FacComm Search | Northwestern University (original) (raw)

Papers by FacComm Search

Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 2014

Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy, 2008

Law & Society Review, 1992

Page 1. 513 Blindfolding the Jury to Verdict Consequences: Damages, Experts, and the Civil Jury S... more Page 1. 513 Blindfolding the Jury to Verdict Consequences: Damages, Experts, and the Civil Jury Shari Seidman Diamond Jonathan D. Casper This research examines the behavior of jurors as active information processors. ...

Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 2005

■ Abstract The elaborate efforts of the legal system to control and channel jury behavior reveal ... more ■ Abstract The elaborate efforts of the legal system to control and channel jury behavior reveal a mistrust of an institution that also attracts extravagant praise. We look at the jury by examining research on real juries drawn from archival studies and posttrial surveys and interviews, as well as from the deliberations of real juries. We show how the methods used by courts to gather and select jurors affect the representativeness and legitimacy of the jury. We also examine the evidence underlying skepticism about jury verdicts and decision making, focusing on cases that pose special challenges to jurors, particularly those involving complex evidence, legal complexity, and the death penalty. We then consider how optimal jury trials can be achieved. Even twelve experienced judges, deliberating together, would probably not function well under the conditions we impose on the twelve inexperienced laymen [Judge Jerome Frank, Courts on Trial (1949), p. 120]. Juror #4 (discussing the testimony of an expert physician in a medical malpractice case): What I would like to have is 40 [specialists] and show them the [test results] and okay, get a survey and is this significant or is this not significant and would they have [done what the defendant did]? [Deliberating juror from the Arizona Filming Project (Diamond et al. 2003)]

Research Handbook on the Economics of Torts, 2013

ABSTRACT Juries attract both stiff criticism and unqualified praise. Here, we examine how the Ame... more ABSTRACT Juries attract both stiff criticism and unqualified praise. Here, we examine how the American juries actually behave in tort cases, based on archival research, post-trial interviews with jurors, experiments with real and simulated juries, observations of real jury deliberations, and surveys of judges and attorneys. We compare the external perspective of economic theory and the internal perspective of jurors and examine how the difference is reflected in jury behavior. Analyzing the key topics associated with charges of jury incompetence and bias in tort cases (i.e., decisions on liability; expert testimony; corporate defendants; separating decisions on liability and damages; assessment of compensatory damages; decisions on punitive damages; and comprehension and application of the law), we find that although it is unclear how well jurors act as risk managers, a role they are not instructed to play in the standard negligence case, juries in tort cases cope quite well with the conflicting evidence they are asked to judge. Finally, we analyze which aspects of less than optimal jury performance constitute insurmountable obstacles and which limitations can be overcome.

Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2010

Despite much psychological research regarding jury decision making, surprisingly little is known ... more 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.

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000

According to standard lore, when jurors are doused with "a kettleful of law" at the end of a tria... more According to standard lore, when jurors are doused with "a kettleful of law" at the end of a trial, they either ignore it or are hopelessly confused. We present new evidence from a unique data set: not mock jury experiments or post-trial self-reports, but rather the deliberations of fifty real civil juries. Our intensive analysis of these deliberations presents a picture that contradicts received wisdom about juries and the law. We show that juries in typical civil cases pay substantial attention to the instructions and that although they struggle, the juries develop a reasonable grasp of most of the law they are asked to apply. When instructions fail, they do so primarily in ways that are generally ignored in the debate about juries and the law. That is, the jury deliberations reveal that when communication breaks down, the breakdown stems from more fundamental sources than simply opaque legal language. We identify a few modest pockets of juror resistance to the law and suggest why jury commonsense may in some instances be preferable to announced legal standards. We conclude that it will take more than a "plain English" movement to achieve genuine harmony between laypersons and jury instructions on the law.