Examining Jurors: Applying Conversation Analysis to Voir Dire in Capital Cases, a First Look

O’Brien, Barbara; Grosso, Catherine M.; Taylor, Abijah

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3428712

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our review of the literature reveals virtually no empirical studies of the voir dire process using modern computational power. While there has been some utilization of conversational analysis to study voir dire (O'Brien et al, 2017), most empirical work studying discriminatory venire person removal looks at juror and potential juror's characteristics (race, gender, ethnicity, etc.) and does not include an in-depth analysis of the questioning of those removed from the jury pool (Baldus et al, 2012).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying disparate questioning of Black and White jurors in capital jury selection

Effenberger

Blume

Wells

2023

J Empirical Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous studies have demonstrated that female and Black jurors are under‐represented on juries in criminal cases, especially so when the prosecution seeks the death penalty. The primary, but not exclusive, way in which this happens is that prosecutors remove them from the jury pool through the exercise of peremptory challenges. The practice remains widespread despite the Supreme Court's decision more than 30 years ago holding that using such challenges in a racially (or gender based) discriminatory manner violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the years since, enforcement by the Supreme Court and state and federal courts has been uneven. However, in several recent cases, in finding that prosecutors struck Black venire persons because of their race, the Supreme Court relied in part on evidence that the prosecution questioned Black and White venire persons differently. The legal term of art for this practice is “disparate questioning.”

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%