The effects of jury size, evidence complexity, and note taking on jury process and performance in a civil trial

A total of 567 jury-eligible men and women who were assigned to 6- or 12-person juries saw a videotaped civil trial that contained either I or 4 plaintiffs. Half the juries took notes, whereas the remainder did not. Six-person juries that did not take notes awarded multiple plaintiffs the highest amounts of compensation. Six-person juries also gave the highest punitive damages when they did not take notes and judged multiple plaintiffs. The punitive awards of 6-person juries were highly variable compared with 12-person juries. Multiple plaintiffs also increased the unpredictability of jury punitive awards. Twelve-person juries deliberated longer, recalled more probative information, and relied less than 6-person juries on evaluative statements and nonprobative evidence. Limitations and implications are discussed.     

The promise of a cognitive perspective on jury deliberation

Despite much psychological research regarding jury decision making, surprisingly little is known about the deliberation process that gives rise to jury verdicts. We review classic jury decision-making research regarding the importance of deliberation and more recent research, investigating deliberation and hung juries, that challenges the view that deliberation does not have an important impact on verdicts. We advocate greater attention to potential cognitive processes during deliberation that might explain the transition between predeliberation preferences and a jury’s ultimate verdict. We then review cognitive work in the group context generally, and the jury context specifically, illustrating the promise of a cognitive perspective on jury deliberation. Finally, we identify cognitive phenomena likely to be particularly valuable in illuminating deliberation behavior.     

In Search of Causes of Hung Juries

A major problem facing the jury system is the hung jury. Several solutions have been proposed i.e., to minimize the decision rule, to create mixed juries, or to give the jury the 'dynamite' instructions. Nevertheless, no efforts have been made to determine the underlying causes of a hung jury. This paper presents an empirical study of hung versus unanimous juries in terms of the deliberation style and content. It suggests ways of avoiding hung juries.     

Race,fairness, and jury selection

The Supreme Court in recent years has made efforts to change the demographic composition of juries. These effects are in part explainable on the basis of fairness to prospective jurors; but the Court also suggests that the demographic composition of the jury is important to the fairness of the trial. In some respects fairness may be improved by a jury demographically close to the defendant, while in other respects it may be improved by a diverse jury or a jury representative of the community. These effects occur only if there are real differences among demographic groups; however, the existence of such differences precludes the simultaneous achievement of both types of effects. Further, random selection of jurors prevents the optimization of either set of effects. I conclude that recent changes in jury selection law do not improve the fairness of the trial process, but only the appearance of fairness.     

On racial diversity and group decision making: identifying multiple effects of racial composition on jury deliberations

This research examines the multiple effects of racial diversity on group decision making. Participants deliberated on the trial of a Black defendant as members of racially homogeneous or heterogeneous mock juries. Half of the groups were exposed to pretrial jury selection questions about racism and half were not. Deliberation analyses supported the prediction that diverse groups would exchange a wider range of information than all-White groups. This finding was not wholly attributable to the performance of Black participants, as Whites cited more case facts, made fewer errors, and were more amenable to discussion of racism when in diverse versus all-White groups. Even before discussion, Whites in diverse groups were more lenient toward the Black defendant, demonstrating that the effects of diversity do not occur solely through information exchange. The influence of jury selection questions extended previous findings that blatant racial issues at trial increase leniency toward a Black defendant.     

Gender effects on individual verdicts and on mock jury verdicts in a Simulated Acquaintance Rape Trial

Since more women than men college students vote guilty in a simulated acquaintance rape trial [e.g., G. J. Fischer (1991) “Cognitive predictors of not-guilty verdicts in a Simulated Acquaintance Rape Trial,”Psychological Reports, Vol. 68, pp. 1199–1206], guilty mock jury verdicts were expected to increase as a function of the number of women on the jury (i.e., 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12). However, guilty verdicts did not increase significantly until either females were an overwhelming majority (i.e., 10 women to 2 men) or the jury was all female. Even in the latter conditions, guilty verdicts were fewer than would be expected based on the 86% of women and 66% of men voting guilty on a survey completed after reading about the trial, but before serving on a jury. Although a very large majority of females were needed to increase guilty verdicts, a majority appeared to lessen the likelihood of not guilty verdicts. For example, when a majority of jurors were female, 0/18 hung juries leaned toward a not guilty verdict vs. 11/34 juries leaning toward a not guilty verdict when less than or equal to one half of the jurors were female. Most of the students were White (85%), with 4% Asian, 3.2% Black, 3.2% Hispanic, and 4% “Other.”     

A comparison of students' and jury panelists' decision-making in split recovery cases

This study was designed to assess jury decision-making for 289 participants reading a medical malpractice vignette as a function of participant type (undergraduate students or jury panelists), punitive damage award apportionment (none, half, or all to the plaintiff), and compensation previously assigned to the plaintiff (low, medium, or high). We found several sample differences. Overall, jury panelists awarded more money for punitive damages. Jury panelists were also more affected by compensatory-relevant information when making punitive decisions, including assigning punitive damages and rating the fairness of the traditional apportionment scheme, where the plaintiff receives all of the money. Compared with students, more jury panelists were in favor of the plaintiff receiving the entire punitive award. Most students endorsed split recovery. The authors suggest that psycholegal research conducted solely with student samples, rather than community members, may misestimate the likely behavior of actual juries. The implications of the study for split recovery policy are also discussed.     

The cognitive effects of jury aids on decision‐making in complex civil litigation

Two hundred seventy nine individuals served as mock jury members in a civil trial that involved multiple plaintiffs and several expert witnesses. Juries were or were not provided with written summary statements of the testimony of expert scientific witnesses, and were either permitted or not permitted to take notes. The results showed that the combination of summary statements and note‐taking had a synergistic effect on the quality of decision‐making. Mock juries enabled by both cognitive aids provided significantly higher awards, as compared to mock juries aided by one or none of the jury‐aids, to the most severely injured plaintiffs without increasing compensation for those less worthy. Aided mock juries also recalled more probative evidence than non‐aided jurors, and were more satisfied with the efficacy of their deliberations. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Bias in Jurors vs Bias in Juries: New Evidence from the SDS Perspective

Prior research by Kaplan and Miller (1978) suggested that juries are generally influenced less by extralegal, biasing information than individual jurors are. A social decision scheme (SDS) analysis of this question by Kerr, MacCoun, and Kramer (1997) suggested (a) that Kaplan and Miller's conclusion should hold only for relatively extreme legal cases (i.e., cases where the probability of conviction, without biasing information, was either very high or very low) and (b) that the opposite pattern should hold for moderate cases (with moderate conviction rates)—i.e., juries should show even greater sensitivity to biasing information than should individual jurors. An experiment is reported that compared juror vs jury sensitivity to biasing information (viz., prejudicial pretrial publicity) for versions of a legal case with a moderate and an extreme conviction rate. Consistent with the SDS analysis, juries were more biased than jurors for the moderate-case version, but the reverse was true for the extreme-case version. The implications of these findings and the more general utility of the SDS model for studying group processes are discussed.     

Effects of Defendant Ethnicity on Juries' Dispositions of Felony Cases1

This research examined jury decisions in 317 noncapital felony cases in El Paso, Texas, and assessed the impact of juror ethnicity on jury trial outcomes. Results revealed that there was no relation between defendant ethnicity and the probability of conviction. Anglo American defendants, however, received sentences that were approximately twice as severe as Hispanic defendants. Sentences imposed by juries were significantly related to defendant ethnicity and type of crime for which they were tried. Sentences were also influenced by defendant ethnicity in interaction with jury ethnic composition. Important differences appeared when there was a critical mass of 6 or more Hispanics on juries. This study, using criminal court data, provides a unique opportunity to examine the utility of social psychological theories for understanding actual trial outcomes.     

Effects of prior juror experience on jury sentencing

The effect of prior juror service on jury sentencing was investigated in an archival study of 143 criminal trials resulting in convictions. Trials took place over two calendar years in a state circuit court requiring jurors to serve 30-day terms. Jurors sentenced defendants in each case according to a set of guidelines determined by trial judges. The severity of the sentences imposed by jurors was rated by 101 subjects on a scale of 1 (least severe) to 100 (most severe). The results indicated that the more experienced juries gave significantly more severe sentences than did the less experienced juries. This finding was unchanged when civil court experience was considered in addition to criminal court experience. Possible interpretations of these results are discussed.     

Ethnicity of Defendants and Jurors as Influences on Jury Decisions1

To assess the influence of ethnicity on jury decisions, 480 subjects viewed a videotaped trial of an Anglo or Hispanic defendant. Anglo or Hispanic majority 6-person juries deliberated until a unanimous verdict was reached. The juries that convicted the defendant were asked to determine sentence length and to provide a probation/ parole recommendation. Anglo majority juries convicted the defendant significantly more (M= 79%) than did the Hispanic majority juries (M= 52%), x²= 5.45, p < 0.02. No main effect of defendant ethnicity was obtained, but there was an interaction between the defendant and the jury's ethnicity, x²= 5.41, p < 0.02. Anglo majority juries were more lenient with the Anglo defendant, but the Hispanic majority juries did not differ in their conviction rates. No significant effects were obtained for sentence length. Differences in probation/parole recommendations were a function of jury ethnicity, F(l, 15) = 4.74, p < 0.05. Anglos were more likely to recommend that the defendant serve the full term of the sentence. These results are interpreted in terms of stereotyping and are discussed regarding their implications for a defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial.     

The Effects of Bifurcation and Death Qualification on Assignment of Penalty in Capital Crimes1

An experiment was conducted to test the effects of the bifurcated trial procedure and the death qualification process on sentencing and verdicts in death penalty cases. Forty-four 12-person juries, assigned to one of five trial conditions, returned verdicts indicating that death qualified, bifurcated juries gave the most severe verdicts and the highest proportion of guilty verdicts, while non-death qualified, trial only, juries returned the least severe verdicts and the highest proportion of not guilty or hung outcomes. Thirty-seven penalty phase juries, of which 20 had previously assigned guilt, were distributed among five penalty conditions. The sentencing data revealed that the most severe sentences were given by the death qualified, bifurcated juries. The least severe sentences were returned by the non-death qualified, bifurcated juries. Juries impaneled for the penalty phase only and death qualified meted out moderate sentences.     

Investigating jury bias in a child molestation case

Defendants in most criminal cases have a constitutional right to be tried by a jury, however they may waive that right and elect to be tried by a judge. In several states and the federal criminal system, waiver of a jury trial requires the consent of the prosecution. Based on a United States Supreme Court decision in Singer v. United States, a criminal defendant does not have a constitutional right to bench a trial, although the Court acknowledged that certain cases might exist in which “passion, prejudice … public feeling” or other factors might render an impartial trial by jury impossible or unlikely. The present article describes one attempt to prove the Singer exception because of strongly biased pretrial publicity in a Virginia child molestation case.     

Generational and age-based differences in attitudes towards jury service

Analysis of surveys of jurors, potential jurors, and the general public show significant differences in attitudes towards jury service by the age of the respondent. This study analyzes the degree to which these differences are the result of generational effects, in which younger citizens are likely to continue in their beliefs about jury service as they age, and the degree to which they are a result of a respondent's life circumstances-income, employment status, or family status-and are thus not likely to be carried with jurors as they age. The article shows that, while there are differences in confidence in the courts by age group, younger jurors are more confident in their own abilities to serve well as jurors but more skeptical of the court as a whole; most differences in attitudes towards jury service are linked to life-cycle phenomena. As such, courts should work to provide assistance to particular age groups within the jury pool, including child care and appropriate compensation, if they are to attract jurors who are representative by age of the general public.     

The Right to Trial by Jury

abstract Recently, the right to trial by jury has attracted a number of vociferous critics with deep reservations about the use of juries, most of whom are in favour of greatly restricting the use of juries with a minority desiring complete abolition. This article offers a justification for the continued use of jury trials. I shall critically examine the ability of juries to render just verdicts, judicial impartiality, and judicial transparency. My contention is that the judicial system that best satisfies these values is most preferable. Of course, these three values are not the only factors relevant for consideration. Empirical evidence demonstrates that juries foster both democratic participation and public legitimation of legal decisions regarding the most serious cases. Nevertheless, juries are costly and, therefore, economically less efficient than competing modes of trial. I do not argue that all human beings possess an inalienable legal right to be tried by a jury. However, it is my hope that this analysis will make clear what we might gainor lose when we propose jury reforms.     

Displayed emotions and witness credibility: a comparison of judgements by individuals and mock juries

Mock juries of 5–7 jurors viewed one of three video‐recorded versions of a rape victim's testimony, role‐played by a professional actress. The statement was given in a free‐recall manner with one of three kinds of emotions displayed, termed congruent, neutral and incongruent emotional expressions. The juries were requested to reach a decision on items in a short questionnaire, probing the perceived credibility of the witness and judgements of the probability of a guilty verdict. The jurors were then asked to complete the questionnaire a second time, individually and anonymously. A control group filled out the questionnaire individually without preceding jury deliberations. When participants judged credibility and guilt independently, without a preceding jury discussion, the displayed emotions strongly influenced the judgements. However, discussions in the context of the jury strongly attenuated the effect of displayed emotion, with judgements converging on the credibility of a neutral emotional expression as judged by independent participants, and the attenuating effect outlasted the jury‐situation. The results are consistent with research within social psychology showing that social stereotypes and prejudices are often neutralised by group discussions. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Jury decision making research: Are researchers focusing on the mouse and not the elephant in the room?

The concerns of jury research have extensively focused on subject selection, yet larger issues loom. We argue that observed differences between students and non-students in mock juror studies are inconsistent at best, and that researchers are ignoring the more important issue of jury deliberation. We contend that the lack of information on deliberating jurors and/or juries is a much greater threat to ecological validity and that some of our basic findings and conclusions in the literature today might be different if we had used juries, not non-deliberating jurors, as the unit of measure. Finally, we come full circle in our review and explore whether the debate about college and community samples might be more relevant to deliberating versus non-deliberating jurors.     

Treating People as Equals: Ethical Objections to Racial Profiling and the Composition of Juries

This paper shows that the problem of treating people as equals in a world marked by deep-seated and, often, recalcitrant inequalities has implications for the way we approach the provision of security and justice. On the one hand, it means that racial profiling will generally be unjustified even when it might promote collective interests in security, on the other, it means that we should strive to create racially mixed juries, even in cases where defendant and alleged-victim are of the same race. The paper examines a recent report on race and jury trials in the United Kingdom and concludes that, despite the author??s claims that all-white juries are fair, the data shows the complex ways in which racial differences are translated into unjustified and arbitrary inequalities. Hence, it concludes, racially mixed juries are desirable, and sometimes necessary for justice, though probably not sufficient.     

Group transformation: How demonstrability promotes intra-group cooperation in social dilemmas

Intra-group cooperation in a social dilemma is increased after a group has discussed and reached a decision, especially if the dilemma is easily understood (‘demonstrable’). This paper examines how demonstrability affects the decision of a group that consists entirely of participants who are initially non-cooperative. Thirty-eight 6-person groups with unanimous prior preference for cooperation or non-cooperation discussed a prisoner’s dilemma before making a group decision. When demonstrability was low groups reflected the prior (either cooperative or non-cooperative) preferences of their members. When demonstrability was high we found that groups showed no effect of prior preference. Specifically, groups of prior non-cooperators made more cooperative group decisions and subsequently their members remained cooperative when asked to express preferences individually. The combined advantages of group process and high demonstrability for facilitating optimal cooperation are discussed.