Beliefs About Juror Decision-Making and the Jury Process

doi:10.1017/9781009119375.021

21 - Beliefs About Juror Decision-Making and the Jury Process

from Part III - Trial Phase Decision-Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 February 2024

Morgan Wagner and

Edited by

Matthew T. Huss and

Monica K. Miller: Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Reno
Logan A. Yelderman: Affiliation:
Prairie View A & M University, Texas
Matthew T. Huss: Affiliation:
Creighton University, Omaha
Jason A. Cantone: Affiliation:
George Mason University, Virginia

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter discusses some of the existing beliefs about juror decision-making and the jury process at three distinct phases of a trial: before the trial, during the trial, and at the trial’s conclusion. Before the trial, there are beliefs surrounding the jury process, including jury duty, jury size, and jury selection (i.e. voir dire). During the trial, there are common beliefs surrounding courtroom factors that influence jury decision-making, including attitudes, beliefs, and expectations regarding attorneys, expert witnesses, confession evidence, and emotion-evoking evidence. Finally, at the end of trial, there is the existing belief that juries make extreme and unpredictable decisions in civil and criminal court. This chapter uses current research and empirical evidence within law and behavioral sciences to examine these myths, showing support for some of these beliefs, while also showing that others are simply myths about jury decision-making. Finally, the chapter discusses future research to address such myths.

Keywords

juror decision-making jury process trial jury duty courtroom factors

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making , pp. 324 - 338

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009119375.021 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abwender, D. A., & Hough, K. (2001). Interactive effects of characteristics of defendant and mock juror on US participants’ judgment and sentencing recommendations. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141(5), 603–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540109600574.Google Scholar

Baer, E. L. (2008). Juror reactions to attorney characteristics: A look to gender, age, and presentation style. PhD Dissertation, Alliant International University, Fresno CA.Google Scholar

Ballew v. Georgia, 435 US 223 (1978).Google Scholar

Bandes, S. (1996). Empathy, narrative, and victim impact statements. The University of Chicago Law Review, 63(2), 361–412. https://doi.org/10.2307/1600234.Google Scholar

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 US 79 (1986).Google Scholar

Beck, C. R. (1998). The current state of the peremptory challenge. William & Mary Law Review, 39(3), 961–1001.Google Scholar

Blandón-Gitlin, I., Sperry, K., & Leo, R. (2011). Jurors believe interrogation tactics are not likely to elicit false confessions: Will expert witness testimony inform them otherwise? Psychology, Crime & Law, 17(3), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160903113699.Google Scholar

Boatright, R. G. (2001). Generational and age-based differences in attitudes towards jury service. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 19(2), 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.440.Google Scholar

Bornstein, B. H., Golding, J. L., Neuschatz, J., et al. (2017). Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 41(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000223.Google Scholar

Bornstein, B. H., & Greene, E. (2017). The jury under fire: Myth, controversy, and reform. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bornstein, B. H., Miller, M. K., Nemeth, R. J., Page, G. L., & Musil, S. (2005). Juror reactions to jury duty: Perceptions of the system and potential stressors. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23(3), 321–346. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.635.Google Scholar

Bowers, W. J., Steiner, B. D., & Sandys, M. (2001). Death sentencing in black and white: An empirical analysis of the role of jurors’ race and jury racial composition. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 3(1), 171–275.Google Scholar

Bright, D. A., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2006). Gruesome evidence and emotion: Anger, blame, and jury decision-making. Law and Human Behavior, 30(2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9027-y.Google Scholar

Cohen, D. L., & Peterson, J. L. (1981). Bias in the courtroom: Race and sex effects of attorneys on juror verdicts. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 9(1), 81–87. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.1981.9.1.81.Google Scholar

de Villiers, M. (2010). The impartiality doctrine: Constitutional meaning and judicial impact. American Journal of Trial Advocacy, 34(1), 71–104.Google Scholar

Devine, D. J. (2012). Jury decision making: The state of the science. New York University Press.Google Scholar

Diamond, S. S. (1989). Scientific jury selection: What social scientists know and do not know. Judicature, 73(4), 178–183.Google Scholar

Diamond, S. S. (1993). What jurors think: Expectations and reactions of citizens who serve. In Litan, Robert E. (Ed.), Verdict: Assessing the Civil Jury System, pp. 290—300. The Brookings Institute, 1993.Google Scholar

Diamond, S. Casper, J. D., Heiert, C. L., & Marshall, A. (1996). Juror reactions to attorneys at trial. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 87(1), 17–47.Google Scholar

Diamond, S. S., Peery, D., Dolan, F. J., & Dolan, E. (2009). Achieving diversity on the jury: Jury size and the peremptory challenge. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 6(3), 425–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2009.01149.x.Google Scholar

Espinoza, R. K. E., & Willis-Esqueda, C. (2008). Defendant and defense attorney characteristics and their effects on juror decision making and prejudice against Mexican Americans. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14(4), 364–371. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012767.Google Scholar

Evans, A. D., Lee, K., & Lyon, T. D. (2009). Complex questions asked by defense lawyers but not prosecutors predicts convictions in child abuse trials. Law and Human Behavior, 33(3), 258–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9148-6.Google Scholar

Federal Rule of Evidence 28 U.S.C. 403.Google Scholar

Feigenson, N. (2010). Emotional influences on judgments of legal blame: How they happen, whether they should, and what to do about it. In Bornstein, B. H & Wiener, R. L (Eds.), Emotion and thel law: Psychological perspectives (pp. 45–96). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0696-0_3.Google Scholar

Forell, C. (2011). McTorts: The social and legal impact of McDonald’s role in tort suits. Loyola Consumer Law Review, 24(2), 105–155.Google Scholar

Fry, R. (2018). Millennials are largest generation in the US labor force. Pew Research Center. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/11/millennials-largest-generation-us-labor-force/.Google Scholar

Galanter, M. (1998). An oil strike in hell: Contemporary legends about the civil justice system. Arizona Law Review, 40, 717–752.Google Scholar

Garfield Tenzer, L. Y. (2020). The Gen Z juror. Tennessee Law Review, 88(1), 173–218.Google Scholar

Greene, E., & Bornstein, B. H. (2000). Precious little guidance: Jury instruction on damage awards. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(3), 743–768. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.6.3.743.Google Scholar

Greene, E., Sturm, K. A., & Evelo, A. J. (2016). Affective forecasting about hedonic loss and adaptation: Implications for damage awards. Law and Human Behavior, 40(3), 244–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000181.Google Scholar

Hans, V. P., & Lofquist, W. S. (1992). Jurors’ judgments of business liability in tort cases: Implications for the litigation explosion debate. Law and Society Review, 26(1), 85–115. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053837.Google Scholar

Helm, R. K., Hans, V. P., Reyna, V. F., & Reed, K. (2019). Numeracy in the jury box: Numerical ability, meaningful anchors, and damage award decision making. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34(2), 434–448. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3629.Google Scholar

Henderson, K. S., & Levett, L. M. (2016). Can expert testimony sensitize jurors to variations in confession evidence? Law and Human Behavior, 40(6), 638–649. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000204.Google Scholar

Higginbotham, P. E., Rosenthal, L. H., & Gensler, S. S. (2020). Better by the dozen: Bringing back the twelve-person jury. Judicature, 104(2), 46–57.Google Scholar

Higgins, P. L., Heath, W. P., & Grannemann, B. D. (2007). How type of excuse defense, mock juror age, and defendant age affect mock jurors’ decisions. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147(4), 371–392. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.147.4.371-392.Google Scholar

Horowitz, I. A., & Bordens, K. S. (2002). The effects of jury size, evidence complexity, and note taking on jury process and performance in a civil trial. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.121.Google Scholar

J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B., 511 US 127 (1994). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/511/127/.Google Scholar

Jones, A. M., & Penrod, S. (2016). Can expert testimony sensitize jurors to coercive interrogation tactics? Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 16(5), 393–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2016.1232029.Google Scholar

Kassin, S. M., Meissner, C. A., & Norwick, R. J. (2005). “I’d know a false confession if I saw one”: A comparative study of college students and police investigators. Law and Human Behavior, 29(2), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-2416-9.Google Scholar

Kassin, S. M., & Neumann, K. (1997). On the power of confession evidence: An experimental test of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Law and Human Behavior, 21(5), 469–484. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024871622490.Google Scholar

Keene, D. L., & Handrich, R. R. (2013). Values, priorities, and decision-making: Intergenerational law offices, intergenerational juries. Jury Expert, 25(1), 23–36.Google Scholar

Kovera, M. B. (2012). Voir dire and jury selection. In Otto, R. K. (Ed.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology, volume 11: Forensic psychology (2nd ed., pp. 630–647). John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar

Kovera, M. B., Gresham, A. W., Borgida, E., Gray, E., & Regan, P. C. (1997). Does expert psychological testimony inform or influence juror decision making? A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 178–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.178.Google Scholar

Leo, R. A., & Liu, B. (2009). What do potential jurors know about police interrogation techniques and false confessions? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27(3), 381–399. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.872.Google Scholar

Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants, 1995 WL 360309 (1994).Google Scholar

Liptak, A. (2015, August 16). Exclusion of Blacks from juries raises renewed scrutiny. The New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2015/08/17/us/politics/exclusion-of-blacks-from-juries-raises-renewed-scrutiny.html.Google Scholar

Macaulay, S. (1987). Presidential address: Images of law in everyday life: The lessons of school, entertainment, and spectator sports. Law & Society Review, 21(2), 185–218. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053519.Google Scholar

McDonalds settles lawsuit over burn from coffee (1994, Dec. 2). The Wall Street Journal, B6.Google Scholar

Matsuo, K., & Itoh, Y. (2016). Effects of emotional testimony and gruesome photographs on mock jurors’ decisions and negative emotions. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 23(1), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2015.1032954.Google Scholar

Myers, L. W. (1965). The battle of the experts: A new approach to an old problem in medical testimony. Nebraska Law Review, 44(3), 539–598.Google Scholar

Myers, B., Johnson, S., & Nuñez, N. (2018). Victim impact statements in capital sentencing: 25 years post-Payne. In Miller, M. K. & Bornstein, B. H. (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law (Vol. 3, pp. 41–76). Springer.Google Scholar

Pearle, L. (2007). “I’m Being Sued for WHAT?” ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3121086&page=1.Google Scholar

Pozzulo, J. D., Dempsey, J., Maeder, E., & Allen, L. (2010). The effects of victim gender, defendant gender, and defendant age on juror decision making. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809344173.Google Scholar

Pyszczynski, T. A., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1981). The effects of opening statements on mock jurors’ verdicts in a simulated criminal trial. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11(4), 301–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1981.tb00826.x.Google Scholar

Rebein, P. W., Schwartz, V. E., & Silverman, C. (2003). Jury dis(service): Why people avoid jury duty and what Florida can do about it. Nova Law Review, 28(1), 143–156.Google Scholar

Reed, K. (2020). The experience of a legal career: Attorneys’ impact on the system and the system’s impact on attorneys. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 16(1), 385–404. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-051120-014122.Google Scholar

Reed, K., Hans, V. P., & Reyna, V. F. (2018). Accounting for awards: An examination of juror reasoning behind pain and suffering damage award decisions. Denver Law Review, 96(4), 841–868.Google Scholar

Reed, K., Rodriguez, A., & Groscup, J. (in preparation) Hot or not? The role of attorney attractiveness on juror decisions.Google Scholar

Saks, M. J., & Marti, M. W. (1997). A meta-analysis of the effects of jury size. Law and Human Behavior, 21(5), 451–467. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024819605652.Google Scholar

Salerno, J. M. (2017). Seeing red: Disgust reactions to gruesome photographs in color (but not in black and white) increase convictions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23(3), 336–350. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000122.Google Scholar

Salerno, J. M., & Bottoms, B. L. (2009). Emotional evidence and jurors’ judgments: The promise of neuroscience for informing psychology and law. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27(2), 273–296. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.861.Google Scholar

Salerno, J. M., Campbell, J. C., Phalen, H. J., Bean, S. R., et al. (2021). The impact of minimal versus extended voir dire and judicial rehabilitation on mock jurors’ decision in civil cases. Law and Human Behavior, 45(4), 336–355. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000455.Google Scholar

Salerno, J. M., Najdowski, C. J., Bottoms, B. L., et al. (2015). Excusing murder? Conservative jurors’ acceptance of the gay-panic defense. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21(1), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000024.Google Scholar

Salerno, J. M., Phalen, H. J., Reyes, R. N., & Schweitzer, N. J. (2018). Closing with emotion: The differential impact of male versus female attorneys expressing anger in court. Law and Human Behavior, 42(4), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000292.Google Scholar

Scheflin, A. W. (1972). Jury nullification: The right to say no. Southern California Law Review, 45(1), 168–227.Google Scholar

Seron, C., Frankel, M., Muzzio, D., & Pereira, J. (1997). A report of the perceptions and experiences of lawyers, judges, and court employees concerning gender, racial and ethnic fairness in the federal courts of the second circuit of the United States gender, racial, and ethnic fairness in the courts. Annual Survey of American Law, 1997(1), 415–528.Google Scholar

Skalon, A., San Roque, M., & Beaudry, J. L. (2020). An interdisciplinary and cross-national analysis of legal safeguards for eyewitness evidence. In Miller, M. K. & Bornstein, B. H. (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law (Vol. 5, pp. 137–178). Springer.Google Scholar

Sommers, S. R. (2006). On racial diversity and group decision making: Identifying multiple effects of racial composition on jury deliberations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 597–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.597.Google Scholar

Sommers, S. R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2000). Race in the courtroom: Perceptions of guilt and dispositional attributions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(11), 1367–1379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200263005.Google Scholar

Sundby, S. E. (1997). The jury as critic: An empirical look at how capital juries perceive expert and lay testimony. Virginia Law Review, 83(6), 1109–1188. https://doi.org/10.2307/1073729.Google Scholar

Truett, K. R. (1993). Age differences in conservatism. Personality and Individual Differences, 14(3), 405–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(93)90309-Q.Google Scholar

Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Carter, N. T. (2014). Declines in trust in others and confidence in institutions among American adults and late adolescents, 1972–2012. Psychological Science, 25(10), 1914–1923. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614545133.Google Scholar

Warshawsky, K. D. (1993). The judicial canons: A first step in addressing gender bias in the courtroom symposium. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 7(4), 1047–1082.Google Scholar

Wevodau, A. L., Cramer, R. J., Clark, J. W., & Kehn, A. (2014). The role of emotion and cognition in juror perceptions of victim impact statements. Social Justice Research, 27(1), 45–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-014-0203-9.Google Scholar

Williams v. Florida, 399 US 78 (1970).Google Scholar

Woody, W. D., & Forrest, K. D. (2009). Effects of false-evidence ploys and expert testimony on jurors’ verdicts, recommended sentences, and perceptions of confession evidence. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27(3), 333–360. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.865.Google Scholar

Zeisel, H. (1971). … And then there were none: The diminution of the federal jury. The University of Chicago Law Review, 38(4), 710–724. https://doi.org/10.2307/1598870.Google Scholar

Zeisel, H. & Diamond, S. S. (1978). The effect of peremptory challenges on jury and verdict: An experiment in a federal district court. Stanford Law Review, 30, 491–531.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.