Jury Decision Making: Using Group Theory to Improve Deliberation

Abstract

Jury decision‐making process is usually protected from the prying eyes of the public and social scientists. Our knowledge of the experience comes mainly from mock juries, post‐verdict interviews, and occasional television documentaries. These methods have their limitations. Information about juries is currently driven by those few notorious trials, both criminal and civil, that attract high media attention. Unfortunately, that attention invites challenges to the ability of juries to make complex decisions and undermines the entire jury process. Group theory describes five special characteristics of successful group decision making: small size, purpose, identification, interaction, and accepted behavior. The author advocates that an understanding of group theory can help court officials improve the jury deliberation process by moving the deliberations to a higher level of reasoning and, consequently, improve the jury experience, the overall quality of jury decisions, and the public’s faith in those decisions. Specific suggestions for change are also included. No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. —Magna Carta (1215)

Information use in group decision making teams

“…This was also affected by the dynamic of certain groups. Shelton () similarly found group decision process can be affected by other variables which cause it to increase information sharing in some circumstances while decreasing it in others.…”

“…Carroll et al (2006) analyzed error reports and surveyed employees of nuclear power plants in order to find linkages between group decision making teams and quality. Finally, Shelton (2006) applied group theory to jury processes with the intention of improving jury decision quality. Bower (1965) used monetary rewards to influence the ways in which participants would share information.…”

“…Factors other than the seven most prominent discussed included: evaluation apprehension (Citera, 1998), cognitive load (Raghu et al, 2005), time scarcity (Reid et al, 1997), the group size (Shelton, 2006), vigilance (defined as explicit, consistent, conscious attention to decision making process) (McLeod, 2013), and cognitive ability (Devine, 1999).…”

“…It has been shown that information sharing positively impacts performance by Shelton (2006), van Ginkel et al (2009), and van Ginkel and van Knippenberg (2005. We identified six factors that were associated with increasing information sharing.…”

Board size and acquisition outcome: The moderating role of home country formal institutional development

“…Similarly, Manners () shows that group size and consensus among the group members are negatively related. Moreover, applying group decision‐making theory in the context of court trials, Shelton () argues that a smaller jury performs better in terms of reaching a consensus and accelerating the decision‐making process than a larger jury.…”