Jury Psychology (original) (raw)

Jury Decision Making: Implications For and From Psychology

Jury trials play a centrally important role in the law, and they are also of interest to psychologists. The manner in which individual jurors perceive, interpret, and remember evidence, as well as the group processes involved in jury deliberation, can be described in terms of fundamental cognitive and social psychological concepts. Juries provide a real-world laboratory for examining theoretical issues related to reasoning, memory, judgment and decision making, attribution, stereotyping, persuasion, and group behavior. Conversely, psychological research can inform trial procedures, enabling juries to benefit from fairer procedures and reach better outcomes. Thus, jury decision making has implications for psychological theory, and psychological research has implications for legal policy.

The use of personal knowledge and belief by jurors and juries

2015

Professor Deborah Blackman and Doctor Sara Allwood for valuable feedback. When I started this research some seven years ago, I had no idea how much work would be involved in it. Accordingly I wish to thank my family, Eleanor, Ben and Katie for their patience and forbearance.

Ask and What Shall Ye Receive? A Guide for Using and Interpreting What Jurors Tell Us

University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Social Change, 2011

We review the extensive body of studies relying on jurors’ self-reports in interviews or questionnaires, with a focus on potential threats to validity for researchers seeking to answer particularly provocative questions such as the influence of race in jury decision-making. We then offer a more focused case study comparison of interview and questionnaire data with behavioral data in the domain of race and juror decision-making. Our review suggests that the utility of data obtained from juror interviews and questionnaire responses varies considerably depending on the question under investigation. We close with an evaluation of the types of empirical questions most amenable to study via juror self-report, as well as suggestions for more effective use of this method. This Article is intended to serve as a guide for researchers interested in using this common strategy to understand jury decision-making, and for legal professionals and policymakers who seek to draw conclusions based on t...

Effects of psycholegal-knowledge on decision-making by mock juries

Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2005

This study examined the effects of psycholegal knowledge on a mock jury decisionmaking task. Psycholegal knowledge was obtained by completion of a university course on psychology and law focusing on jury decision-making. It was predicted that psycholegal knowledge would enhance juror competence, motivation, and satisfaction with participation in the legal process. Mock jurors who had taken the course were compared with those who had not. Both groups were shown a videotape of a rape trial and participated in jury deliberations. Jurors trained in psycholegal knowledge voted for acquittal more often than those who were not. Additionally, trained jurors were more satisfied, were more confident that their jury reached a correct verdict, and believed more that their jury's decision was based on the evidence presented than did untrained jurors. Content analysis of jury deliberations found that trained jurors were more task oriented and focused on relevant evidence than untrained jurors. The feasibility of implementing a juror training program prior to jury service was discussed. The American jury system has come under fire in recent years in light of highly publicized and unpopular verdicts in cases such as Rodney King, Reginald Denny, and O.J. Simpson. Investigations by psychologists into jury decision-making have documented serious and numerous flaws in the present Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial by one's peers. These problems include, damages in civil cases (Robbennolt, Penrod, & Heuer, 1999), jurors' failure to comprehend judges' instructions (Shaw & Skolnick, 1995), jurors' preconceptions from prejudicial pretrial publicity that

Twelve Angry Jurors?: Argument in the Jury Decision Making Process

1994

Although scholar< know a great deal about how argument works in the small group process in general, little is known about the role of argument in the jury decision making process. A study used R. A. Meyers' (1991) coding scheme to analyze the argument in 80 juries. Subjects were 209 males and 203 females enrolled in communication courses at a large midwestern university. Juries consisted of groups of four, five, or six members. Juries watched either a 12-minute videotaped segment of a man accused of possession of marijuana, or a 20-minute segment of a man accused of murder. Both cases were somewhat complex in that the decisions could have gone "either way." Jurors were given no instruction in the law and were given up to 30 minutes to reach a verdict. Results indicated that jurors use assertions and agreements most often, followed by propositions, elaborations, and nonrelated arguments. Results also indicated that similar arguments Lee made by jurors in trials of differing magnitude. Findings suggest that juries are active, deliberative decision making bodies, although the argument that occurs during jury deliberation may not be complex. (Contains 50 references and a table of uata. A portion of Meyers' argument category scheme is attached.) (RS) Ecprodi.ct iota supplied by LDItS are the hest that can he made from the original document.