Inside the Jury
An important statistical study of the dynamics of jury selection and deliberation that offers a realistic jury simulation model, a statistical analysis of the personal characteristics of jurors and a general assessment of jury performance based on research findings by reputed scholars in the behavioral sciences. "A landmark jury study." --Contemporary Sociology "The book will stand as the third great product of social research into jury operations, ranking with Kalven and Zeisel's The American Jury and Van Dyke's Jury Selection Procedures." --American Bar Association Journal REID HASTIE has taught at Harvard University, Northwestern University and the University of Colorado (where he was Director of the Center for Research on Judgment and Policy). He is now a Professor of Behavioral Science on the faculty of the Chicago Booth Graduate School of Business and a member of the Center for Decision Research. He has published over 100 articles on topics including judgment and decision making, memory and cognition and social psychology. Hastie is widely recognized for his books on legal decision making: Social Psychology in Court (with Michael Saks, 1978), Inside the Juror (1993) and Punitive Damages: How Juries Decide (2002). STEVEN D. PENROD was a legal officer in the Naval Judge Advocate General Corps from 1971-1973. He was a professor of Psychology at the University of Wisconsin, University of Minnesota and the University of Nebraska. He is currently a Distinguished Professor of Psychology at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY. He is the author of Social Psychology (1983). NANCY PENNINGTON, professor of psychology at the University of Colorado, Boulder, is acknowledged for her many publications which include Causal Reasoning and Decision Making: The Case of Juror Decisions (1981).
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
agenda Alan Caldwell analysis attorneys average balloting codes Court criminal deadlocked decision rule conditions decision rule effects defendant dict discussion eight-out-of-twelve empirical juries ences errors evaluation evidence experimental F-statistic fact-issue faction size facts final verdict foreman frequency guilty hung juries individual jurors inferential statistics initial majority initial verdict distributions initial verdict preferences judge's instructions jury decision jury deliberation jury performance jury pool jury research jury trial jury verdict jury's largest faction legal issues majority decision rule majority faction majority rule juries manslaughter Ml M2 mock jury study occur parameters percent persuasiveness postdeliberation predict probability procedures reach relationship render sample second degree murder shift simulation social social choice theory statistical task ten-out-of-twelve testimony three decision rules tion trial by jury trial judge twelve-out-of-twelve unani unanimous decision rule unanimous juries undecided jurors valence variables verdict alternatives verdict categories voir dire winning faction
Page 4 - Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge.
Page 4 - Given this purpose, the essential feature of a jury obviously lies in the interposition between the accused and his accuser of the common sense judgment of a group of laymen, and in the community participation and shared responsibility that results from that group's determination of guilt or innocence.
Page 5 - The function of the challenge is not only to eliminate extremes of partiality on both sides, but to assure the parties that the jurors before whom they try the case will decide on the basis of the evidence placed before them, and not otherwise. In this way the peremptory satisfies the rule that "to perform its high function in the best way 'justice must satisfy the appearance of justice/ " In re Murchison, 349 US 133, 136.
Page 7 - I have reservations as to the wisdom — as well as the necessity — of Mr. Justice Blackmun's heavy reliance on numerology derived from statistical studies.
Page 6 - We cannot assume that the majority of the jury will refuse to weigh the evidence and reach a decision upon rational grounds, just as it must now do in order to obtain unanimous verdicts, or that a majority will deprive a man of his liberty on the basis of prejudice when a minority is presenting a reasonable argument in favor of acquittal.
Page 7 - We have considered [the social science studies] carefully because they provide the only basis, besides judicial hunch, for a decision about whether smaller and smaller juries will be able to fulfill the purposes and functions of the Sixth Amendment.
Page 5 - One explanation for this phenomenon is that because jurors are often not permitted to take notes and because they have imperfect memories, the forensic process of forcing jurors to defend their conflicting recollections and conclusions flushes out many nuances which otherwise would go overlooked.
Page 6 - What few experiments have occurred — usually in the civil area — indicate that there is no discernible difference between the results reached by the two differentsized juries.