The Influence of the Size and Decision Rule in Jury Decision-Making

Velasco, Patricia Barrera

doi:10.1515/9783110879483.344

Cited by 5 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the two jury sizes did not differ significantly on the item “opinions were systematically gathered from each juror on the major issues,” six‐person juries were more likely than 12‐person juries to report going around the table to gather input from all members both before the first vote ( t (177) = 1.94, p < 0.06) and after ( t (177) = 2.29, p = 0.02). This is consistent with a study by Velasco (1995) that reported greater participation levels in smaller juries.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Finally, Foley and Pigott (1997) noted that forepersons were seen as more influential than other jurors in the context of a mock civil jury trial. These findings in turn are consistent with reports that forepersons speak more often than other jurors (Velasco 1995), accounting for around 25 percent of the statements made by jurors during deliberation (Strodtbeck & Lipinski 1985). Thus, our findings extend the existing research on foreperson influence in civil juries and suggest that forepersons may also have notable influence on jury verdicts in criminal cases.…”

Section: The Impact Of Deliberationsupporting

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Deliberation Quality: A Preliminary Examination in Criminal Juries

Devine

Buddenbaum

Houp

et al. 2007

J Empirical Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large‐scale studies of the deliberation process in actual juries have been surprisingly rare, and relatively little attention has been devoted to how well juries deliberate. This study identified a set of process‐related criteria relevant to the quality of criminal jury deliberations and examined empirical relationships between indicators of these criteria and jury verdicts. Data were obtained via posttrial surveys from jurors and legal professionals associated with 179 criminal jury trials in Indiana. The quality of deliberations varied across the process criteria, with juries reportedly doing fairly well in terms of understanding their instructions and reviewing the evidence, but not as well with regard to systematically gathering input from their members, adopting an evidence‐driven deliberation style, and avoiding factionalism. Several deliberation variables were also strongly related to jury verdicts, particularly the foreperson's initial verdict stance and the emergence of an identifiable pro‐acquittal faction leader. Discussion of reasonable doubt and thoroughness of evidence review also tended to be negatively correlated with conviction even when strength of evidence was controlled. This study calls attention to the importance of deliberation quality.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: The Impact Of Deliberationsupporting

confidence: 91%

Deliberation Quality: A Preliminary Examination in Criminal Juries

Devine

Buddenbaum

Houp

et al. 2007

J Empirical Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Eleven studies have examined the impact of allowing juries to reach a verdict without consensus. Most of this research was conducted in the late 1970s and early 1980s, with only three studies on the topic since the early 1980s (i.e., J. H. Davis, Hulbert, Au, Chen, & Zarnoth, 1997;Kameda, 1991;Velasco, 1995). In general, two critical thresholds have been examined and compared with the requirement of unanimity, .67 (i.e., 4/6 or 8/12) and .83 (i.e., 5/6 or 10/12), and several consistent findings have emerged.…”

Section: Procedural Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups.

Devine¹,

Clayton²,

Dunford³

et al. 2001

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

380

331

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article provides a comprehensive review of the empirical research on jury decision making published between 1955 and 1999. In total, 206 distinguishable studies involving deliberating juries (actual or mock) were located and grouped into 4 categories on the basis of their focal variables: (a) procedural characteristics, (b) participant characteristics, (c) case characteristics, and (d) deliberation characteristics. Numerous factors were found to have consistent effects on jury decisions: definitions of key legal terms, verdict/sentence options, trial structure, jury-defendant demographic similarity, jury personality composition related to authoritarianism/dogmatism, jury attitude composition, defendant criminal history, evidence strength, pretrial publicity, inadmissible evidence, case type, and the initial distribution of juror verdict preferences during deliberation. Key findings, emergent themes, practical implications, and future research directions are discussed.

show abstract

“…Differential likelihood of being selected as a foreperson is an additional mechanism through which social status characteristics shape juror participation. Jurors who are chosen as forepersons participate more than non-forepersons (Hastie et al 1983;Velasco 1995) and are viewed as more influential in deliberations (Diamond & Casper 1992;York & Cornwell 2006). These jury leaders are disproportionately male and have higher occupational status than non-forepersons (Diamond & Casper 1992;Strodtbeck et al 1957;York & Cornwell 2006).…”

Section: Jury Procedures and The Realities Of Social Stratificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Representation through Participation: A Multilevel Analysis of Jury Deliberations

Cornwell¹

2011

Law Soc Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fully participatory jury deliberations figure prominently in the idealized view of the American jury system, where balanced participation among diverse jurors leads to more accurate fact‐finding and instills public confidence in the legal system. However, research more than 50 years ago indicated that jury‐room interactions are shaped by social status, with upper‐class men participating more than their lower‐class and female counterparts. The effects of social status on juror participation have been examined only sporadically since then, and rarely with actual jurors. We utilize data from 2,189 criminal jurors serving on 302 juries in four jurisdictions to consider whether—and in what conditions—participation in jury deliberations differs across social groups. Our results indicate the continuing importance of social status in structuring jury‐room interactions, but also reveal some surprising patterns with respect to race and gender that depart from earlier research. We also find that contextual factors including location, case characteristics, and faction size shape the relationship between social status and participation. We conclude with a critical discussion of our results and urge other researchers to take into account contextual factors when examining how individual juror characteristics shape what happens inside the jury room.

show abstract

The Influence of the Size and Decision Rule in Jury Decision-Making

Cited by 5 publications

References 7 publications

Deliberation Quality: A Preliminary Examination in Criminal Juries

Deliberation Quality: A Preliminary Examination in Criminal Juries

Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups.

Representation through Participation: A Multilevel Analysis of Jury Deliberations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About