fear of Repercussions
Physical Space
Deliberation
Improving Juror

More Information

Experience

Counselling
Closure
Coping Strategies
Juror Support Program

Meaning Themes

Links to Own Life
T.V and Movies
Life Disruption
Faith in Humanity

112
For the interviews, pseudonyms have been used and correlate to the participant
numbers as follows:
Juror 1 = Adele
Juror 2 = Kelly
Juror 3 = Kirsten
Juror 4 = Harlin
Juror 5 = Rose
Juror 6 = no interview
Juror 7 = Richard
Juror 8 = Ava
Juror 9 = Hazel
Juror 10 = Sarah
Juror 11 = Corrine
Juror 12 = no interview
Juror 13 = Hattie
Juror 14 = Wallace
Before I describe the findings outlined above, I want to state that although jurors did
describe their symptoms in ways that suggest a causal relationship between their service and
their symptoms, this dissertation is not intended to affirm that connection. The findings are
presented as a representation of their understanding of their symptoms, their understanding
of the reasons for those symptoms, and their stories related to their experiences as jurors.

113
Symptom Themes
All twelve interview participants described at least some negative aspect of serving as
a juror. Negative reports varied juror to juror but many similarities were found when looking
at juror experiences as a whole. This section will describe the trauma symptoms jurors
reported. These symptoms are represented within the associated diagnostic category. Each
diagnostic category is briefly explained again and examples from interview data are provided
for each section.
Category B. Category B criterion defines the intrusive recollection of symptoms
(APA, 2013). This criterion includes symptoms of flashbacks, intrusive daytime images of
the event(s), and nightmares. During the interview process, six jurors reported symptoms that
fall within Category B diagnostic criteria.
Flashbacks for participants typically came in the form of remembering the
images/pictures of the victim of the crime for which they served as a juror. Flashbacks
occurred when they were reminded of the crime, for example, when they drove past the
scene of the crime, or a similar type of scene. Flashbacks also occurred at night and in
dreams.
Similarly, Kirsten stated:
And every time I drive through the school for sure I think of the, the
pictures and all of that type of stuff and the aerial photos because it was
in an elementary school field. It will never go away.
Category C. Category C criterion defines avoidance symptoms (APA, 2013). This
criterion relates to behavioural strategies of an individual to cope with potential symptoms by
decreasing the likelihood of exposing themselves to trauma-related stimuli (PTSD, National

114
Center for PTSD, 2016). Behavioural strategies are manifested in avoidance techniques, such
as avoiding the location of the trauma. During the interview process, five jurors reported
symptoms related to Category C diagnostic criteria.
Jurors in this research reported a variety of avoidance behaviors. Participants
described instances of avoiding locations which remind them of images and testimony from
the trial. Further, jurors reported avoiding conversation about their experience as well as
avoiding crime shows which might have reminded them of their time as a juror. Jurors also
reported being eager to get back to work to avoid thinking about their experience.
For example, after her trial, Kelly moved to another city. She reported that she still
does not feel safe in the community in which she served and avoids returning to that
community. This impact has persisted over approximately ten years. Kelly said,
Do I come back to [community name]? Nope. And do we still have
tons of friends still there? We do.
Wallace reported being unable to sleep in a certain position because it reminds him of
photos seen at the trial. For Wallace, this is connected to the moment he realized he could
find the accused guilty based on the evidence, discussed further in the meaning themes
section of the findings.
Category D. Category D criterion defines negative cognitions and mood criterion
symptoms (APA, 2013). This criterion reflects alterations in belief or mood that persist after
exposure to a traumatic event (PTSD: National Center for PTSD, 2016). For example,
individuals with PTSD sometimes believe they are inadequate, or weak following exposure
to a traumatic event. This symptom criterion also includes one’s diminished enjoyment from
usually pleasurable activities and withdrawal from others (PTSD: National Center for PTSD,

115
2016). During the interview process, three jurors reported symptoms related to Category D
criteria.
Jurors reported changes in cognition and mood symptoms primarily as withdrawing
from people. Rose spoke about the ongoing impact of isolation in her life. When asked about
how long she felt isolated she said,
The main part of it about a year and a half, but I would say that I still feel isolated
because of it. Like I still feel sort of cut off and not really fitting in. Like just not being
able to speak out as me. (Rose)
Category E. Category E criterion defines alterations in arousal or reactivity
symptoms (APA, 2013). This criterion includes symptoms related to hypervigilance and
startle reactions in an individual with PTSD (PTSD: National Center for PTSD, 2016).
Further, reckless and self-destructive behaviours are symptoms related to Category E
criterion (PTSD: National Center for PTSD, 2016). During the interview process, seven
jurors reported symptoms that fall within the Category E diagnostic criteria.
Hypervigilant Behaviour. First, jurors reported hypervigilant behaviours in how they
view strangers in their daily life. For example, Kirsten stated,
Learning the investigative techniques of a Mr. Big Operation for me that was
the thing that carried with me post experience for a long time. I just
remember thinking, oh I wonder if that’s a cop, I wonder if this is a ring, like
I was really almost paranoid about that for a while.
Kirsten indicated this behaviour was something that came up for her almost daily for about
the first year. Further, Kirsten stated she occasionally thinks about the Mr. Big Operation
now, every one-two months, four years after she served jury duty.

116
During her trial, Rose stated that she became hyper-concerned with her apartment
door being locked. For Rose, this behaviour is associated with fear that someone will be
checking for unlocked doors and enter her apartment. Rose stated that at the time of our
interview this behaviour continued. Rose stated that this door checking behaviour began after
a difficult day of trial. Rose said she forgot to lock the door and realized after she was in bed.
Since that day, Rose remains fearful that she will once again forget.
Rose also described hypervigilant behaviours related to controlling her environment
and fear associated with having her photo taken. Rose stated, “But now I have to be vigilant
about who takes my photo and where it is going to get posted. I just can’t allow it. This has
only been since the trial.” For Rose, this fear is related to repercussions from the accused, her
friends, and/or family.
Sleep Disruption. Seven jurors reported sleep disruption during the trial and
immediately following the conclusion of the trial. For example, some jurors reported waking
up thinking about the trial, with images in their heads of the photos shown in court. Others
reported difficulty falling asleep, particularly during the trial, thinking about details of the
trial and trying to make sure they understood those details. Sleep disruption spans multiple
themes and will be explored more thoroughly throughout this chapter.
Lack of Concentration. Four jurors reported difficulty with concentration during and
after the trial. Harlin indicated that during the trial “people were taking caffeine tablets and
stuff to stay awake because you’d hear the same thing over and over and over.” Harlin
further stated:
And then of course with the graphics, that, that hit you it was difficult to…they all
start to merge and you would forget well victim one or victim two. They just kind of

117
all blend together like a collage and that was, that was really unsettling I found it
really difficult to focus driving. I just about got into a car accident coming home. Um,
because my mind was just, like I was just not there.
For Harlin, trying to make sense of the information was distracting in his life outside of the
trial. Interestingly, Harlin described the above incident as a moment of clarity regarding his
role during his time as a juror. Knowing he was almost in a car accident changed his approach
to jury duty and he began to think of his time as a juror more similar to that of a job.
Following that shift in mindset, Harlin found it easier to manage his thoughts about the trial
information. I will draw from this idea again later in this chapter when I discuss improving
juror experience.
Angry/Irritable. Though only two jurors reported these symptoms, it is relevant to
overall symptom expression and is therefore reported. Rose and Wallace described being
angry and irritable following jury duty. Rose stated,
…just kind of freaking out about things and irritated and angry and getting upset
about things and annoyed by things that would never annoy me before, like people on
the subway…or you know, the bus being out of order.
Both participants described their anger and irritability as unusual and new behaviour
and found it difficult to manage. Neither participant described physical outbursts associated
with their anger. Both participants stated these symptoms lasted for approximately a year
following their time as a juror.

118
General Themes
For this research, general themes represent themes that are outside of symptom
expression. This section includes positive juror reports, sources of symptoms, and
suggestions for improved juror experience.
Positive Experiences. All participants reported some positive aspect related to their
time as a juror. This section will describe how this was reflected in the interviews. First, the
idea of civic pride and civic duty is described; second, knowledge of the CJS is noted; and
last, CJS staff are discussed.
Civic Pride/Duty. Participants reported a sense of accomplishment and pride having
served as a juror. Jurors referred to this responsibility of service at both a community level
and a national level. Hazel referenced this sense of responsibility about the freedoms
experienced as Canadians stating that jury duty was a small price to pay for such privileges.
Hazel said,
…and we don’t have much obligation in Canada to do things…you know, it is one
hell of a good country to live in and I think this is…something everybody needs to be
included in.
Jurors also referred to their civic duty with pride and accomplishment to be included
in a process they viewed as important to the legal process. Connected to this idea is that of
learning about the CJS process.
Knowledge of the CJS. Jurors reported an appreciation for the knowledge gained
related to the function and purpose of the CJS. This section will describe participant reports
of overall improved knowledge of the CJS, the idea that the reality of jury duty is not like
television or the movies, and that jury duty is an eye-opening experience.

119
Six jurors stated they felt like the court system functions as it is intended, specifically
that of the role of the jury. For Ava, this appreciation for the court system extended to the
broader CJS. Ava spoke about this and stated,
it’s easy to sit back and judge and do lots of judging of the police and the court
system. Until you actually have to put a little bit of effort and become involved a tiny
bit right and then it gives you another perspective.
Ava is describing an awareness of the due diligence involved in the CJS at all stages.
Related to their understanding of how the CJS functions, six participants specifically
referenced that jury duty is not like it is portrayed in the movies. Part of what prompts this
response may be connected to some differences between legal systems in the United States
and Canada, with most of our television programming being created out of the United States.
Likely, references to television and movies also reflect a lack of previous knowledge
of the mundane aspects of court proceedings. Having sat and viewed court proceedings as an
undergraduate student, I understand the slow nature of court on a day-to-day basis that
contrasts with the often-glamorized version shown on television and in movies. Hazel stated,
“it was definitely not what I was expecting. Certainly, not the way juries are portrayed in the
movies.” This concept will be explored further in the meaning themes section.
Jurors reported their experience as eye-opening. This experience related to
expectations of who a criminal could be, including their appearance and perceived level of
intelligence. For example, Hattie spoke about her juror experience as one that made her
realize that she had preconceived notions of how a criminal would present. Hattie said “[the
defendant] was very well-spoken” and stated,

120
I kind of think well gee if he sounds like that and he could do this then maybe, you
know, the guy down the street who sounds like that is capable, it made me I guess
realize that anybody is capable of doing these things.
Jury duty as an eye-opening experience is connected to the theme ‘faith in humanity’
described later in this chapter. Though similar ideas, the eye-opening experience described
here related to juror knowledge and expectations. Later, ‘faith in humanity’ will be described
as meaning associated with these mindset shifts.
CJS Staff. With one exception, jurors reported positive experiences with staff of the
CJS. Further, most (n=10) jurors felt the CJS protected their safety during the trial hours. The
two exceptions to this notion of protection related to concerns about entering and exiting the
courthouse through the same doors as the accused’s friends and family and being asked to
leave the courthouse at lunchtime where they could potentially run into these same people. In
one of those two instances, the jurors told their sheriff about those concerns which resulted in
alternative arrangements for that group.
Sources of Symptoms
Lack of Information. Jurors stated that a contributing factor for feelings of
uncertainty, anxiousness, and fear of making mistakes was a lack of information. This
concept is further discussed later in this chapter concerning jurors’ recommendations for
improving the process of jury duty.
Visuals in Court/Description of Visuals. Seven jurors described images of victims as
disturbing and as a contributing factor to their symptoms. For example, Harlin stated,

121
It was mostly the photographs of the bodies of the injuries, the severity of the
injuries, and the sites where they…had found the body and there would be a body
half-buried, half-decayed.
Wallace reflected on an image that really stood out to him stating,
But the picture itself like the absolute bewilderment in this little girl’s eyes. Like
totally confused, totally lost, what am I even doing here, why is this happening? A
two-year old who can’t comprehend, you know, what’s really going on just totally,
just that total lost look in her eyes like there was just nothing. That picture just kind
of summed up the whole thing about there should, there should be a light in that kid’s
eyes, a two-year old that should be active and engaged.
As discussed in the symptoms themes section, jurors described these images as contributing
to sleep disruption and flashbacks.
Testimony. For two reasons, testimony during trial is reported as difficult for some
jurors. First, the content of the testimony is described as difficult, particularly related to the
scene of the crime. Corrine talks about difficulty with the testimony related to the ongoing
nature of the information. Corrine stated,
If somebody has just gone in there and told you once…it would have been okay…but
when you keep drilling it into them, you’ve got the visuals there and you’ve got the
prosecutor…and the drama that goes along with it. So I think it was pushing
it,…trying to push the information home.
Corrine stated this process as something that made it more difficult to forget and
move past once jury duty ended. We talked about this being similar to studying for an exam
in which you might go over and over the information to help retain the information.

122
Second, two participants, Hattie and Hazel, reported feeling as though the witnesses
were engaging with them as jurors. Jurors reported that they believed witnesses had stared at
them and mumbled almost indistinguishably about revenge, against them, if the verdict did
not go as they hoped. Hattie felt the witness in her case was trying to intimidate the jury and
she described feeling very uneasy about if that person knew who they were and if he was
ever going to do anything to them. Hattie stated, “he was constantly, his glare was right on
me. He kept…mouthing something that I couldn’t see what they were.” Hazel commented on
a similar experience stating, “I definitely felt his eyes drilling into me.”
While Wallace did not consider his PTSD to align with those of first responders, he
stated that one noteworthy difference is that first responders receive training and choose their
line of work. Wallace suggested that the average citizen is not equipped to manage the
difficult content involved in a murder or sexual assault trial and yet jurors are asked to
remain objective and decide on the fate of someone’s future.
Weight of Decision. During the interviews, nine jurors spoke about the weight of the
decision they had to make. Two jurors reported fear about having made the wrong decision,
which for Hattie, translated to disrupted sleep. Hattie stated,
100% in mind he was guilty but…for a couple of months after I...had problems
sleeping once in a while or I would be stressed by it because I’m thinking God, what
if we made the wrong decisions?
Related to the weight of the decision, Hazel described guilt connected to the ‘not
guilty’ verdict given in her trial. Hazel stated she did not feel the accused should have been
“let off”. Hazel described similarities in her life that may have highlighted this feeling which
will be discussed in more detail under the meaning themes section of the findings.

123
Ruined life of convicted: Jurors reported the significance of the verdict decision
when they stated fears about ruining the life of the person they convicted. Hazel reflected on
the life impact for the accused when she stated, “you had that ability to – to change
somebody’s future. You know that potential to make a different choice that could potentially
affect the rest of their life”. Hazel then stated that sometimes she wondered, “did I make the
right decision?” Kirsten made a connection to her own life wondering about how easily the
same thing could happen to her children.
Rose spoke about the impact to the convicted differently, stating, “I put a
Black guy in jail. It’s like yeah, that is nothing to be proud of.” For Rose, this
statement revealed information about how she viewed herself in relation to the
person she convicted. Rose is describing guilt, relating to her position of privilege
as Caucasian. This aligns with her PCL-5 answers as she reported guilt as
something that occurred “quite a bit”.
Age of accused. For Kirsten, the age of the accused played a big part in the
expression of her trauma symptoms. Kirsten wondered if it was for best that this person enter
the prison system at such a young age.
And that weighed very heavily on the jury and they, it’s hard right, because like you
have this young kid, his entire family, his mom and dad, his brother, they were there
every day in court…and it, I mean it’s probably one of the things I think that I would
think about is like what like, okay this is the legal system but is this really what’s best
for this kid and his future, right?
Kirsten further noted that before the convicted had been arrested he was able to set goals for
his life and was working toward those goals, heightening her feelings of worry for the

124
individual on trial. Kirsten had to repeat to herself “don’t feel bad if he’s gonna be in jail for
twenty years.” Kirsten expressed that these concerns were heightened seeing the offender’s
family in court every day. Additionally, Kirsten reflected on seeing the convicted person’s
family following the trial stating “my heart was broken for them”.
Fear of Repercussions Jurors spoke about the fear of repercussions in two ways.
First, there was a fear of making a mistake and saying something about the trial that would
cause a mistrial. For example, Hazel stated “I think it was probably ten years before I
actually talked to [my husband] about what it actually was. I was scared of the repercussions
if I talked to somebody.”
Hazel’s example highlights the need for improving the information jurors receive
about their roles and responsibilities. Jurors spoke about this fear at various stages of the
process, beginning with the first time they were alone as a group being unsure if they could
speak to each other and introduce themselves. That fear extended long after the trial ended,
as indicated by Hazel’s example. This concept will be revisited later in this chapter as part of
the improving juror experience section.
Second, jurors reported fear of repercussions from the accused, or the accused friends
and family. In the two instances in which jurors expressed fear of repercussions from the
accused, gang activity surrounded the trial. Kelly stated,
I didn’t want them to look at me and say, I know she was on the jury, I’m going to
find her, I’m going to kill her kids.
Rose speaks to a similar fear and said,
And you start seeing things you have never noticed before and it is just…a little
overwhelming and I would say it took a good six months before I stopped scanning

125
like every time I got on the subway, it is like checking everyone’s faces to see who
they were…and to see if they recognize me. Does he know my name...can he find out
where I work?
Rose also spoke about fears being expressed in a dream. Rose stated she had “a
dream about the case…like being hunted or tracked down and being shot at.” This relates to
the flashback symptoms described within the symptom themes section of the findings.
Physical Space. Jurors reported difficulties with the physical space of their jury
room. Jurors cited instances of rooms without windows, inadequately sized tables, and lack
of privacy going to the washroom, as it was directly connected to the jury room. Others
described not being able to get away from the room to have some space to think through the
evidence.
Another aspect of physical space was the location where participants were
sequestered. Hattie indicated that the location was not very comfortable, unclean, and
somewhere she would not have chosen to stay. Hattie stated the condition of the hotel was
not overly problematic for her but she wondered if it would have bothered her more if she
had been sequestered for longer than one night.
As discussed previously, jurors described issues related to entering and exiting the
courthouse through the same doors as family and friends of the accused. Similarly, jurors
noted discomfort seeing the lawyers in the courthouse hallways as they feared any
misinterpretation of contact might result in a mistrial.
Also discussed previously, Hattie reported the proximity to one witness during his
testimony as unsettling, in particular, because this person was the one possibly mumbling
threats to the jurors and knowing that he had an extensive criminal record. Hattie indicated

126
that proximity to a criminal was very foreign to her in her life. Hattie’s description indicated
that the physical closeness to the accused contributed to being uncomfortable during that
testimony.
Deliberation. For most jurors, deliberation is noted as a source of difficulty. Reasons
ranged from the physical space (as previously described), group dynamics, being
sequestered, to struggling with all the information/weight of the decision.
Jurors indicated group dynamics of the deliberation process as a source of
symptomology. Though jurors were unable to speak specifically to the process of deciding
on a verdict, jurors indicated the group dynamics as a difficult part of the deliberation
process. Reasons related to different approaches to deliberation and differences in worldview
related to the circumstances of the accused. Participants described perceived instances of bias
from other jurors during the deliberation process. For example, Ava stated concern about
“the possibility of discrimination or racism affecting the decisions and outcomes of
somebody”. For similar reasons, Hazel did not feel due diligence had been performed during
the deliberation process.
Two jurors, Adele and Hazel, mentioned that in the sequestering process, they felt as
though they were prisoners themselves. Jurors stated that they had no televisions in their
hotel rooms, that they had to eat in designated locations at specific times, that they were
escorted to the bathroom, that they could not leave to go to the vending machine without a
sheriff with them, and that they were not allowed cellphones or landlines in their rooms.
Their movement was restricted and mostly controlled. While jurors understood the reason for
these limitations, they found them difficult.

127
Furthermore, jurors were not given the opportunity to inform their families that they
were going to be sequestered. This lack of communication was challenging for jurors who
had families. Participants noted that not knowing when sequestering would occur was
difficult as this meant that as the trial neared the end, jurors had to plan each day for child
and pet care. Jurors had to have their bags ready in case they needed to sequester.
Kelly described having her phone taken away as difficult because her young son has
severe allergies. She was worried that if something happened to him, she would not be
notified or available immediately. While this did not happen during her sequestering, this
fear added another level of discomfort to the process of deliberation.
For Kelly, immediately following the verdict being read in court, the convicted was
sentenced. Kelly reported that for her this was not an ideal situation. Watching the family
receive the sentencing decision was really hard because Kelly said “they were devastated.”
Lastly, jurors reported having a difficult time sleeping during the sequestering
process. For example, Hattie stated, “you don’t sleep because you are thinking oh God we
have got to – we have got to wrap this up…thinking I don’t want to be doing this for – for a
week”. Other jurors reported a lack of sleep related to the weight of the decision. Together,
these examples reflect the difficult nature of deliberation, Jurors need to consider all aspects
of the trial but are also motivated to come to a decision so they can return to their regular life
routine. In my interpretation, I believe the balance of those conflicting goals creates an
environment that may contribute to stress symptoms, such as lack of sleep.
Improving Juror Experience
Jurors reported several things that could have improved their experience. I have
categorized the suggestions from participants into four areas. First, practical changes to

128
physical space; second, more information provided to jurors; third, improved support
services such as counselling services; last, closure.
Physical Space. Many of the suggestions from jurors were about practical changes.
As mentioned previously, the physical space for jurors was noted as less than ideal. Jurors
suggested making changes that avoid encountering lawyers and family members of the
accused and creating those standards across courthouses. Further, any improvements to the
space in which jurors spend their time and deliberate would be a welcomed improvement for
jurors. For example, larger rooms, rooms with windows, or rooms with some comfortable
seating available.
Increased Information. Participants indicated more information is needed
throughout the process for jurors. Participants indicated that even the summons process was
stressful because they did not know what to expect. Wallace described being picked and then
the trial started that afternoon, which he was not expecting. Rose described finding herself in
the wrong lineup when first arriving and being unsure about leaving the holding room to use
the washroom; she feared getting in trouble if she missed her number being called. Sarah also
described the process as nerve-wracking and stated “you have to go through metal detector
things. It is a little bit nerve-wracking”. These accounts suggest more information for jurors
before they attend the courthouse could be useful.
Similarly, jurors suggested a glossary of terms for legal jargon could be useful. Hattie
provided an example of a juror from her trial who did not know what sequestering meant.
Hattie stated that individual was afraid to ask right up until it came time to be sequestered.
Hattie’s example suggests there is assumed knowledge about the process of jury duty.
Importantly, providing jurors with more information on the process and legal terms could

129
help alleviate some of the fears around roles and responsibilities previously described in this
chapter.
Wallace also suggested it could be useful for jurors to know the kind of information
they will hear and see in court to help prepare mentally. More specifically, Wallace felt it
would be helpful to be notified of upcoming pictures of deceased or injured bodies, as well
as testimony related to injuries to bodies. This concept will be described in more detail in
Chapter Six.
Jurors also felt more information following their service would have been useful.
Hattie suggested a phone call to check in a week or so following jury duty would have been
useful. While, Hazel suggested an information card when leaving that would fit in their
wallet with information about accessing mental health services would have been helpful.
Counselling. Wallace and Sarah are the only participants that reported counselling
was made available to them following their time as jurors. For the remaining jurors who did
not receive this option, all reported that this would be an appropriate follow-up to jury duty.
Even jurors who did not think they would have utilized that service thought it would be an
important aspect of post jury duty support. Three jurors indicated that trial type might be an
important consideration for determining if counselling services were required. Wallace, who
served on two trials, suggested he did not think counselling services needed to be offered for
the kidnapping and extortion case, whereas he felt it was important during the murder trial.
Closure. Seven jurors discussed wanting follow-up after the conclusion of the trial.
Closure was described by participants in two ways. First, some jurors indicated they would
have liked to have participated in a debriefing process. Jurors felt this process would have
allowed some space to talk about their experience and symptoms, and would have provided

130
an appropriate ending to their civic responsibility. Second, jurors described wanting to know
the sentencing results, often seeking that information out on their own. For example, Kirsten
stated, “we didn’t move on, we needed to know what happened.” Jurors noted that if they
had the option to have that information made available, they would have found that useful.
Coping Strategies. Jurors spoke about ways they managed symptoms during their
time as jurors. Responses varied by participant but commonalities and potentially useful tips
are described below.
Two jurors, Kelly and Kirsten, spoke to maintaining a routine with their families at
home. Having young children at home was self-reported as a protective factor for remaining
engaged with their families outside of court hours. Engaging in family life allowed for a
mental break from thinking about the trial. This had a grounding effect for participants by
creating some normalcy in their life.
Kelly also spoke at length about finding moments of humour as a coping strategy.
Kelly talked about how the coroner pronounced centimeters as “sontometers” and she really
found that funny and found it was a good way to distract herself from the difficult
information the coroner was delivering in his testimony. Kelly also spoke about finding
humour in the prosecutor translating text message conversation, providing this example, “it
was translated from gangster text and he was like ‘you know how bitches be’ he’s like that
translates into ‘you know how bitches are’. Kelly said this is something she still referenced
for humour at the time of the interview. Kelly said, “if you don’t find things to find amusing,
I probably would have had a meltdown but there were funny bits in it too, you know?”
Hattie described writing down questions outside of trial hours, then letting go of those
questions until the next day in court. Hattie explained this was a useful tool for her to create a

131
similar mental break from thinking about her trial. Similarly, during court hours, Rose and
Kelly spoke about taking notes during the trial. Notetaking had the benefit of keeping them
occupied and alert during the trial and it meant they did not have to look directly at witnesses
or family members in the courtroom.
For Wallace, defining his time as a juror within the context of a work role helped him
to re-focus on the task. Wallace reported that this shift in how he thought about jury duty
reduced his symptoms related to a lack of concentration.
Juror Support Program. Two jurors suggested support from past jurors would have
been useful. This idea of peer support was described vaguely and without a clear notion of
how it would be implemented. Similarly, participants referenced supporting people in their
lives who have served as jurors, or who have been summoned for selection, since their own
time as a juror. The implementation of a peer support program for jurors could be difficult to
implement in terms of the availability of past jurors and the legality of sharing information;
however, that jurors mention already providing this support might suggest some feasibility to
this idea.
Meaning Associated to Jury Duty
Jurors reported meaning attached to certain aspects of jury duty. Broadly, meaning
for jurors is associated with things they remember feeling during the trial or aspects of the
case which they could relate to their own life. This section represents the conceptual link
with the meaning which collectively represents their lived experience. These themes, or
commonalities, are the anchor points of understanding for their lived experience. The
meaning themes of this research are: connections to own life, significant life disruption,
television and movies, and faith in humanity.

132
Connections to own Life. Jurors made connections to the trial content and their own
life which is described as a source of symptomology by participants. For example, Hazel
described abuse from her brother growing up and connected this experience to the victim in
the trial she served.
The fact that she had to fight um for – for him to leave her alone and to you know not
come after her and stuff. I think…that was kind of reminiscent of like my fight with
my brother. It is like just leave me alone. I am just going to spend my time away from
you because I don’t want to be around you because I don’t want to risk being hurt by
you. And I think with her, I felt bad for her…and I think that part of me wanted to
fight for her. (Hazel)
This experience is perhaps connected to her feelings with the trial outcome, which remained
at the time of Hazel’s interview. This is connected to her earlier quote that she felt guilty
about the accused being “let off”.
Hazel further described her feelings associated with the trial when she discussed the
testimony of one of the witnesses. Hazel noted, “I probably would not have remembered his
face five years later but I still remember feeling like…manipulated in there.” This quote
represents an interpretation of the experience for Hazel. Hazel has attached meaning to this
memory as a feeling of unease. In the discussion, this is explored more in-depth within the
context of my chosen methodology.
Rose made connections to her own life about the feelings of isolation she described.
As a result of jury duty, Rose experienced changes at work as they re-shuffled the workload.
Things remained permanently changed afterward and Rose reported losing a sense of
connection in that process. Also, during this time, Rose’s church closed and she lost a sense

133
of community that had previously existed in that context. In reference to feelings of isolation
Rose stated, “I guess I have always felt that way to some degree growing up but since the
trial, it’s just so amplified.”
Rose went on to speak about how she does not feel like she fits in within the mental
health community either. This statement may suggest Rose does not feel justified in the
experiences she described.
For Wallace, the connection to his own life was related to the victims of the trial, two
children, and his work at the time as an elementary school vice-principal. Wallace described
this impact as being most significant once he returned to work. Wallace found it difficult not
to assume the worst in every situation and stated that he felt a lack of trust in people. Further,
the trial occurred at a time when Wallace and his wife were trying to conceive. Wallace
described anger that they had been unsuccessful at getting pregnant and then seeing disregard
for the lives of children.
One interesting aspect of the trial that has remained for Wallace is the earlier
mentioned sleep disruption when his ankles touch. Wallace and I talked about this lasting
impact in detail, and he stated,
…after that [the trial], I can’t sleep in that position because one of the little injuries
that the four-year-old had that the coroner had talked about and how that injury
happened…every time I roll onto my side and my ankle bones touch, I have to move
my feet because I don’t like it.
Wallace went on to explain that he believed this had remained for him because that detail in
the trial is when he realized that the two people on trial were guilty. Wallace described that
moment as a turning point in the realization that terrible things, in this case being bound at

134
the ankles with duct tape, had happened to the children. At the time of the interview, Wallace
described still not being able to sleep with his ankles touching.
Significant Life Disruption. All jurors reported some practical disruption to life in
terms of missing work or arranging for childcare. These practical life disruptions were
described by participants as manageable and reasonable to jurors. More significant life
disruption was described by one juror. Richard indicated a significant life-course change due
to his time as a juror and said, “like I say it was very interesting, but I was supposed to be
transferred to Alberta for my job and that all got cancelled because of this”. At the time,
Richard was working in the hospitality business and was set to open his own franchise. Not
being able to move provinces meant that Richard began a different life path and ended up
becoming a teacher. While Richard does not describe regret over how things worked out in
his life, his example represents a significant disruption to his life plans.
Richard’s example relates to the meaning he associates with jury duty across several
years. While initially, Richard suggested this life disruption caused friction in his life, over
time, he came to appreciate how things worked out for the best.
Television and Movies. As mentioned previously, jurors often referred to television
and movies. I have noted this again in the meaning theme category because it describes the
frame of reference for their experiences. When jurors spoke about their service as different
from their knowledge from television, a link to their expectations was established.
Consideration of juror expectations ties closely with one of the recommendations from
jurors: improved information for jurors. By aligning juror expectations with the reality of
their service, I believe it is possible to alleviate some of the sources of symptoms jurors

135
described in the literature and within this research. This will be discussed further in the
discussion chapter of this dissertation.
Faith in Humanity. Jurors spoke about questioning their faith in humanity. This
theme arose primarily about their expectations of human behaviour clashing with the reality
of their experience as a juror. For some, this realization hinged on a sense of naivety. For
example, Ava spoke about this when she described feeling disappointed by her fellow jurors
not taking the process seriously. Ava felt some of the jurors were prejudiced and had already
made decisions about the outcome of the trial before hearing all the evidence. Her shift in her
belief about “mankind” was attached to her fellow jurors.
For Harlin, his reality was changed based on the actions of the defendant. Harlin
questioned how things could be so bad in the world that someone could do the things the
defendant had done. Harlin served on a multiple (four) murder case and the trial spanned
approximately four months. Harlin had to view the visuals and listen to the testimony about
all four victims. As a school teacher, Harlin was not typically exposed to that level of detail
regarding murder. The reality of those details stood out to Harlin as he remembered his time
as a juror.
Rose felt that she came to see her city differently, with further understanding about
biases that exist in society, along with the realization of social inequities. This realization of
inequities left Rose beginning to understand her privilege. This relates to the earlier quote
provided by Rose about her feelings associated with convicting a Black individual. I believe
at the core of what Rose is describing, she feels a sense of obligation over the circumstances
that lead the defendant in her case to his life circumstances which lead him to jail.

136
It may be worthwhile noting that these interviews occurred during a time when
significant protests were occurring in the United States around the Black Lives Matter
(BLM) movement. This movement may have led Rose to consider her position as a
Caucasian woman both within the context of being a juror and more globally in her life. It is
possible my interpretation of the interview data was also impacted by this movement.
Analogy. Rose spoke at length about how she conceptualized her experience as a
juror. She spoke about her difficulties using the analogy of a pile of laundry. I have included
her full thoughts on this below.
I kind of equate it with doing like laundry so it is like you go to court every day and
every day you go you are given a new outfit to wear and every day in court the like
stains get thrown at it and it gets tears and rips in it and at the end of the day you have
to take it off and drop it in a pile in the corner of your room at home. And the next
day you are given a new set of clothes to wear and the same thing happens. You go
home and drop them in a pile and you have to do this every day for two months
almost and then you are not allowed to feel anything and then you are not supposed
to show any emotion. You are in the – in the jury box, you are not allowed to talk
about anything. You can’t show what you are thinking. You are not allowed to feel
anything. This has to be like you cannot make a decision based on your feeling. You
have to decide based on the evidence as presented and just use your brain for thinking
and not feeling and then at the end of these like seven weeks you have this huge pile
of laundry. And so it is like fabrics you have never used before. Fabrics you have
never heard of before; there are all these stains on it. All these tears and it is like well
how do you clean it? Like should you wash it? Do you dry it? Do you have to hang

137
it? Do you have to lay it flat? Can you put it in the dryer and it is like how do you
store it? Does it need to be hung? Does it need to be folded in a drawer? Does it have
to be in a box? Does it have to be wrapped in tissue paper? Does it have to be rolled
up to be stored? And it is sort of like no one else had dealt with these fabrics before
that know and know enough. Knows how to deal with it where it is like, it is a huge
pile of laundry that is so overwhelming and it takes such a long time to sort it out
afterwards.
In the discussion chapter I will talk in more detail about my understanding of this analogy.
Other Interesting Findings
The findings below are presented outside of the above themes as interesting findings
which emerged. The occurrences of these discussions did not justify inclusion as a theme or
they did not fall within the overarching categories. These findings are included as an
indicator for part of the discussion chapter of this dissertation. My interpretations of the data
are included.
Minimization of Symptoms. Kirsten and Rose both met the PCL-5 threshold for
PTSD. Though not a formal diagnosis, this result suggests these jurors experienced
significant trauma symptoms. During the interview process, both Kirsten and Rose made a
specific point of indicating they did not feel their symptoms were worthy of a PTSD
diagnosis. Participants used phrases such as “PTSD light” (Rose) to express these feelings.
I think this is an interesting and noteworthy finding because both jurors were
minimizing their personal experiences based on a notion of what might constitute a
reasonable cause for PTSD. I further wonder if this minimization of their experiences might

138
have an impact on treatment-seeking. These ideas will be further explored within the
discussion chapter.
Worry for other Jurors. In four instances, jurors expressed worry about other
jurors’ wellbeing during their trials. In these instances, jurors stated that they noticed nonverbal cues, such as crying, which suggested they were struggling with the circumstances of
the trial. In two instances, jurors Harlin and Corrine referenced this concept in response to
my questions about how support services might have been improved and what supports were
offered.
Additionally, Wallace and Kirsten expressed worry for other jurors in response to my
questions about any lasting positive outcomes from jury duty. Those two jurors had become
advocates for improved juror support following their service, seeing an opportunity to
improve juror support for other jurors. Both questions reminded these four participants of the
people who they served with and how they may have benefited from improved support
services.
The accuracy of participants’ understanding of fellow jurors’ experiences is difficult
to ascertain; however, presenting this finding is not intended to focus on those assumptions.
Instead, it is presented as an interesting finding because participants described a sense of
empathy and comradery for their fellow jurors in the above examples.
Trial Type. Though only two jurors, Kelly and Rose, served on trials that involved
gang activity, both jurors describe significant fear associated with those trials. As described
earlier in this chapter, this fear resulted in symptoms such as hypervigilance and paranoid
actions watching the behaviours of strangers when in public. This finding is not intended to
suggest a causal connection between trial type and resulting symptoms but instead highlights

139
the stories and experiences of these participants. It may warrant further consideration for
research moving forward which will be discussed in the next chapter.
Exceptions to Findings
This section will present two instances of jurors whose experience was contrary to a
theme described above. First, Richard did not relate any discomfort or stress associated with
the weight of the decision related to reaching a verdict. Richard indicated that he felt
confident in the decision made and that the convicted received the punishment appropriate to
his crimes.
For Adele, another exception to the findings is noted, in that her view of the police
and lawyers was negatively impacted by her experience as a juror. Adele felt her
expectations of the police conducting the interviews did not align with what she watched in
court. Adele explained that this may have been related to what she had seen on television.
Adele further felt a disappointment in the role of lawyers. In Adele’s case, two men were
tried at the same time. One defendant had what she described as a “fancy lawyer” and one
had a public defense lawyer assigned. The individual with the “fancy lawyer” was not
convicted and the individual with the public defender was convicted. Adele stated that she
noticed a difference in their defenses. In her view, the public defendant did the very bare
minimum and Adele felt this impacted the outcome of the trial for that individual.
Interestingly, this is something that Adele reflects more on now, versus immediately
following the trial for which she served. Adele indicated that perhaps this was due to some
naivety at the time she had served because she was quite young.

140
When talking about the legal process, Corrine similarly commented that trial
outcomes are dependent on “at the end of the day who [had] the better lawyer?”. Corrine felt
that sometimes guilty people walk free and sometimes innocent people go to jail.
Conclusion
This chapter detailed the findings from both the survey and interview portions of this
research. Throughout, I have made reference to the connected nature of each theme, and,
where possible, related symptom expression discussed in the interviews to their answers in
the PCL-5. This was done to strengthen the PCL-5 results but also to provide context and
meaning to those answers. This rich description of those symptoms helps to capture the lived
experiences of participants in this research.
Furthermore, the findings presented in this research are meant to capture the
experiences of these jurors only. Though jurors made specific reference throughout the
interviews to their symptoms being directly caused by their time as a juror and although
many of the symptoms may seem to have a direct link to their experiences, such as dreaming
about the accused, other factors may have contributed. I reiterate that these are presented as
the jurors have described their experiences and are not intended to suggest causality.
In the next chapter, I will explore these findings in the context of existing literature
and add my understanding and insight to the context of the themes which have been
discussed.

141
Chapter Five: Discussion
This chapter will connect the findings to the overall design and intention of this
research. One main goal for this research was to add to the existing literature and provide
more on the Canadian context of serving jury duty. The 14 jurors who completed the survey
and 12 who completed the interview have provided rich insight into the context of being a
juror in Canada. Though questions remain regarding impact on outcome from serving jury
duty, the current research provides good indicators for future research. This chapter includes
discussion on the findings as they relate to existing literature, a discussion of structural
theory and constructivism, putting the findings into context, juror meaning making and
anchor points, recommendations, and limitations.
The flow of understanding for how I will discuss this research is presented in Figure
3.

- Structural Theory
Findings and
Existing Literature

- Constructivism
•Together informed
theoretical approach,
methods, and data
analysis process.

Putting Findings
into Context

Recommendations
and Limitations

•Stigma
•Culture
•Meaning Making

•Policy/ Practice
•Research

Figure 3: Flow of understanding for discussion chapter
Findings and the Literature
This section will highlight some of the main similarities found in this research,
compared to the previously cited literature. Then, new insight gained from this research is
discussed. Exploration of new insights will be included.

142
Similarities
The main similarities found in this research are categorized under symptoms and
sources of symptoms. Jurors in this research reported psychological impacts like those
described in existing literature. For example, probable PTSD findings are reported in the
literature and this finding is echoed in this research (see: Chopra 2002; Kaplan 1985; Kaplan
& Winget, 1992).
Jurors did report similarities in positive reports related to jury duty. Similar to the
findings of Bornstein et al., 57% of jurors indicated an increased understanding of the CJS,
jurors in this research expressed this same knowledge gain. Additionally, most jurors in this
research report new respect for the legal process, as was reported by Miller (2008).
Many symptom similarities are evident in this research. For example, Wolff (2011)
(n=280) reported difficulties sleeping (43%), trouble concentrating (27%), hypervigilance
(43%), anger (16%), and flashbacks (39%). Robertson (2009) (n=64) reported symptoms
during and after trial that included restless sleep (22% during, 8% after), sadness (17%
during, 6% after), isolation (14% during, 3% after), headaches (13% during, 3% after),
waking at night (11% during, 5% after), flashbacks (11% during, 5% after), and increased
feelings of tension (11% during, 5% after). Chopra (2002) (n=80) reported disturbing
memories (21%), numb and detached (11.3%), more tense (11.3%), avoidance (3.8%),
increased fearfulness (18%), insomnia (33.8%), and nightmares (25%).
Comparatively, this research (n=12) found the following symptoms occurred at the
following percentages (for full list see Table 5): flashbacks (83%), nightmares (75%), upset
when reminded of the event (91%), sleep disruption (75%), difficultly concentrating (75%),
and displaying avoidance behaviours (83%). The percentages are included to create a similar

143
display of findings from existing literature; though, it is important to note the sample size of
this research really limits the meaning that can be drawn from those representations. They
are not intended to suggest any generalizability to the broader jury population. Rather, these
are included as a representation of the experiences of jurors in this research and to draw
attention to some of the similarities to existing literature. This comparison provides an
account of the similar symptom experiences participants in this research had with jurors from
previous studies, both in Canada and the United States.
Jurors in this research reported many of the same sources of symptoms described in
the existing literature. Similarities that will be discussed are: viewing evidence; weight of the
decision, deliberation and sequestering, and fear of retaliation.
Seven jurors in this research reported viewing evidence as difficult, this aligns with
existing research (see: Bertrand et al., 2008; Bornstein et al., 2005; Kaplan, 1985; Palmer
2005b). Furthermore, nine jurors reported the weight of the decision of a juror as a source of
symptomology which aligns with existing research (see: Bertrand et al, 2008; Cusak, 1999;
Kaplan and Winget, 1992). Most jurors in the current research reported difficulty associated
with the deliberation and sequestering process, which aligns with existing research (see:
Antonio, 2008; Bertrant et al., 2008; Delipsy, 1994; Kaplan & Winget, 1992; Wolff, 2011).
Fear of retaliation is noted in two previous studies (Antonio, 2008; Cusak 1999) and is
consistent with the findings in the current research. Again, these similarities echo the above
statements about similar experiences described in previous research.
Consistent with PTSD health outcomes, outlined in Chapter Two, jurors in this
research reported somatic symptoms, such as a ringing in their ears (Rose). Further, loss of
job is noted and changes to career are noted by participants in this research (Rose and

144
Richard). Also consistent with PTSD health outcomes, jurors in this research reported an
impact on their ability to function in social settings (Wallace).
Participants also echoed literature about juror confusion around legislative
responsibility when they reported uncertainty about what they could and could not tell other
people about their experience. Research participants erred on the side of caution and, as a
result, processed their experiences largely on their own, at least initially. Confusion about
what information can be shared with others could be a contributing factor to negative mental
health outcomes.
Another aspect of this research that aligns with previous research is the importance of
the context of the trial and preference for lesser sentencing. As described in Chapter Two,
when Canadians were asked about their views on minimum sentencing, almost all
respondents supported the idea of minimum sentencing (Roberts, 1988). However, when
asked the same question about a man sentenced to life imprisonment after the murder of his
severely disabled daughter, three quarters of respondents supported a lesser sentence (Reid,
1999). In the current research, Kirsten, who served on a murder case, felt strongly that the
individual in her case should be tried as a youth, to lessen the sentencing decision. For her,
the context of the crime and the age of the individual convicted influenced what she felt was
an appropriate legal outcome.
An interesting aspect about these similar findings is the timespan of when research
participants served, dating as far back as the 1980s. Across these years, jurors reported
similar experiences related to difficult aspects of jury duty and similar lack of available
support services. These similarities across so many years suggest that in as many years, very
little has changed in terms of support services available to jurors.

145
New Insight
Next, I discuss new insight gained from this research including, positive juror
reporting, the age of the juror, the age of the accused, length of trial, type of trial, and PCL-5
connected to interview findings.
Some of the positive reports that exist in the literature are not reflected in the findings
from participants in the current research. For example, Gastil (2008) discussed an increase in
civic engagement in their research. The findings from this research do not echo these
findings; however, this was not a focus of the current research and may account for the
absence of reference to an increase in civic engagement. Previous research also indicated
levels of satisfaction with jury duty as a fair process (Diamond, 1991). Some jurors in the
current research discussed the opposite, at times questioning if the jury really represented a
jury of the accused’s peers as well as reporting instances of feeling bullied in the deliberation
process.
Jurors made interesting note of their own age at the time they served. One of the
insights gained from this research occurred because in some cases jurors had served many
years prior to the interview. Three jurors spoke about being naïve when they served. They
were able to reflect on that during the interview, many years later. Interestingly, jurors who
spoke about this idea of being naïve felt that they did not fully understand the potential
impact of their role and decision at the time they served. Jurors described reflecting on the
impact of their service as more significant than it had seemed at the time to these jurors.
Jurors seem to describe their age as a protective factor at the time of service but later as a risk
factor related to their understanding of the experience.

146
Kirsten noted difficulties associated with the young age of the accused in her trial.
Although this is only one account in my research, this experience is not noted in the existing
literature so I think it is important to highlight. I think Kirsten’s difficulty is most connected
to the weight of the decision as she described worry for the individual she ultimately
convicted. Having control only over how she voted during deliberation and not having any
control over whether the convicted was sentenced as an adult or under the Youth Criminal
Justice Act (S.C 2002, c. 1) weighed on Kirsten most post jury duty.
For participants in this research, length of trial was not associated with increased
symptom expression. The following examples provided are offered as context to participants’
experiences and are not intended to suggest either a lack of connection between length of
trial and symptoms or the presence of such a connection. For example, Harlin served on a
four-month trial and while he did express some symptoms, his PCL-5 score was a low at 12.
Kirsten served on a trial for three weeks and had the highest PCL-5 score at 54. Trial type,
described next, may have had a greater impact on symptomology for the participants in this
research.
Although participants that served on person-centered crimes, such as murder,
described more symptomology, consistent with existing research, new insight gained from
this research is that of gang-related trials. Jurors in this research described significant fear of
repercussions associated with serving on trials that included gang activity. The fear described
is mostly in retaliation from family members and friends of the person convicted. This
symptom description relates to questions 17 (being “superalert” or watchful or on guard) and
18 (feeling jumpy or easily startled) (APA, 2013). These questions fall within Criterion E
items, which relate to arousal or reactivity symptoms (APA, 2013).

147
The above insight on trial length and type of trial suggests that more important than
the specific type of trial or length of trial are the specific circumstances of the trial,
specifically as they relate or are connected to an individual’s life experiences. I reiterate that
this suggestion is connected to the experiences of participants in this research but may
provide insight for future research on broader juror populations.
PCL-5 and DSM-5. Next, I will discuss some of the connections that were made
between the PCL-5 and the interviews that followed. These connections are discussed
highlighting the importance of the Canadian context and that this research occurred under
DSM-5 definitions of PTSD. The connection between survey results and the interview
responses in this research provided a depth of understanding of the lived experiences of
participants. This depth of understanding within the context of the Canadian CJS adds to
existing literature and provides some important insight on possible practice and policy
changes, as well as indicating possible paths for future research, discussed later in this
chapter. I will also discuss the connection to the life-world later in this chapter, as it relates to
these links.
One main finding related to the Canadian context relates to feelings of isolation
described by participants. This symptom is related to question 13 of the PCL-5 (feeling
distant or cutoff from other people). This symptom falls under Criterion D, which defines
negative cognitions and mood symptoms (APA, 2013). Of importance to the Canadian
context is that jurors reported feelings of isolation and struggling with not being able to
discuss the deliberation process. Jurors also said they struggled during the trial not discussing
the trial with family and friends. These experiences are, in part, because jurors did not
understand the true limitations about what they could and could not discuss. The legal

148
limitation on speaking about the deliberation process is described as a factor in the isolation
felt by participants in this research. As mentioned, this is important to the Canadian context
because it is unique to the Canadian legal system when compared to the United States.
Furthermore, this research is noteworthy as it has occurred under the definitions of
the DSM-5, which is in contrast to previous literature. Three new questions have been added
to the PCL-5, that fall within Criterion D, which relates to negative cognitions and mood
symptoms (APA, 2013). Questions, 9, 10, and 11 represent the new symptoms listed in the
PCL-5. In this research, five jurors indicate symptoms related to question nine, seven jurors
indicated symptoms related to question 10, and five jurors indicated symptoms related to
question 11.
Question nine relates to jurors’ experiences of a lack of trust. This lack of trust was
described by Wallace, in that he did not trust that most kids were not being abused. Rose and
Kelly described this lack of trust as fear about the people around her harming her or her
family.
Question 10 relates to blame toward oneself or others for the stressful event or what
happened afterwards. Although seven jurors indicated some symptoms relating to this
question, interviews did not provide much insight on this aspect of juror symptoms
specifically. My interpretation of this finding is that outcomes relating to blame are linked to
downplaying of their own symptoms and a belief that they should feel okay following jury
duty. This concept will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter.
Question 11 relates having strong negative emotions such as anger, guilt, horror, or
shame. Wallace in particular described anger as a significant symptom following jury duty.

149
Wallace described himself as a previously patient person but stated that following jury duty
whenever he felt concern for another child he would get very angry at the situation.
These questions being added to the DSM-5 conceptualization of PTSD are important.
Many of the most bothersome symptoms that jurors described in this research relate to these
questions. Again, this finding adds to the knowledge base for Canadian jurors under DSM-5
understanding.
Putting the Findings into Context
The next section of the discussion will put the findings from this research into context
and describe them within my chosen methodology and methods. To help the reader
understand how this is organized, please see Figure 4.

Theoretical
Framework

- Role of
Stigma
- Role of
Culture

Stratification
of Mental
Health

Figure 4: Flow of understanding: Putting findings into context.
Structural Theory
The grand theory that informed this research is structural theory. As a social worker,
my practice is driven by concepts of critical and structural theory, which look at the deeper
influences on an individual or groups of people (Dow & McDonald, 2003). This approach
made sense because jury duty occurs within the large structural Canadian Justice System.
Though approaches such as counselling post-jury duty are important, this does not address
the deeper structural underpinnings associated with social justice (Dow & McDonald, 2003).

150
Instead, such examples are modes of fixing or lessening the strain felt after serving jury duty
(Dow & McDonald, 2003).
Addressing the structural influences on individuals within the process of jury duty
begins with the mandated nature of serving. Jurors in this research spoke about the
importance of jury duty but also that they had no choice or decision power in this process.
This requirement to serve is a significant act of power-over someone. Though measures for
opting out do exist, jurors in this research did not fall within those categories or were
unaware of what would qualify them for being excused. I will discuss this again under policy
recommendations.
Two aspects of this research that are connected to structural theory are the notion of
stigma and the role of culture. These two ideas are interconnected and are discussed as
simultaneous processes for participants in this research. These concepts influence jurors’
understanding of their own mental health, as compared to other groups.
Stigma. This section will describe types of stigma, then relate these to structural
influences and the impact of stigma as it is relevant to jury duty. Stigma around mental
health can be categorized in three ways: public-stigma, self-stigma, and structural
discrimination (Bogaers et al., 2020). Public stigma refers to general concepts of prejudice
against people with mental health concerns (Bogaers et al., 2020). Self-stigma refers to the
internalization of public conceptions of prejudice regarding mental health (Bogaers et al.,
2020). Structural discrimination refers to structural rules, policy, or regulations that
disadvantage those with mental health conditions (Bogaers et al., 2020).
These categorizations are seen in the accounts of jurors’ experiences. For example,
self-stigma is noted when Rose spoke about feeling weak because of her symptom

151
experiences and in the process of downplaying symptom expression. Rose also reported not
talking about her symptoms because she grew up believing you should not talk about
feelings.
For Rose, public stigma is rooted in a belief that people did not want to hear about her
experiences as a juror. Further, Rose spoke about this in relation to her understanding of
those with PTSD. Rose specifically mentioned that she did not want it to seem like it was
negative if someone had PTSD. Rose was speaking more generally about other people but
feeling as though this was a necessary comment. This speaks to a level of public stigma
associated with the disorder. Rose felt like she had to justify her statements.
There are several structural limitations jurors face in the process of their service.
First, not knowing mental health struggles are a potential reason for being excused from jury
duty is a potential element of structural discrimination. Second, at a broader level, the
structural gap in care for jurors seems clear. Third, inequitable allocation of mental health
services for jurors is another structural limitation impacting care (Clement et al., 2015).
Corrine spoke about there being a heightened awareness of mental health issues now versus
when she served in the early 1990s. I agree with Corrine’s statement but it is an interesting
comment within the context of this research and again, in consideration of how little services
for jurors have changed over a span of approximately 40 years in Canada. Despite more
information about trauma care and practice, little of this knowledge has been applied within
the CJS setting for jurors. Further, it is established that stigma around mental illnesses is a
barrier to treatment seeking (Corrigan, 2004; Link & Phelan 2006). Concrete and likely
achievable avenues for lessening that gap have been provided in the recommendations
section of this chapter.

152
Culture and PTSD. This research was developed with the potential consideration for
contextual and environmental factors of individual jurors to be explored. Of further interest
was juxtaposing these individual contexts against the broader societal contexts relevant to
PTSD and the individual. This is reflected in the use of phenomenology under the term
relationality. Relationality constructs may include understanding how the individual viewed
their own experience with PTSD as compared to others’ experiences. By remaining open to
different constructs, a picture of the life-world of probable PTSD for individual participants
may be understood.
Of the participants in this research, only one individual was aware and believed
themselves to have PTSD, even though three met the criteria for probable PTSD. This
finding relates to the notion of how jurors come to understand their PTSD symptoms
discussed in the section on Young’s (2016) book. I discuss this finding in the context of the
stratification of mental health concerns.
Stratification of Mental Health Concerns
Of importance to this research was the description of juror stratification of mental
health symptoms and more broadly, their care. As discussed in the section on Young (2016)
in Chapter Two, the context in which PTSD is understood by participants may provide an
interesting perspective on the findings of this research. What is likely most relevant from the
participants’ experiences is that jurors downplayed their symptoms. Specifically, jurors said
two things in reference to downplaying their symptoms. First, that they do not consider
themselves in the category of military personnel or first responders. Jurors felt it important to
make sure I knew they viewed it in that way. Second, jurors referred to their symptoms using
terms such as “trauma light”. These participants acknowledged the impact on their lives but

153
compared themselves to their perceived understanding of others’ experiences with PTSD or
trauma symptoms. This comparison was true for jurors with probable PTSD and without. My
interpretation of these statements is that jurors feel unworthy of support or embarrassed by
the need for support. Downplaying of symptoms has been noted as a barrier to treatmentseeking (Clement et al., 2015).
Positioning the above within the context of mental health care in Canada, juror
statements of their experiences as ‘less than’ when compared to police or war veterans is
telling about how we collectively conceptualize mental health. For example, if two people
broke their foot, and both needed surgery, it is less likely there would be a comparison about
how bad the original break was and how deserving of surgery or care the lesser break was
initially. Competition exists in our society at all levels and this likely impacts treatment
seeking.
An alternative understanding to juror responses does exist, that jurors are resisting a
diagnostic label, due to stigma associated with the disorder. It seems likely that on some
level this is occurring for jurors, potentially linked to a disbelief that their experience could
lead to a diagnosis such as PTSD. However, I maintain that worthiness is a primary factor
due to the way participants spoke about their symptoms as compared to other groups more
commonly associated with a PTSD diagnosis.
McCormack and Thomson (2017) reported similar accounts of worthiness from
participants in their research, in which respondents with childhood trauma compared
themselves to people who had survived war zones and earthquakes, describing their
experiences as less traumatic. McCormack and Thomson describe this as a within group
stigma. In line with this thinking, internalized stereotypes influence how people expect to be

154
treated (Link, 1987). This understanding describes a link between stigma and worthiness as a
person but also worthiness for mental health care. McCormack and Thomson (2017)
suggested a diagnosis provides the space for individuals to grow and develop a sense of selfworth. This suggests the importance for early intervention.
Recent research involving PSP has explored this notion as a hierarchy of trauma
experienced (Ricciardelli et al., 2020). Similarly, participants in their research indicated that
certain types of events seemingly legitimized suffering and other types of events were
viewed as unlikely to cause traumatic symptoms (Ricciardelli et al.2020). Ricciardelli et al.,
(2020) indicated that a key factor in this hierarchy is how the trauma is experienced. For
example, PSP who are first on a scene fall at the top of the hierarchy for perceived level of
expected trauma, whereas, indirect exposure falls near the bottom of this list (Ricciardelli et
al.2020). Ricciardelli et al. suggest that social context has a role in shaping perceptions of
trauma which in turn may promote stigma.
I think it is possible the statements from jurors around downplaying their symptoms
and comparing themselves to other PTSD groups reflects the current thinking surrounding
instances of PTSD. Much of what is understood about PTSD comes from research rooted in
first responders and war veterans. Participants in this research may have shaped their
understanding of their experiences within that context. This understanding represents the
contextual relationship to the etiological event which was described by Young (2016).

Juror Meaning Making and Anchor Points

155
In Chapter Two of this dissertation, I discussed how PTSD is understood as
symptoms that account for the memory and are anchored to a qualifying event through a
contextual or temporal relationship (North et al., 2009). Next, I provide four examples for
understanding these links within my participants’ responses. These examples provide a rich
exploration of how participants position their experiences within their life-world.
In Rose’s example about the pile of laundry, she described how she understood her
symptoms to be collected over time, across seven weeks, and how together they became
overwhelming. For Rose, this pile of laundry was so large she felt unsure where to begin
sorting and repairing the clothing, or in the context of probable PTSD, her symptoms. Rose
contextually anchored her experience to her self-described etiological event, serving jury
duty, through this example.
Another juror, Kirsten, described her symptoms in relationship to percentages of
stress a person can hold at any given time. For Kirsten, her contextual anchor is linked to her
capacity for stress and how much of that capacity is held serving jury duty. Kirsten felt jury
duty occupied 60% of her stress capacity. Kirsten spoke about this capacity in reference to a
lack of information provided before beginning her jury service. In her responses, Kirsten is
stating that more information would have allowed jury duty to take up less of her stress
capacity.
Kirsten also spoke about how she is an advocate by nature and at the time of the
interview she was advocating for informed consent for jurors. Here you can recognize the
thread of her experience: first, she is an advocate by nature. Second, she notices for herself
that jury duty takes up 60% of stress capacity, and third, she seeks ways she can reduce how

156
much of that stress capacity is captured by jury duty through more information and informed
consent.
Wallace’s anchor points are noted in his occupation as a school teacher. Wallace
spoke about his symptoms related to his time as a juror being strongly connected to a
heightened sense of concern for students in his school, and through a lack of trust around the
safety of children. Wallace described feeling extreme anger when he suspected other
instances of child abuse or when insensitive comments were made as jokes about child
abuse. Wallace describes these symptoms as directly related to his time as a juror and clearly
articulated this link to the etiological event.
For Kelly, she placed emphasis on the location in which the trial occurred. Kelly
indicated that moving had the biggest impact on lessening her symptomology. In her case,
she has contextually anchored her experience to the location where the trial occurred.
Although Kelly did not meet the criteria for probable PTSD, I thought this was an interesting
and noteworthy understanding of her conceptual link to her juror experience.
These examples are important for understanding the life-world of participants. In
phenomenology, this is as close to objectivity as possible and relates to the basis of the
collective or shared experiences (Husserl, 1989). Although causality between participants
juror experience and trauma symptoms cannot be confirmed, these self-described links do
provide insight into possible connections. While I cannot make any claim about occurrences
of PTSD resulting from jury duty, I think it is reasonable to consider this a factor in the
symptomology described by jurors.

157
Recommendations
This section will discuss recommendations that are based on the findings. These
recommendations are born out of the insight of jurors with consideration of existing research
and literature. Two main recommendations areas are discussed: policy and practice, and
future research.
Policy/Practice
Jurors had several suggestions for improving juror experience. These
recommendations are described in terms of primary and secondary preventative measures.
For primary preventative measures, jurors want more information about the jury process,
broken into two ideas. First, informed consent for jurors is discussed, then the idea of an
information brochure is offered. Then, I will speak to policy that makes the guidelines clearer
about who can be excused from jury duty. In terms of secondary preventative measures,
normalization of mental health needs is discussed broadly and as it relates specifically to
jurors. Lastly, I discuss Bill C-417 that proposes jurors be allowed to speak to mental health
professionals about their deliberation experiences, which is currently not allowed under
section 649 of the CCC.
Primary preventative measures are those that prevent the onset of illness. One
recommendation that came out of the interviews that I found noteworthy was the idea of
informed consent for jurors. Kirsten specifically compared jury duty to the informed consent
that is required before any medical procedure and also to the current research and the
informed consent that was required for her participation. I found the comparison to the
current research particularly interesting. I was unable to conduct this research without
Research Ethics Board approval and without creating an informed consent document that

158
jurors signed before participation. It is certainly interesting that the same parameters are not
in place for the actual circumstance that is the focus of this research, jury duty.
Furthermore, jurors felt that information packages or brochures would be beneficial
for minimizing fear associated with the unknowns of the CJS. Jurors felt it would be very
helpful to have more information before their first appearance at court for jury selection This
could be something that would be provided in conjunction with an informed consent
document. While information is available on the internet, providing correct information
relevant to their province at the time the summons is sent may be beneficial to potential
jurors.
Some clarification on who can be excused from jury duty may prove beneficial.
Jurors in this research did not indicate any knowledge that mental health concerns are a
potential option for being excused. I have personally known people who have been excused
for this purpose. It is possible this exception is dependent on the courthouse where the trial is
occurring and this would be another aspect of jury duty that would be important to make a
clear process for decision making. Potentially, this process could include individuals who
have a DSM-5 diagnosis or a doctor’s note for exclusion.
Secondary prevention measures are those that lead to early diagnosis and prompt
treatment for disease. The primary finding of note for this research within a health research
perspective is related to barriers to accessing mental health services. This research has
highlighted that a perceived lack of worthiness for mental health support exists for
participants. The applicability of this finding, along with suggestions from participants for
improved information, creates an understanding of gaps in health services for jurors.

159
Additionally, the understanding that the stratification of mental health concerns exists
for juror populations may have implications for treatment seeking and extended burden that
results from delayed care. Delays to treatment seeking and failure to treatment seek for
mental health disorders is a problem faced worldwide (Wang et al., 2007). Mojtabai et al.
(2011) report that mental health treatment barriers include individuals wanting to handle the
situation on their own as well as a perceived lack of need for care. These barriers are
potentially influenced by concepts of stigma. Any practice and policy strategies that can
improve delays and failures are needed to help reduce the global burden of untreated mental
health disorders (Wang et al., 2007). Stigma has been ranked as the fourth highest barrier to
help-seeking behaviours (Clement et al., 2015). This means that policy and practice
strategies need to focus on lessening this internalized belief and normalizing symptomology.
This understanding could relate directly to juror suggestions that they be provided with the
types of symptoms to expect following jury duty and what type of symptoms might warrant
some follow-up treatment. Krakauer et al.’s (2020) research on PSP suggests that regular
check-ins on workers can be an effective tool. This measure of prevention could be easily
implemented into the court setting.
Further, feelings of being underappreciated or undervalued in the workplace have
been noted in the literature as a risk factor for the development of symptomology (Linos et
al., 2019; Riccidardello et al., 2020). This is relevant to jurors in their description of how
their experience with jury duty ended. Many jurors commented that the ending of their time
as a juror was very abrupt and while the judge may have thanked them for their service, it
was delivered in a largely superficial manner. Jurors are excused and then left to get back to
their life without any avenue to further connection to that experience. Both judges and

160
sheriffs could receive training about how to implement measures of appreciation throughout
the trial experience. Additionally, follow-up after the conclusion of the trial from someone
from within the court house could be beneficial. This follow up might be to connect people
with resources should they be needed and would also provide some form of
acknowledgement and appreciation to jurors for their service.
Another avenue for potentially minimizing the feelings of being undervalued is
through the use of a peer support program. Peer support was mentioned by jurors and may be
an achievable practice change. In short, peer support is meant to create a reciprocal
relationship between people who have a shared understanding or experience (Mead et al.,
2001). Anderson et al. (2020) suggest that peer support is another avenue for reducing stigma
because it offers an avenue for increased mental health knowledge. Peer support would add
another layer of care for jurors, providing jurors the opportunity for customizable care. This
notion of customizable care has been noted in literature on PSP as an important factor for
reducing trauma symptoms (Ricciardelli et al., 2020).
In the context of jury duty, a peer support program might look different from the
research associated with PSP to the extent that the relationship is not as continual in the same
way; however, there is a clear opportunity to teach jurors about mental health support
strategies, potentially even giving jurors mindfulness training as recommended by Marks et
al., (2018) for PSP.
PTG refers to positive change in a person that occurs after a traumatic event (Walsh
et al. (2018). These changes can be seen as falling into five general categories, personal
strength, social relationships, a newfound appreciation for life, changes to views on
spirituality, and new possibilities for life (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). Though the notion of

161
post traumatic growth (PTG) was not specifically explored in this research there are reports
from jurors that may refer to PTG. For example, Harlin’s account of how he situated himself
in connection to his role as a juror. Similarly, jurors mentioned taking notes and using
humour throughout the trial. These examples may be indicative of a self-distancing approach.
Self-distancing encourages people to reflect on their experience differently with the
intention of providing the opportunity for more constructive reflection on any given event
and decreasing rumination over time (Kross & Adyduk, 2017). This might be viewed as
reflecting on an experience as a fly on the wall, rather than from within the experience.
Harlin’s example of shifting his thinking about his role in the process of the trial he served is
described by him as a turning point for his mental health and may offer some insight into
how to better support jurors.
Lastly, there is a private member’s Bill (C-417) for legislative change to allow jurors
to speak to counsellors about the deliberation process. As of 2019-04-30, the First Reading of
Bill C-417 in the Senate occurred. Bill C-417 as approved by the House of Commons reads:
1 Section 649 of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:
Disclosure of jury proceedings
649 (1) Every member of a jury, and every person providing technical, personal,
interpretative or other support services to a juror with a physical disability, who
discloses any information relating to the proceedings of the jury when it was absent
from the courtroom that was not subsequently disclosed in open court is guilty of an
offence punishable on summary conviction.
Exceptions

162
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of the disclosure of information for the
purposes of
(a) an investigation of an alleged offence under subsection 139(2) in relation to a juror;
(b) giving evidence in criminal proceedings in relation to such an offence; or
(c) any medical or psychiatric treatment or any therapy or counselling that a person
referred to in subsection (1) receives from a health care professional after the
completion of the trial in relation to health issues arising out of or related to the person’s
service at the trial as a juror or as a person who provided support services to a juror.
Health care professional
(3) For the purpose of paragraph (2)(c), the health care professional that provides
medical or psychiatric treatment or therapy or counselling must be entitled to do so
under the laws of a province.
Bill C-417 did not pass the Senate for various reasons, including the focus on the
COVID-19 pandemic; though it is likely to be successful if reintroduced, given the level of
support in the House of Commons of Canada. At the time of writing this dissertation, no
legal changes have been made to section 649 of the CCC that limits whom jurors can speak
to about their experience. Given the findings of this research, I suggest this change could be
beneficial to Canadian jurors. Also, given anecdotal suggestions that psychologists and other
health care professionals are unclear about what can and cannot be discussed about a juror’s
experience under the current framework of Section 649 of the CCC (Previn, 2019), changes
to Bill C-417 stand to make mental health supports more accessible to jurors.
Is it interesting to note that Chopra (2002) made some similar recommendations for
primary and secondary prevention measures around policy and practice changes for the

163
support of Canadian jurors. While changes to the availability of post-trial counselling support
and hopeful changes to Section 649 of the CCC have been made, some recommendations by
Chopra (2002) remain unanswered. For example, Chopra (2002) similarly suggested the
implementation of a handbook or some form of orientation for jurors before their service. At
the time of writing, almost 20 years later, this lack of orientation remains a large gap in good
service provision for jurors.
It is my overall recommendation that regardless of diagnostic outcome after serving
jury duty, the CCC should have better preventative measures in place both at the primary and
secondary level. The customizable approach described above helps to create many points of
contact for jurors. In short, I describe these points of contact as 1) Pre-trial information both
about the CCC and mental health strategies, which might include self-distancing mechanisms
or tips. 2) Improved care of jurors by court system, for example, ensuring jurors have their
own entrance. 3) Access to mental health professional following jury duty, possibility of
post-trial peer support and information about what are normal versus abnormal responses to
jury duty. Collectively, these strategies seek to reduce stigma and increase treatment seeking
behaviours, thus reducing the impact of trauma symptomology. These recommendations also
align with the availability of resources as a protective factor for symptomology discussed in
Chapter Two as well as O’Conner’s (2003) notation that the treatment and conduct of juror
care is important for reducing juror stress.

Research

164
As described in the findings chapter, Kirsten noted difficulties associated with the age
of the accused in her trial. Given the small representation of trials occurring within the Youth
Criminal Justice Act (S.C 2002, c. 1) in this research, I think further exploration in this area
would be of benefit. Future research could explore if age of the accused is a factor in juror
symptom outcomes.
Although the age at the time of jury service is reported as new insight from this
research, the impact juror age has on their experience is unknown. I suggest further research
on age at the time of service as a risk factor or protective factor is an important consideration
for best understanding the full scope of juror experience.
Gender and sex differences are another aspect of juror experience that warrants
further consideration. For the current research, it is difficult to make statements regarding
gender or sex differences. Of the 12 participants who completed both phases of this research,
nine identified as women and three men. Hazel’s account regarding her previous life
experience connecting to the trial content suggests some similarity in previously cited
literature regarding the potential impact to PTSD symptomology (Palmer, 2005a; Robertson,
2009). As this report represents only one instance in the literature, more research exploring
this connection is needed within Canada.
It is also reasonable to suggest that the findings of this research indicate a likelihood
that other diagnostic disorders might also result from serving jury duty. As such, exploring
anxiety and depression disorders as a result of serving jury duty in Canada could provide a
richness to the collective understanding of juror experiences.

Limitations

165
Some of the limitations associated with this research are discussed. First, recruitment
was a challenge for this research due to the difficulty gaining access to the study population.
One factor that came to light during this research is when Rose indicated that she knew
someone who should have participated in this research but she knew never would. Rose
stated the reason was that person was “too paranoid” about a fear of retaliation from the
convicted person’s family in her trial. Though anecdotal, it is an important consideration that
those who might have the most severe symptoms may be unable to participate in research on
juror experiences.
Second, this research is not generalizable. Although it is well known that the results
of qualitative research are not gathered for the purpose of generalizability, it remains
important to note. The non-random sampling method for this research limits the findings of
this research to the participants involved.
Third, qualitative research has some limitations inherent within the paradigm. Patton
(2002) suggests the interpretive nature of qualitative research inherently means there is risk
of the researcher misinterpreting the meaning of the participant. Further, errors of recall by
the researcher may lead to inaccurate interpretation of findings (Patton, 2002). Although
measures were taken to improve validity within the research, these risks remain.
Fourth, most of the research on juror symptomology has been done using self-report
PTSD measures. This means that a true representation of the prevalence of PTSD is
unknown and represents a significant limitation to this body of knowledge. Additionally,
issues related to the reliability and validity of self-report measures might limit the overall
findings of previous research (Lonergan et al., 2016). This remains a limitation to the
collective knowledge on juror experience.

166

167
Chapter Six: Conclusion
Due to the exploratory nature of the research question, ‘What are the lived
experiences of jurors with respect to jury duty related traumatic stress and what are the
unmet needs of those jurors? I chose descriptive phenomenology. This methodological
approach provided flexibility to the research and interview processes. As a result, I was able
to capture the richness of participants’ experiences described and explored in the final two
chapters of this dissertation. This research is of value for two main reasons: First, this
research provides insight to the Canadian context, adding to the collective knowledge about
Canadian jurors. This research is the only research in the Canadian context that has utilized a
PTSD self-report measure and more specifically, the first to be done under the DSM-5
diagnostic criteria, using the PCL5. The use of the PCL-5 helps to align research in Canada
to existing literature, that is primarily based out of the United States. Second, providing
insight on future avenues for research in Canada is beneficial.
One of the more interesting findings from this group of participants is that symptoms
were self-described in reference to the etiological event, jury duty, and to their own life
experiences. Jurors explored their symptoms and experiences through their life-world,
drawing connections to those experiences and their time as jurors. These connections made
by jurors provide a strong foundation for Canadian research on this topic.
While I cannot make any claim about occurrences of PTSD resulting directly from
jury duty, this research demonstrates that it is reasonable to consider this a factor in the
symptomology described by jurors.
Furthermore, these rich descriptions provide some measure of transferability to other
jurors’ experiences. Though the findings cannot be generalized, the transferability provides

168
insight into possible experiences for other jurors. The insight on possible experiences can
help guide future research, policy, and practice decisions. This research represents one piece
of the puzzle about what is hopefully a growing interest on the life-world of Canadian jurors.
The applicability of this research will grow as more on the topic of juror experiences in
Canada emerges.

169
References
Alterio, M. (2020). Peer support programs: Mitigating the emotional effects of vicarious
trauma experienced by 911 dispatchers. [Unpublished Thesis]. Mercer University.
American Psychiatric Association. (1954). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders.
American Psychiatric Association. (1968). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (2nd ed.).
American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (3rd ed.).
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (4th ed.).
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (4th ed., Text Revision).
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (5th ed.).
Anderson, G. S., Di Nota, P. M., Groll, D., & Carleton, R. N. (2020). Peer support and crisisfocused psychological interventions designed to mitigate post-traumatic stress
injuries among public safety and frontline healthcare personnel: A systematic review.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(20), 7645.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17207645
Antonio, M. E. (2008). Stress and the capital jury: How male and female jurors react to
serving on a murder trial. The Justice System Journal, 29(3), 396407. https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2008.10767903

170
Aparicio, E., Michalopoulos, L.M., & Unick, G.J. (2013). An examination of the
psychometric properties of the Vicarious Trauma Scale in a sample of licensed social
workers. Health & Social Work, 38(4), 199-206. https://doi.org/10.1093/hsw/hlt017
Arendt, M., & Elklit, A. (2001). Effectiveness of psychological debriefing. Acta Psychiatrica
Scandinavica, 104(6), 423–437. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0447.2001.00155.x
Authors. (2016). Peer support and crisis-focused psychological intervention programs in
canadian first responders:Blue paper. Canadian Institute for Public Safety Research
and Treatment (CIPSRT).
https://www.justiceandsafety.ca/rsu_docs/blue_paper_full_web_final_production_aug_
16_2016.pdf
Barkase, K. (2020). Mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment as ‘cruel and unusual
punishment’: Exploring constitutional infirmity post-Nur (2015). [Unpublished thesis].
Simon Fraser University.
Barker, R.L. (2014). The social work dictionary. NASW Press.
Baird, K., & Kracen, A. C. (2006). Vicarious traumatization and secondary traumatic stress:
A research synthesis. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 19(2), 181–188.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070600811899
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Sage.
Belden R., & Stewart, (2001). Optimism, pessimism and jailhouse redemption: American
attitudes on crime, punishment and over-incarceration. Research and Communications.
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/overincarceration_survey.pdf.
Bercier, M. L., & Maynard, B. R. (2015). Interventions for secondary traumatic stress with
mental health workers: A systematic review. Research on Social Work Practice, 25(1),

171
81-89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731513517142
Bertrand, L. D., Paetsch, J. J., & Anand, L. M. (2008). Juror stress debriefing: A review of
the literature and an evaluation of a Yukon program. Yukon Department of Justice.
http://www.crilf.ca/Documents/Juror%20Stress%20Debriefing%20%20Mar%202008.pdf
Bisson, J. I., & Deahl, M. P. (1994). Psychological debriefing and prevention of posttraumatic stress. more research is needed. British Journal of Psychiatry, 165(6), 717720. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.165.6.717
Bisson, J. I., Jenkins, P. L., Alexander, J., & Bannister, C. (1997). Randomised controlled
trial of psychological debriefing for victims of acute burn trauma. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 171(1), 78-81. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.171.1.78
Bober, T., & Regehr, C. (2006). Strategies for reducing secondary or vicarious trauma: Do
they work? Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 6(1), 1-9.
https://doi.org/10.1093/brief-treatment/mhj001
Bogaers, R., Geuze, E., Van Weeghel, J., Leijten, F., Van de Mheen, D., Varis, P., Rozema,
A., Brouwers, E. (2020). Barriers and facilitators for treatment-seeking for mental
health conditions and sustance misuse: Multi-perspective focus group study within the
military. Britsh Journal of Psychology Open, 6(6), E146.
https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2020.155
Bohm, R. (1999). Deathquest: An introduction to the theory and practice of captial
punishment in the United Stated. Anderson Publishing.
Bornstein, B. H., Miller, M. K., Nemeth, R. J., Page, G. L., & Musil, S. (2005). Juor
reactions to jury duty: Perceptions of the system and potential stressors. Behavioral

172
Sciences & the Law, 23(3), 321-346. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.635
Bornstein, B. H., Miller, M. K., Nemeth, R. J., Page, G. L., & Musil, S. (2005). Juror
reactions to jury duty: Perceptions of the system and potential stressors. Behavioral
Sciences & the Law, 23(3), 321-346. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.635
Bovin, M. J., Marx, B. P., Weathers, F. W., Gallagher, M. W., Rodriguez, P., Schnurr, P. P.,
& Keane, T. M. (2016). Psychometric properties of the PTSD Checklist for Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fifth Edition (PCL-5) in
veterans. Psychological Assessment, 28(11), 1379–1391.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000254
Bower, W. J. (1995). The capital jury project: Rationale, design, and preview of early
findings. Indiana Law Journal, 70, 1043-1102.
Brady, J. L., Guy, J. D., Poelstra, P. L., & Brokaw, B. F. (1999). Vicarious traumatization,
spirituality, and the treatment of sexual abuse survivors: A national survey of women
psychotherapists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 30(4), 386–393.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.30.4.386
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research
in Psychology, 3(2), 77-107. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative
Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589-597.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
Breckenridge, J. P., Jones, D., Elliott, I., & Nicol, M. (2012). Choosing a methodological
path: Reflections on the constructivist turn. Grounded Theory Review, 11(1), 64-71.
Breslau, N., Chase, G. A., & Anthony, J. C. (2002). The uniqueness of the DSM definition of

173
post-traumatic stress disorder: Implications for research. Psychological medicine, 32(4),
573–576. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291701004998
Brett, E. A., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (1988). DSM-III-R criteria for
Posttruamatic Stress Disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 145, 1232–1236.
Brewin, C. R., Andrews, B., & Valentine, J. D. (2000). Meta-analysis of risk factors for
posttraumatic stress disorder in trauma-exposed adults. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 68(5), 748-766. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006x.68.5.748
Brewin, C. R., Lanius, R. A., Novac, A., Schnyder, U., & Galea, S. (2009). Reformulating
PTSD for DSM‐V: Life after criterion A. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 22(5), 366373. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20443
Bride, B. E., Robinson, M. M., Yegidis, B., & Figley, C. R. (2004). Development and
validation of the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale. Research on Social Work
Practice, 14(1), 27-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731503254106
Bryant, R. A. (2007). Early intervention for post-traumatic stress disorder. Early Intervention
in Psychiatry, 1(1), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-7893.2007.00006.x
Camerlengo, H. (2002). The role of coping style, job-related stress, and personal
victimization history in the vicarious traumatization of professionals who work with
abused youth. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Rutgers University.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research. (2019). Definitions of sex and gender.
http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/47830.html
Carleton, R. N., Afifi, T. O., Turner, S., Taillieu, T., Vaughan, A. D., Anderson, G. S.,
Ricciardelli, R., MacPhee, R. S., Cramm, H. A., Czarnuch, S., Hozempa, K., &
Camp, R. D. (2020). Mental health training, attitudes toward support, and screening

174
positive for mental disorders. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 49(1), 55-73.
https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2019.1575900
Carlier, I. V., Voerman, A. E., Gersons, B. P. R. (2000). The influence of occupational
debriefing on posttraumatic stress symptomatology in traumatized police officers.
British Journal of Medicine Psychology, 73(1), 87–98.
https://doi.org/10.1348/000711200160327
Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., Dicenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. (2014). The use of
triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(5), 545-547.
https://doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.545-547
Cavanagh, J. T. O., Carson, A. J., Sharpe, M., & Lawrie, S. M. (2003). Psychological
autopsy studies of suicide: A systematic review. Psychological Medicine, 33(3), 395–
405. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291702006943
Chamberlain, J., & Miller, M. K. (2008). Stress in the courtroom: Call for research.
Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 15(2), 237–250.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13218710802014485
Chilcoat, H. D., & Breslau, N. (1998). Investigations of casual pathways between PTSD and
drug use disorders. Addictive Behavior, 23(6), 827-840.
Chopra, S. R. (2002). Juror stress: Sources, severity and solutions. Dissertations Abstracts
International: Section B, 64(8-B), 4027-4027.
Christensen, M., Welch, A., & Barr, J. (2017). Husserlian descriptive phenomenology: A
review of intentionality, reduction and the natural attitude. Journal of Nursing
Education and Practice, 7(8), 113-118. https://doi.org/10.5430/jnep.v7n8p113

175
Clement, S., Schauman, O., Graham, T., Maggioni, F., Evans-Lacko, S., Bezborodovs, N.,
Morgan, C., Rüsch, N., Brown, J. S. L., & Thornicroft, G. (2015). What is the impact
of mental health-related stigma on help-seeking? A systematic review of quantitative
and qualitative studies. Psychological Medicine, 45(1), 1127. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291714000129
Clum, G. A., & Weaver, T. L. (1997). Diagnostic morbidity and its relationship to severity of
idea- tion for a nonpsychiatric sample of chronic and severe suicide ideators. Journal
of Psychopathology & Behavioral Assessment, 19I(3), 191–206.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02229178
Cohen, D., & Crabtree, B. (2006). Qualitative research guidelines project.
http://www.qualres.org/HomeEval-3664.html
Copp, T., & McAndrew, B. (1990). Battle exhaustion: Soldiers and psychiatrists in the
Canadian army, 1939-1945. McGill-Queens University Press.
Coyle, J., & Williams, B. (2001). Valuing people as individuals: Development of an
instrument through a survey of person-centeredness in secondary care. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 36(3), 450-459.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01993.x
Corrigan, P. (2004). How stigma interferes with mental health care. The American
Psychologist, 59(7), 614-625. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.7.614
Costanzo, S., & Costanzo, M. (1994). Life or death decisions: An analysis of capital jury decision making under the special issues sentencing framework. Law and Human
Behavior, 18(2), 151–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499013

176
Creamer, T.L. (2002). Secondary trauma and coping processes among disaster mental health
workers responding to the September 11th attacks. [Unpublished doctoral
dissertation]. Auburn University.
Creswell, M. (2003). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches (2nd ed.).
Sage Publications.
Crotty, M. (1996). Phenomenology and nursing research. Churchill Livingstone.
Cullen, F., Fisher, B., & Applegate, B. (2000). Public opinion about punishment and
corrections. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 1-79).
University of Chicago Press.
Cutler, B. L., & Hughes, D. M. (2001). Judging jury service: Results of the North Carolina
administrative office of the courts juror survey. Behavioral Sciences and the Law,
19(2), 305-320. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.439
Cusack, R. M. (1999). Stress and stress symptoms in capital murder jurors: Is jury duty
hazardous to jurors’ mental health? [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. St. Mary’s
University.
Cyr, K. S., McIntyre-Smith, A., Contractor, A. A., Elhai, J. D., & Richardson, J. D. (2014).
Somatic symptoms and health-related quality of life among treatment-seeking
Canadian forces personnel with PTSD. Psychiatry Research, 218(1–2), 148–152.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2014.03.038
Dahlberg, K. (2006). Did Husserl change his mind? In P.D. Ashworth, & M. C. Chung,
(Eds.), Phenomenology and psychological science: Historical perspectives. Springer.
Danielson, C. A., MacDonald, A., Amstadter, A. B., Hanson, R., de Arellano, M. A.,
Saunders, B. E., & Kilpatrick, D. G. (2010). Risky behaviors and depression in

177
conjunction with or in the absence of lifetime history of PTSD among sexually
abused adolescents. Child Maltreatment, 15(1), 101-107.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559509350075
Davidson, J. R., Hughes, D., Blazer, D. G., & George, L. K. (1991). Post-traumatic stress
disorder in the community: an epidemiological study. Psychological Medicine, 21(3),
713–721. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291700022352
DeLipsey, J. M. (1994). Stress in jurors: The experience of serving jury duty on murder
trials [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Texas Woman's University.
Denzin, N. K. (2012). triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 8088. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437186
Department of Justice. (2015a). Civil and criminal cases. http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csjsjc/just/08.html
Department of Justice. (2015b). The role of the public. http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csjsjc/just/09.html
Department of Justice. (2015c). Steering committee on justice efficiencies and access to the
justice system. http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/esc-cde/scje-cdej/p8.html
Diamond, S. S. (1991). What jurors think: Expectations and reactions of citizens who serve
as jurors. In R. Litan (Ed). Verfict: Assessing the civil justice system (pp. 282-305).
Brookings Institute.
Dickes, S. J. (1998). Treating sexually abused children versus adults: An exploration of
secondary traumatic stress and vicarious traumatization among therapists.
[Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. California School of Professional Psychology,
Fresno.

178
Diene, E., Agrinier, N., Albessard, A., Cassadou, S., Schwoebel, V., & Lang, T. (2012).
Relationships between impact on employment, working conditions, sociooccupational categories and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder after the
industrial disaster in Toulouse, France. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric
Epidemiology, 47(8), 1309-1319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-011-0439-8
DiGangi, J.A., Gomez, D., Mendoza, L., Jason, L.A., Keys, C.B., Koenen, K.C., 2013.
Pretrauma risk factors for posttraumatic stress disorder: A systematic review of the
literature. Clinical Psychology Review 33(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2013.0
5.002
Dow, B., & McDonald, J. (2003). Social support or structural change? social work theory
and research on care-giving. Australian Social Work, 56(3), 197208. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0312-407x.2003.00083.x
Dunkley, J., & Whelan, T.A. (2006). Vicarious traumatisation in telephone counsellors:
Internal and external influences. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 34(4),
451-469. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069880600942574

Emerson, R. W. (2015). Convenience sampling, random sampling, and snowball sampling:
How does sampling affect the validity of research? Journal of Visual Impairment &
Blindness, 109(2), 164–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1510900215
Everly Jr, G. S., Boyle, S. H., & Lating, J. M. (1999). The effectiveness of psychological
debriefing with vicarious trauma: A meta-analysis. Stress Medicine, 15(4), 229233. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1700(199910)15:4<229::AIDSMI818>3.0.CO;2-M

179
Everly, G. S., Flannery, R. B., & Mitchell, J. T. (2000). Critical incident stress management
(cism): A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5(1), 2340. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(98)00026-3
Everly, G. S. Jr., & Mitchell, J. T. (1997). Critical incident stress management (CISM): A
new era and standard of care in crisis intervention (2nd ed.). Chevron.
Feldmann, T. B., & Bell, R. A. (1993). Juror stress: Identification and Intervention. Bulletin
of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 21(4), 409-416.
Ferguson, A. G. (2015, May 2017). The trauma of jury duty. The Atlantic.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/the-trauma-of-jury-duty/393479/
Figley, C. R. (1995). Compassion fatigue: Coping with secondary traumatic stress disorder
in those who treat the traumatized. Brunner/Mazel.
Find Law (n.d.). What’s the difference between a grand jury and a trial jury?
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-law-basics/difference-between-grandjury-and-trial-jury.html
Fisher, D. D. V. (1991). An introduction to constructivism for social workers.
Praeger Publishers.
Follette, V. M., Polusney, M. M., & Milbeck, K. (1994). Mental health and law enforcement
professionals: Trauma history, psychological symptoms, and impact of providing
services to child sexual abuse survivors. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 25(3), 275-282. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.25.3.275
Fordwood, S. R. Asamow, J. R., Huizar, D. P., & Reise, S. P. (2007). Suicide attempts
among depressed adolescents in primary care. Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology, 36(3), 392-404. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374410701444355

180
Franklin, C. (1995). Expanding the vision of social constructionist debates: Creating
relevance for practitioners. Families in Society, 76(7), 305-406.
https://doi.org/10.1177/104438949507600702
Furman, R., Jackson, R. L., Downey, E., & Shears, J. (2003). Social constructivist practice
with youth. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 20(4), 263-275.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024504925017
Fusch, P., & Ness, L. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research.
Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1408. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2281
Gabrieballa, S. S., Schauer, M., Neuner, F., Saleptsi, E., Kluttig, T., Elbert, T., Hoffman, K.,
& Rochstroh, B. S. (2006). Traumatic events, PTSD, and psychiatric comorbidity in
forensic patients-assessed by questionnaires and diagnostic interview. Clinical
Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health, 2(7), 1-7.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-0179-2-7
Galea, S., Nandi, A., & Vlahov., D. (2005). The epidemiology of Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder after disasters. Epidemiologic Review, 27(1), 78-91.
https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxi003
Gastil, J., Black, L. W., Deess, E. P., & Leighter, J. (2008). From group member to
democratic citizen: How deliberating with fellow jurors reshapes civic attitudes.
Human Communication Research, 34(1), 137-169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14682958.2007.00316.x
Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford University Press.
Giorgi, A. (2009). The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology.
Duquesne University Press.

181
Goff, A., Rose, E., Rose, S., & Purves, D. (2007). Does PTSD occur in sentenced prison
populations? Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 17(1), 152-162.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.653
Government of BC (n.d.). Courthouse services.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/courthouse-services
Green, B. L., Krupnick, J. L., Chung, J., Siddique, J., Krause, E. D., Revicki, D., Frank, L.,
& Miranda, J. (2006). Impact of PTSD comorbidity on one-year outcomes in a
depression trial. Clinical Psychology, 62(7), 815-835. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20279
Green, B. L., & Lindy, J. D. (1994). Post-traumatic stress disorder in victims of disasters.
Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 17(2), 301-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193953X(18)30116-3
Gulin, S. (2017). Predictors of vicarious traumatization among trauma clinicians and
general mental health providers: A comparison [Doctoral dissertation]. Virginia
Commonwealth University.
Hamner, M. B. (2014). The role of PTSD in adjudicating violent crimes. Journal of Law,
Medicine & Ethics, 42(2), 155-160. https://doi.org/10.1111/jlme.12131
Hidalgo, R. B., & Davidson, J. R. (2000). Posttraumatic stress disorder: Epidemiology and
health-related considerations. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 61(7), 5-13.
Hinton, D. E., & Good, B. J. (2016). Culture and PTSD: Trauma in global and historical
perspective. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hobbs, M., Mayou, R., Harrison, B., & Worlock, P. (1996). A randomised controlled trial of
psychological debriefing for victims of road traffic accidents. British Medical Journal,
313(7070), 1438–1439. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.313.7070.1438

182
Holloway, I. (1997). Basic concepts for qualitative research. Blackwell Science.
Horowitz, M. J. (1986). Stress response syndromes. A review of posttraumatic and
adjustment disorders. Psychiatric Services, 37(3), 241-249.
https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.37.3.241
Hough, M., Roberts, J. (2012). Public opinion, crime and criminal justice. In M. Maguire, R.
Morgain, & R. Reiner (Eds.), The oxford handbook of criminology (5th ed. pp. 279300). Oxford University Press.
Houston, S. (2001). Beyond social constructivism: Critical realism and social work. British
Journal of Social Work, 31(6), 845-861. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/31.6.845
Houts, A. (2000). Fifty years of psychiatric nomenclature: Reflections on the 1943 war
department technical bulletin, Medical 203. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56(7),
935-967. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(200007)56:7<935::AIDJCLP11>3.0.CO;2-8
Huber, R. (2008). Coping styles that predict lower juror stress. Theses and Dissertations, 172.
Husserl, E. (1989). The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology: An
introduction to phenomenological philosophy. Northwestern University Press.
Informed Citizens Don't Balk at Jury Service. (1956). Saturday Evening Post, 229(8), 10.
Jaffe, P. G., Crooks, C. V., Dunford-Jackson, B. L., Town, M. (2009). Vicarious trauma in
judges: The personal challenge of dispensing justice. Juvenile Family Court, 53(4), 1-9.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-6988.2003.tb00083.x
Jenkins, S., & Baird, R. (2002). Secondary traumatic stress and vicarious trauma: A
validational study. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15(5), 423-432.

183
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020193526843
Kaplan, S. M. (1985). Death, so say we all. Psychology Today, 19(7), 48-53.
Kaplan, S. M., & Winget, C. (1992). The occupational hazards of jury duty, The Bulletin of
the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 20(3), 325-333.
Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (2013). The American jury on trial: Psychological
perspectives. Taylor & Francis.
Kelley, J. E. (1994). Addressing juror stress: A trial judge’s perspective. Drake Law Review,
43, 97-125.
Kessler, R. C., Sonnega, A. S., Bromet., E., Hughes, M., & Nelson, C. B. (1995).
Posttraumatic stress disorder in the national comorbidity survey. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 52(12), 1048-1060. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1995.03950240066012
Kessler, R. C., Crum, R., Warner, L., Nelson, C., Schulenberg, K., & Anthony, J. (1997).
Lifetime co-occurrence of DSM-111-R alcohol abuse and dependence with other
psychiatric disordersin the national comorbidity survey. Archives of General Psychiatry,
54(4), 313-321. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1997.01830160031005
Kessler, R. C., & Wang, P. S. (2008). The descriptive epidemiology of commonly occurring
mental disorders in the United States. Annual review of public health, 29(1), 115–129.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.020907.090847
Klein, P., & Westcott, M. R. (1994). The changing character of phenomenological
psychology. Canadian Psychology, 35(2), 133-158. https://doi.org/10.1037/07085591.35.2.133
Kotler, M., Iancu, I., Efroni, R., & Amir, M. (2001). Anger, impulsivity, social support, and
suicide risk in patients with posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Nervous & Mental

184
Disease, 189(3), 162–167. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-200103000-00004
Koch, T., & Harrington, A. (1998). Reconceptualizing rigour: The case for reflexivity.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(4), 882-890. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.13652648.1998.00725.x
Krakauer, R. L., Stelnicki, A. M., Carleton R. N. (2020). Examining mental health
knowledge, stigma, and service use intentions among public safety personnel. Frontiers
in Psychology, 11, 949-949. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00949
Kross, E., & Ayduk, O. (2017). Self-distancing: Theory, research and current directions. In J.
Olson & M. Zanna (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 81–136).
Academic Press.
Krysinka, K., & Lester, D. (2010). Post-traumatic stress disorder and suicide risk: A
systematic review. International Academy for Suicide Research, 14(1), 1-23.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13811110903478997
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). University of Chicago
Press.
Kyron, M., J., Rees, C. S., Lawrence, D., Carleton, R. N., & McEvoy, P. M. (2021).
Prospective risk and protective factors for psychopathology and wellbeing in civilian
emergency services personnel: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders,
281(February), 517-532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.12.021
LeVasseaur, J. J. (2003). The problem of bracketing in Phenomenology. Qualitative Health
Research, 13(3), 408-420. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732302250337
Lifton, R. J. (1988). Understanding the traumatized self: Imagery, symbolization, and
transformation. In Wilson, J. P. Harel, Z., & Kahana, B. (Eds), Human adaptation to

185
extreme Stress: From the holocaust to Vietnam. Plenum Press.
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2006). Stigma and its public health implications. The Lancet,
367(9509), 528-529. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68184-1
Levin, A. P. & Greisberg, S. (2003). Vicarious trauma in attorneys. Pace Law Review, 245.
https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1189&context=plr
Lockenhoff, C. E., Terracciano, A., Patriciu, N. S., Eaton, W. W., Costa Jr., P. T. (2009).
Self-reported extremely adverse life events and longitudinal changes in Five-Factor
Model personality traits in an urban sample. Journal of Traumatic Stress 22(1), 53–59.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20385.
Lonergan, M., Leclerc, M.-ève, Descamps, M., Pigeon, S., & Brunet, A. (2016). Journal of
criminal justice prevalence and severity of trauma- and stressor-related symptoms
among jurors: A review. Journal of Criminal Justice, 47(December), 51–61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.07.003
MacFarlane, A. C., Atchison, M., Rafalowicz, E., & Papay, P., (1994). Physical symptoms in
post-traumatic stress disorder. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38(7), 715–726.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(94)90024-8
Macpherson, S. (2014). Why do we ask jurors to promise that they will do the impossible?
Thejuryexpert.com, 26(1), 33-35.
Mactavish, J. & Schleien, S. J. (2000). Beyond qualitative and quantitative data link: An
example from a mixed methods study of family recreation. Therapeutic Recreation
Journal, 34(2), 154-163.
Maloney, E., Degenhardt, L., Darke, S., et al. (2007). Suicidal behaviour and associated risk

186
factors among opioid-dependent individuals. Addiction, 102(12), 1933–1941.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01971.x
Marks, M., Cunningham, A., & Bowers, C. (2018). Finding control in the chaos: A case for
mindfulness in the dispatch center. Annals of Emergency Dispatch & Response, 6(2),
5-10.
Marmar, C.R., McCaslin, S.E., Metzler, T.J., Best, S., Weiss, D.S., Fagan, J., Liberman, A.,
Pole, N., Otte, C., Yehuda, R., Mohr, D., Neylan, T. (2006). Predictors of
posttraumatic stress in police and other first responders. In: R., Yehuda (Ed.), (2006).
Psychobiology of posttraumatic stress disorders: A decade of progress., (pp. 1-18).
Blackwell Publishing.
Marshall, R. D., Olfson, M., Hellman, F., Blanco, C., Gaurdino, M., & Struening, E. L.
(2001). Comorbidity, impairment, and suicide in subthreshold PTSD. The American
Journal of Psychiatry, 158(9), https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.158.9.1467
Mason, M. (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews.
Forum, Qualitative Social Research, 11(3), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs11.3.1428
Mattison, T. M. (2012). Vicarious Trauma. Institute for court management ICM fellows
program. https://www.ncsc.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0023/15935/vicarioustrauma.pdf
Mayoh, J., Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2015). Toward a conceptualization of mixed methods
phenomenological research. Journal of Mixed Methods, 9(1), 91-107.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689813505358
Mazza, J. J. (2000). The relationship between post- traumatic stress symptomatology and

187
suicidal behavior in school-based adolescents. Suicide & Life-Threatening Behavior,
30, 91–103.
McAuliff, B. D., & Bornstein, B. H. (2012). Beliefs and expectancies in legal decision
making: An introduction to the Special Issue. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18(1),
https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2011.641557
McCann, I. L., & Pearlman, L. A. (1990). Vicarious traumatization: A framework for
understanding the psychological effects of working with victims. Journal of
Traumatic Stress, 3(1), 131-149. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00975140
McCormack, L., & Thomson, S. (2017). Complex trauma in childhood, a psychiatric
diagnosis in adulthood: Making meaning of a double-edged
phenomenon. Psychological Trauma, 9(2), 156-165.
https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000193
McFarlane, A. C., & Bookless, C. A. (2001). Posttraumatic stress disorder in a general
psychiatric inpatient population. Journal of Trauma Stress, 14(4), 633-645.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013077702520
McGrath, T., & Ryan, S. (2004). Criminology research council subgroup on juror stress and
debriefing. Griffith: Criminology Research Council.
http://www.criminologyresearchcouncil.gov.au/reports/2004-06-29-JurorsConf2.pdf
Meyer, E.C., Zimering, R., Daly, E., Knight, J., Kamholz, B.W., Gulliver, S.B. (2012).
Predictors of posttraumatic stress disorder and other psychological symptoms in
trauma-exposed firefighters. Psychological Services 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1037
/a0026414.
Michalopoulos, L. M., & Aparicio, E. (2012). Vicarious trauma in social workers: The role

188
of trauma history, social support, and years of experience. Journal of Aggression,
Maltreatment & Trauma, 21(6), 646-664.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2012.689422
Miller, L. (2008). Juror stress: Symptoms, syndromes, and solutions. International Journal of
Emergency Mental Health, 10(3), 203-218.
Miller, M. K., Maskaly, J., Green, M., & Peoples, C. D. (2011). The effects of deliberations
and religious identity on mock jurors’ verdicts. Group Processes and Intergroup
Relations, 14, 517–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210377458
Mills, K. L., Mcfarlane, A. C., Slade, T., Creamer, M., Silove, D., Teesson, M., & Bryant, R.
(2011). Assessing the prevalence of trauma exposure in epidemiological surveys.
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 45(5), 407–415.
https://doi.org/10.3109/00048674.2010.543654
Ministry of the Attorney General. (2018). General information about jury duty. Retrieved
from:
https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/courts/jury/general_jury_duty_inf
o.pp
Ministry of Justice (2014). Jury duty.
http:www.ag.gov.bc.ca/courtns.jury_duty/info.you_the_juror.htm
Mitchell, J. T., & Everly, G. S. Jr. (1998). Critical indident stress management: A new era in
crisis intervention. International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, 6–11.
Mojtabai R, Olfson M, Sampson N, Jin R, Druss B, Wang P, Wells K, Pincus H, Kessler R
(2011). Barriers to mental health treatment: results from the National Comorbidity
Survey Replication. Psychological Medicine, 41(8), 1754–1761.

189
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291710002291
Molnar, B. E., Sprang, G., Killian, K. D., Gottfried, R., Emery, V., & Bride, B. E. (2017).
Advancing science and practice for vicarious traumatization/secondary traumatic stress:
A research agenda. Traumatology, 23(2), 129-142. https://doi.org/10.1037/trm0000122
Monson, E., Lonergan, M., Caron, J., & Brunet, A. (2015). Assessing trauma and
posttraumatic stress disorder: Single, open-ended question versus list-based inventory.
Psychological Assessment, 28(8), 1001–1008. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000223
Monsonyi, S. (2017). Sentencing guidelines for Canada: A re-evaluation. Canadian Criminal
Law Review, 22, 3. http://prxy.lib.unbc.ca/login?url=https://www-proquestcom.prxy.lib.unbc.ca/scholarly-journals/sentencing-guidelines-canada-reevaluation/docview/1951087256/se-2?accountid=14601
Montgomery, A. (2017). The invisible injured. McGill-Queen’s University Press
Moran, D. (2000). Introduction to phenomenology. Routledge.
Morse, J. M. (1994). Designing funded qualitative research. In Norman K. Denzin &
Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 220-35).
Sage.
Moyah, J., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2015). Toward a conceptualization of mixed methods
phenomenological research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(1), 91-107.
http://doi.10.1177/1558689813505358
Mullaly, R. P. (1997). Structural social work: Ideology, theory, and practice. Oxford
University Press.
Myers, T. W., & Cornille, T. A. (2002). The trauma of working with traumatized children. In
E. Figley (Ed.), Treating compassion fatigue. Bruner/Mazel.

190
National Center for PTSD (2020, July 12). PTSD Checklist for DSM-5.
https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/assessment/adult-sr/ptsd-checklist.asp
Nelson-Gardell, D., & Harris, D. (2003). Childhood abuse history, secondary traumatic
stress, and child welfare workers. Child Welfare, 82(1), 5–26.
Nordgren, J. C., & Thelen, M. W. (1999). Helping jurors manage stress: A multilevel
approach. Judicature, 82(6), 256-264.
North, C. S., Kawasaki, A., Spitznagel, E. L., Hong, B. A., (2004). The course of PTSD,
major depression, substance abuse, and somatization after a natural disaster. Journal of
Nervous and Mental Disease, 192(12), 823–829.
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.nmd.0000146911.52616.22
North C.S., Suris, A.M., Davis, M., & Smith, R.P. (2009). Toward validation of the
diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder. American. Journal of Psychiatry, 166(1),
34–41. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.08050644
O’Conner, S. D. (2003). The majesty of the law: Reflections of a supreme court justice.
Random House.
Oquendo, M. A., Friend, J. M., Halberstam, B., et al. (2003). Association of comorbid
posttraumatic stress disorder and major depression with greater risk for suicidal
behavior. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160(3), 580–582.
https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.160.3.580
Opheim, J. P. (2004). The relative contributions of types of forensic evidence to post-trial
stress in jurors [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Alliant International University.

191
Ozer, E.J., Best, S.R., Lipsey, T.L., Weiss, D.S. (2003). Predictors of posttraumatic stress
disorder and symptoms in adults: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 129(1), 52-73.
http://doi.org.10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.52
Pai, A., Suris, A. M., & North, C. S. (2017). Posttraumatic stress disorder in the DSM-5:
controversy, change, and conceptual considerations. Behavioral Sciences (Basel,
Switzerland), 7(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs7010007
Palmer, E. A. (2005a). Variables influencing the vicarious trauma of jurors in criminal cases
[Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Victoria University of Wellington.
Palmer, R. J. (2005b). Juror stress and traumatisation: Issues for criminal justice policy and
practice [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Victoria University of Wellington.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage
Publications.
Payne, M. (2005). Modern social work theory (3rd ed.). Lyceum Books.
Pearlman, L. A., & Ian, P. S. (1995). Vicarious traumatization: An empirical study of the
effects of trauma work on trauma therapists. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 26(6), 558–565. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.26.6.558
Pearlman, L. A., & Saakvitne, K. W. (1995). Trauma and the therapist: Countertransference
and vicarious traumatization in psychotherapy with incest survivors. Norton.
Pearson, C., Janz, T., & Ali, J. (2013). "Mental and substance use disorders in Canada"
health at a glance. Statistics Canada, 82-624.
Peck, B. (2014). The history and Tyranny of the DSM.
http://psychologytomorrowmagazine.com/history-tyranny-dsm/
Phillips, K. A., Coles, M. E., Menard, W., et al. (2005). Suicidal ideation and suicide

192
attempts in body dysmorphic disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 66(6), 717–
725. https://doi.org/10.4088/jcp.v66n0607
Pimlott Kubiak, S. (2004). The effects of PTSD on treatment adherence, drug relapse, and
criminal recidivism in a sample of incarcerated men and women. Research on Social
Work Practice, 14(6), 424-433. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731504265837
Pinheiro, M., Mendes, D., Mendes, T., Pais, J., Cabral, T., & Rocha, J. (2016). Importance of
C-PTSD symptoms and suicide attempt. European Psychiatry, 33(1),
http://doi.org/10.106/j.eurpsy.2016.01.523
Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Brief note on the origins, evolution, and meaning of the qualitative
research concept thick description. The Qualitative Report, 11(3), 538-579.
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2006.1666
Powers, B. A. (2010). Dictionary of nursing theory and research (4th ed.). Springer
Publishing.
Previl, S. (2019). Jurors with PTSD advocate for great mental health support during, after
trials. Global News. https://globalnews.ca/news/5363654/jury-duty-ptsd-mentalhealth-support-canada/
PTSD: National Center for PTSD. (2016). Epidemiology of PTSD.
http://www.ptsd.va.gov./professional/PTSD-overview/epidemiological-facts-ptsd.asp
Raskin, J. D., & Bridges, S.K. (2004). Studies in meaning2: Bridging the personal and the
social.http://www.taosinstitute.net/Websites/taos/Images/ResourcesManuscripts/McN
amee%20
-Relational_Bridges_Between_Constructionism_and_Constructivism.pd
Reid, A. (1999). Canadians’ views on mercy killing. Angus Reid Survey, 12,(1).

193
Regehr, C., & Glancy, G. (2014). Mental Health Social Work Practice in Canada. (2nd ed).
Oxford Press.
Ricciardelli, R., Carleton, R. N., Groll, D., & Cramm, H. (2018). Qualitatively unpacking
canadian public safety personnel experiences of trauma and their well-being.
Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 60(4), 566-577.
https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.2017-0053.r2
Ricciardelli, R., Czarnuch, S., Afifi, T. O., Taillieu, T., & Carleton, R. N. (2020). Public
safety Personnel’s interpretations of potentially traumatic events. Occupational
Medicine (Oxford), 70(3), 155-161. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqaa007
Roberts, J. V. (1988). Public opinion and sentencing. The surveys of the Canadian sentencing
commission. Department of Justice Canada.
Roberts, J. V. (2003). Public opinion and mandatory sentencing: A review of international
findings. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(4), 483508. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854803253133
Roberts, J. V., Crutcher, N., & Verbrugge, P. (2007). Public attitudes to sentencing in
Canada: Exploring recent findings. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal
Justice, 49(1), 75-107. https://doi.org/10.3138/U479-1347-3PL8-5887
Roberts, J. V., & Stalans, L. S. (1997). Public opinion, crime, and criminal justice.
Westview.
Robertson, N., Davies, G., & Nettleingham, A. (2009). Vicarious traumatisation as a
consequence of jury service, The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 48(1), 1–12.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2311.2008.00539
Rodriguez, A., & Smith, J. (2018). Phenomenology as a healthcare research method.

194
Evidence based Nursing, 21(4), 96-98. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2018-102990
Rose, S., Bisson, J., Churchill, R., & Wessely, S. (2009). Psychological debriefing for
preventing post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Cochrane Database of Systamatic
Reviews, 2(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000560
Rosen, G. M., Spitzer, R. L., & McHugh, P. R. (2008). Problems with the post-traumatic
stress disorder diagnosis and its future in DSM-5. The British Journal of Psychiatry,
192(1), http://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.107.043083
Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (1998). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative
research. Sage Publications.
Sadeh, N., & McNiel, D. E. (2015). Posttraumatic stress disorder increases risk of criminal
recidivism among justice-involved persons with mental disorders. Criminal Justice
Behaviour, 42(6), 573-586. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814556880
Sadock, B.J. & Sadock, V.A. (2003). Kaplan and Sadock’s Comprehensive Textbook of
Psychiatry. (7th Eds). Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.
Saunders, B., Sim, J., & Kingstone, T. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring
its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8
Scandlyn, j. n. (2012). The canon -3: The harmony of illusions: Inventing post-traumatic
stress disorder, by Allan Young. Anthropology & Medicine, 19(1), 129-131.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13648470.2012.660462
Schauben, L. J., & Frazier, P. A. (1995). Vicarious trauma: The effects on female counselors
of working with sexual violence survivors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19(1), 49–
64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1995.tb00278.x

195
Schuller, R., & Yarney, M. (2001). The jury: Deciding guilt or innocence. In R. Schuller & J.
Ogloff (Eds.), Introduction to psychology and law: Canadian perspectives (pp. 157–
187). University of Toronto Press.
Schuster, M. A., Stein, B. D., Jaycox, L., Collins, R. L., Marshall, G. N., Elliott, M. N.,
Zhou, A. J., Kanouse, D. E., Morrison, J. L., & Berry, S. H. (2001). A national survey
of stress reactions after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The New England
Journal of Medicine, 345(20), 1507–1512.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200111153452024
Schwandt, T. A. (2001). Understanding dialogue as practice. Evaluation, 7(2), 228-237.
https://doi.org/10.1177/13563890122209658
Scott, W. J. (1990). PTSD in DSM-III: A case in the politics of diagnosis and disease. Social
Problems (Berkeley, Calif.), 37(3), 294310. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.1990.37.3.03a00020
Seidman, S. (1998). Contested knowledge: Social theory in the postmodern era.
Blackwell.
Segal, M. W. (1986). The military and family as greedy institutions. Armed Forces &
Society, 3(1), 9-38. http://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X8601300101
Shorter, E. (1992). From paralysis to fatigue: A history of psychosomatic illness in the
modern era. Toronto: Free Press.
Shuman, D. W., Hamilton, J. A., Daley, C. E., & Behinfar, D. J. (1994). The health effects of
jury service. Law and Psychology Review, 18, 267–307.
Simon, R. J. (1975). The juror in New York City: Attitudes and experiences. American Bar
Association Journal, 61, 207-211.

196
Simonds, S. L. (1996). Vicarious traumatization in therapists treating adult survivors of
childhood sexual abuse [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The Fielding Institute.
Sinha, R. (2008). Chronic stress, drug use, and vulnerability to addiction. Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences, 1141(1), 105-130. http://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1441.030
Small, R., Lumley, J., Donohue, L., Potter, A., & Waldenstro M. U. (2000). Randomised
controlled trial of midwife led debriefing to reduce maternal depression after operative
childbirth. British Medical Journal, 321(7260), 1043–1047.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7268.1043
Speigelberg, H. (1982) The Phenomenological Movement – a Historical Introduction, 3rd
edn. Nijhof Publishers.
Stein, D. J., McLaughlin, K. A., Koenen, K. C., Atwoli, L., Friedman, M. J., Hill., E. D.,
…Kessler, R. C. (2014). DSM-5 and ICD-11 definitions of posttraumatic stress
disorder: Investigating “narrow” and “broad” approaches. Depression and Anxiety,
31(6), 494-505. http://doi.org/10.1002/da.22279
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
Summerfield, D. (2001). The invention of post-traumatic stress disorder and the social
usefulness of a psychiatric category. British Medical Journal, 322(7278), 95-98.
http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7278.95
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2006). A general typology of research designs featuring
mixed methods. Research in the Schools, 13(10), 12-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135007-9105-3
Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations

197
and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15(1), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1501_01
Thornton, L. K., Baker, A. L., Johnson, M. P., & Kay-Lambkin, F. J. K. (2011). Perceptions
of anti-smoking public health campaigns among people with psychotic disorders.
Mental Health and Sustance Use, 4(2), 105-115.
http://doi.org/10.1080/17523281.2011.555066
Ting, L., Jacobson, J. M., Sanders, S., Bridge, B. E., & Harrington, D. (2005). The secondary
traumatic stress scalce (STSS): Confirmatory factor analysis with a national sample of
mental health social workers. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment,
11(3-4), 177-194. https://doi.org/10.1300/J137v11n03_09
Trickey, D., Siddaway, A., Meiser-Stedman, L., & Field, A. (2012). A meta-analysis of risk
factors for posttraumatic stress disorder in children and adolescents. Clinical
Psychology Review, 32(2), 122-138. http://org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.12.001
Trippany, R. L., Kress, V. E. W., & Wilcoxon, S. A. (2004). Preventing vicarious trauma:
What counselors should know when working with trauma survivors. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 82(1), 31-37. http://doi.org/10.1002/j.15566678.2004.tb00283.x
Ullman, S. E., & Brecklin, L. R. (2002). Sexual assault history and suicidal behavior in a
national sample of women. Suicide & Life-Threatening Behavior, 32(2), 117–130.
https://doi.org/10.1521/suli.32.2.117.24398
Vogt, D., Smith, B. N., Fox, A. B., Amoroso, T., Taverna, E., & Schnurr, P. P. (2017).
Consequences of PTSD for the work and family quality of life of female and male U.S.
Afghanistan and Iraq war veterans. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology,

198
52(3), 341–352. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-016-1321-5
Vrklevski, L. P., & Franklin, J. (2008). Vicarious trauma: The impact on solicitors of
exposure to traumatic material. Traumatology, 14(1), 106.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1534765607309961
Walsh, D. M. J., Morrison, T. G., Conway, R. J., Rogers, E., Sullivan, F. J., & Groarke, A.
(2018). A model to predict psychological and health-related adjustment in men with
prostate cancer: The role of post traumatic growth, physical post traumatic growth,
resilience and mindfulness. Frontiers in Psychology 15(9), 136152. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A527689095/AONE?u=unorthbc&sid=summon&
xid=e439c2be
Wang, P. S., Angermeyer, M., Borges, G., Bruffaerts, R., Tat Chiu, W., DE Girolamo, G.,
Fayyad, J., Gureje, O., Haro, J. M., Huang, Y., Kessler, R. C., Kovess, V., Levinson,
D., Nakane, Y., Oakley Brown, M. A., Ormel, J. H., Posada-Villa, J., AguilarGaxiola, S., Alonso, J., Lee, S., … Ustün, T. B. (2007). Delay and failure in treatment
seeking after first onset of mental disorders in the World Health Organization's World
Mental Health Survey Initiative. World psychiatry: Official journal of the World
Psychiatric Association (WPA), 6(3), 177–185.
Webster, C. M., & Doob, A. N. (2015) US punitiveness ‘Canadian style’? Cultural values
and Canadian punishment policy. Punishment & Society, 17(3), 299-321.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474515590893
Wee, D. F., & Myers, D. (2002). Stress response of mental health workers following disaster:
The Oklahoma City bombing. In E. Figley (Ed.), Treating compassion fatigue.
Bruner/Mazel.

199
Weaks, K. A. (1999). Effects of treating trauma survivors: Vicarious trauma and style of
coping [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Texas Woman’s University.
Wessely, S., Rose, S., Bisson, J. (1997). Brief psychological interventions (‘debriefing’) for
treating immediate trauma-related symptoms and preventing post-traumatic stress
disorder. Cochrane Library, 1–17.
Wilson, J. P. (1994). The historical evolution of PTSD diagnostic criteria: From Freud to
DSM-IV. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 7(4), 681-698.
http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02103015
Wolff, C. F. (2011). The trial experience: Civic service vs. civil service. Institute for Court
Management. Northwest Judicial District.
Wunderlich, U., Bronisch, T., & Wittchen, H. U. (1998). Comorbidity patterns in adolescents
and young adults with suicide attempts. European Archives of Psychiatry & Clinical
Neuroscience, 248(2), 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004060050023
Yen, S., Shea, T., Pagano, M., et al. (2003). Axis I and Axis II disorders as predictors of
prospective suicide attempts. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112(3), 373–381.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.112.3.375
Young, A. (1995). The harmony of illusions: Inventing post-traumatic stress disorder.
Princeton University Press.
Young, A. & Breslau, N. (2016). The heterogeneity thesis. In D. E, Hinton & B.J. Good
(Eds). Culture and PTSD: Trauma in global and historical perspective (pp. 153-154).
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Young, C. M. (1999). Vicarious trauma in psychotherapists who work with physically or

200
sexually abused children [Unpublished doctoral dissertation] The California School
of Professional Psychology.

201
Appendix A: Information Letter/Consent Form

Information Letter / Consent Form
July 31, 2019
Jury Duty and PTSD

1. Who is conducting the study?
Primary Researcher:
Lisa Kyle
School of Health Sciences
University of Northern British Columbia
Prince George, BC V2N 4Z9
kylel@unbc.ca
250-613-3529
Research Supervisors:
Dr. Shannon Wagner
250-960-6320
shannon.wagner@unbc.ca
Dr. Glen Schmidt
glen.schmidt@unbc.ca

2. Purpose of Project
The purpose of this research is to understand the lived experiences of those who have served
as jurors within Canada, specifically related to trauma symptoms. Further, the aim is focused
on highlighting the need for an increase in juror support, specific to the needs of those who
experience trauma related symptoms. In addition, the proposed research seeks to add to the
existing body of knowledge on juror outcome following their service.
3. What will I be expected to do?
If you say ‘Yes’, here is how the study will be conducted:
- You will be asked to complete an online survey.
- After completion of the online survey, you will be asked to participate in a 1-2
hour interview.
o Participants will be asked to verify transcripts of interviews for accuracy.
This will provide the opportunity for participants to remove any
information statements they do not want included in the research.

202
-

While preferred, participation in both components of the research is not required
for participation.

4. Why are you being asked to take part in this research?
• You are being invited to take part in this research because you have served on a
criminal court case jury, in Canada.
• This research seeks to learn more about how to help people who have participated in
jury duty.
• This research will help us to learn about the support and services available to those
who serve on jury duty.
• This research will help us to understand some of the difficulties associated with
serving jury duty.
• Participation in this research is voluntary; participants can refuse to answer any
questions that make them feel uncomfortable.
• Participants have the right to withdraw from the research at any time. Any
information given up to that point will be withdrawn and securely destroyed.

5. Risks or benefits to participating in the project.
Possible risks:
This research is focused on traumatic symptoms and as such, risk for stress responses during
this research is possible. If this occurs, participants will be reminded that participation is
voluntary and that they can withdraw from the research at any time. Below, please find a list
of available counselling resources.
•
•

Risks may include emotional or psychological difficulties.
If, at any point in the research, you feel uncomfortable or upset and wish to end your
participation, please notify the researcher immediately and your wishes will be
respected. If you decide not to continue, any information collected up to that point
would not be included in the research. Any information collected will be destroyed.
• As you are legally bound not to discuss the details surrounding the deliberation
process, please focus our conversation on your experience as a juror, not details
specific to the case.
The following list provides contact information for available support services:
- Canada Suicide Prevention Services: Toll-free 1-833-456-4566 available 24/7.
- For resources in your community, you can contact the Canadian Mental Health
Association in your area. For contact information, please visit
https://cmha.ca/find-your-cmha and type in your postal. Contact information will
be displayed. You can also search for registered psychologists in your community
at http://www.crhspp.ca/emain.htm.
- Anxiety Canada: 250-620-0744, www.anxietycanada.com
- Clinics ***Please note these resources may be outside of your community
o British Columbia: S.U.C.C.E.S.S. 604-684-1628, www.successbc.ca
o Alberta: Distress Centre, 403-266-4357, www.distresscentre.com

203
o Saskatchewan: Crisis Line: 1-800-567-3334 / Saskatchewan Division
Canadian Mental Health Association:
https://sk.cmha.ca/documents/anxiety-disorders/
o Manitoba: The Anxiety Disorders Association of Manitoba: 204-9250600. www.adam.mb.ca
o Ontario: The psychological Trauma clinic at Mount Sinai Hospital: 416586-4800 ext. 4558. www.mountsinai.on.ca/care/psych/patientprograms/trauma-clinic
o Quebec: Quebec Division Canadian Mental Health Association:
http://acsmmontreal.qc.ca/ / 418-529-1899
o Newfoundland and Labrador: Canadian Mental Health Association,
www.cmhanl.ca, 709-737-4668.
o Prince Edward Island: PEI Division Canadian Mental Health Association
https://pei.cmha.ca/ / Helpline 1-800-218-2885
o New Brunswick: New Brunswick Division Canadian Mental Health
Association https://cmhanb.ca// Helpline 1-800-667-5005
o Nova Scotia: Halifax-Dartmouth Branch Canadian Mental Health
Association https://cmhahaldart.ca/ 1-888-429-8167
o Yukon: Mental Health Association of Yukon: www.mhayukon.com / 867456-4921
o Northwest Territories: Northwest Territories Division Canadian Mental
Health Association: 867-873-3190. Association of Psychologists of the
Northwest Territories: omegamarine@theedge.ca
o Nunavut: Kamatsiaqtut Helpline: 1-800-265-3333
Potential Benefits:
Your participation in this research will provide an opportunity for you to share your
experience as a juror. Additionally, future jurors benefit from what we learn from this
research.
6. Confidentiality and Data Storage.
• The interview will be audio recorded. Skype interviews will be audio-recorded.
• Although confidentiality cannot be guaranteed, your confidentiality will be respected.
Information that discloses your identity will not be released without your consent,
unless required by law. Pseudonyms will be used in the report and we will decide
together on a name that will be used.
• At any point in the study, if you reveal that there has been an incident that involves
abuse and/or neglect of a child (or that there is a risk of such occurring) please be
advised that the researcher must, by law, report this information to the appropriate
authorities. Further, the researcher is guided by the professional obligation (Canadian
Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics) to report imminent threat of harm to
yourself or another.
• A research assistant will have access to the raw interview data in order to transcribe
data verbatim.
• Subjects will not be identified by name in any reports of the completed research.
• Only the researcher and her supervisors will have access to these recordings.

204
•
•
•
•
•

Recordings will be stored in digital format on a password protected computer.
These recordings will only be used for the purposes of this research.
File sharing for transcription will occur via the use of sync.com. This maintains the
secure transfer of data to a research assistant.
Data from Survey Monkey is stored in Canada and aligns with the Research Ethics
Board standards for storage of information.
Data will be stored in perpetuity of the researcher’s association with UNBC utilizing
UNBC’s encrypted storage. Secure transfer of data will be maintained keeping with
current technology for data storage.

7. Study Results.
This research is being conducted in partial completion of a PhD Dissertation. Results from
this research will be included in a public document and may also be published in journal
articles and books.
A summary of findings will be emailed to participants who provide their email contact
information.
Results of the study may also be shared with provincial and federal governments in an
attempt to legitimize support services for jurors. Further, results may be shared with nonprofit organizations such as the Ontario based Juror Support Program. Sharing of results will
be done so with the intention of best supporting future jurors.
8. Questions, Concerns or Complaints about the project.
If you have any concerns or complaints about your rights as a research participant and/or
your experiences while participating in this study, contact the UNBC Office of Research at
250-960-6735 or by e-mail at reb@unbc.ca
9. Participant Consent and Withdrawal.
Taking part in this study is entirely up to you. You have the right to refuse to participate in
this study. If you decide to take part, you may choose to pull out of the study at any time
without giving a reason and without any negative impact to you.
CONSENT
I have read or been described the information presented in the information letter about the
project:
YES

NO

I have had the opportunity to ask questions about my involvement in this project and to
receive additional details I requested.
YES

NO

I understand that if I agree to participate in this project, I may withdraw from the project at
any time up until the report completion, with no consequences of any kind. I have been
given a copy of this form.

205

YES

NO

I agree to be recorded.
YES

NO

Follow-up information (e.g. transcription) can be sent to me at the following e-mail:
YES

NO

Signature:
Name of Participant (Printed):
Date:

206
Appendix B: Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement
Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement
This study, Jury Duty and PTSD, is being undertaken by Lisa Kyle at the University of
Northern British Columbia “UNBC”. The study’s primary objective is:
1. To examine the lived experiences of jurors with respect to jury duty related traumatic
stress.
2. To explore the unmet needs of those jurors experiencing jury duty related traumatic
stress.
Data from this study will be represented in a public dissertation document. Findings may be
published in academic journal articles.
I, (name of recipient) (the “Recipient”), agree as follows:
1. To keep all the research information shared with me confidential by not discussing or
sharing the research information in any form or format (e.g. disks, tapes, transcripts)
with anyone other than the Principal Investigator(s);
2. To keep all research information in any form or format secure while it is in my
possession;
3. I will not use the research information for any purpose other than to transcribe
interview recordings;
4. To return all research information in any form or format to the Principal Investigator(s)
when I have completed the research tasks;
5. After consulting with the Principal Investigator(s), erase or destroy all research
information in any form or format regarding this research project that is not returnable
to the Principal Investigator(s) (e.g. information stored on computer hard drive).
Recipient

(Print name)

(Signature)

(Date)

(Signature)

(Date)

Principal Investigator:

(Print name)

If you have any questions or concerns about this study, please contact:
Lisa Kyle, PhD Candidate
kylel@unbc.ca

207
Appendix C: Survey Questions
Please provide your email:
1. What is your age?
A) 18-24
B) 25-34
C) 35-44
D) 45-54
E) Over 55
2. What is your sex?
A) Male
B) Female
C) Other (please specify)
D) Prefer not to say
3. What is your ethnicity? (select all that apply)
A) Caucasian
B) Hispanic or Latino
C) Black/African
D) Indigenous
E) Southeast Asian (ex: Vietnamese)
F) South Asian (ex: East Indian)
G) West Asian (ex: Iranian)
H) Prefer not to answer
I) Other (Please specify)
4. What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed?
A) Less than high school diploma
B) High school diploma or equivalent
C) Bachelor’s degree
D) Master’s degree
E) Doctorate
F) Other (please specify)
5. What is your current employment status?
A) Employed full-time (35+ hours per week)
B) Employed part-time (less than 35 hours per week)
C) Unemployed (currently looking for work)
D) Unemployed (not currently looking for work)
E) Student
F) Retired
G) Self-employed
H) Unable to work

208
I) Other (please specify)
6. What is your marital status?
A) Single (never married)
B) Married
C) Common-law
D) Divorced
E) Widowed
F) Other (Please specify/ explain)
7. What is your household income?
A) Below 25,000
B) 25,000-39,000
C) 49,000-59,000
D) 60,000-79,000
E) 80,000-99,000
F) 100,000-150,000
G) Over 150,000
H) Other (Please specify, explain)
8. Please list the city in which you currently live.
9. Do you have children living in your home?
A) None
B) 1
C) 2
D) 3
E) 4
F) 5 or more
G) Other (Please specify/explain)
10. How many times have you served jury duty? (Blank box)
11. What type of trial(s) did you serve? (Blank box)
12. Did the trial(s) in which you served reach a verdict?
a) Yes
b) No
c) If you served on more than one trial, please specify if different results
for each. (Blank box)
13. How long was/were the trial(s) in which you served jury duty? (Blank box)
14. How long were you sequestered? (Blank box)
15. Have you ever received treatment for emotional distress or mental illness?
a) Yes
b) No

209
16.b. (If yes), please specify reason:
PCL-5 Instructions: Below is a list of problems that people sometimes have in response to a
very stressful experience. Please read each problem carefully and then circle one of the
numbers to the right to indicate how much you have been or were bothered by that problem
when your symptoms were most severe.

210
Appendix D: Interview Guide
1) What was your overall experience like as a juror?
2) Tell me about some of the practical difficulties you faced associated with jury duty?
a. Probe: Financial burden, childcare, impact to family, impact to work-life,
transportation to court house.
3) What type of reactions did you experience as a juror?
a. Probe: Flashbacks, changes to sleep, changes in behaviour such as eating
patterns/avoidance, changes to mood, increase in civic engagement, increased
knowledge of Criminal Justice System.
b. Probe for meaning: Of the things you have discussed, what had the biggest
impact on you? Why?
4) When did it start? Has it had a prolonged impact?
5) What do you think contributed to the response that you had?
a. Probe: Trial content, link between past personal experiences and victim’s
experience, deliberation/sequestration, contact with accused’s family, finding
an individual guilty, role of media.
b. Probe to seek meaning: For example: What do you think had the biggest
contributing impact to you? Why?
6) What did you need to mitigate any negative effect(s)?
a. Probe: Support from family, coping strategies, support from within Criminal
Justice system via information or support services, seeking support from
medical professional/counsellor following trial?
b. Probe to seek meaning: For example: What do you think was most effective in
mitigating these negative effects? Why?
7) Has jury duty had any lasting positive impacts? If so, please explain.
a. Probe: Civic duty/pride, knowledge about Criminal Justice System,
connections with other jurors, compassion for accused/victim and families.
8) What do you think could have been done differently by the Criminal Justice System
(if anything) to help mitigate any negative effect(s)?
a. Probe: Before, during, and after trial.
9) How did the Criminal Justice System support you during your time as a juror?
a. Probe: Financial compensation, breaks during trial, minimizing contact with
accused’s family, counselling following service.
10) What was the most effective support you received from within the Criminal Justice
System and why?
a. Probe: Based on answers in previous question.
11) What stands out most to you when you think about your time as a juror?
a. Probe will be specific to each answer but will seek to gain more general
information about the meaning associated to juror’s experience/distress.
12) Is there anything further that you would like to share with me?