Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-07T20:48:29.240Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The focal concerns of jurors evaluating mitigation: Evidence from federal capital jury forms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Mary R. Rose Open the ORCID record for Mary R. Rose [Opens in a new window]  and
Meredith Martin Rountree
Mary R. Rose*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA
Meredith Martin Rountree
Affiliation:
Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, Chicago, Illinois, USA
*
Mary R. Rose, Department of Sociology, University of Texas, 305 E. 23rd Street, Stop A1700, Austin, TX 78712, USA., Email: mrose@austin.utexas.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mitigating evidence in capital trials provides reasons for a life, rather than death, sentence. Research suggests that mitigation challenges jurors. We contribute to this area by analyzing federal verdict forms in capital cases, which allow jurors to write in their own mitigating factors, providing a direct, rare window onto their mitigation considerations. We use 205 forms from 171 juries to examine the frequency and content of these “write-ins,” using a sentencing theory typically applied to judges, Focal Concerns Theory. We find that four of every 10 juries prompted to offer their own mitigation do so, producing 149 unique write-ins, the majority of which introduces mitigation topics that differ from those listed on the verdict form. Surprisingly, jurors are less likely to offer write-in mitigators in cases involving White defendants than others, even after controlling for support for other mitigating factors and for aggravating factors, which also predict write-ins. Jurors' write-ins reflect a traditional sentencing concern for blameworthiness, and consistent with Focal Concerns Theory, attention to the practical consequences of punishment. Jurors also offered concerns we term “procedural fairness.” Results indicate that juries' views are patterned in ways that are similar, but not identical, to judges' sentencing concerns.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 56 , Issue 2 , June 2022 , pp. 213 - 236
Copyright
© 2022 Law and Society Association.

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.)

Footnotes

How to cite this article: Rose, Mary R., and Meredith Martin Rountree. 2022. “The Focal Concerns of Jurors Evaluating Mitigation: Evidence from Federal Capital Jury Forms.” Law & Society Review 56(2): 213-236. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12602

References

References

American Bar Association. 2003. “Guideline 10.11 – The Defense Case Concerning Penalty.” https://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/death_penalty_representation/resources/aba_guidelines/2003-guidelines/2003-guideline-10-11/Google Scholar
Baldus, David C., Woodworth, George, and Pulaski, Charles. 1990. Equal Justice and the Death Penalty: A Legal and Empirical Analysis. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Baldus, David C., Woodworth, George, Zuckerman, David, Weiner, Neil Alan, and Broffitt, Barbara. 2001. “The Use of Peremptory Challenges in Capital Murder Trials: A Legal and Empirical Analysis.” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 3: 3–172.Google Scholar
Bentele, Ursula, and Bowers, William J. 2001. “How Jurors Decide on Death: Guilt Is Overwhelming; Aggravation Requires Death; and Mitigation Is NO Excuse.” Brooklyn Law Review 66: 1011-80.Google Scholar
Berk, Richard A., Li, Azusa, and Hickman, Laura J. 2005. “Statistical Difficulties in Determining the Role of Race in Capital Cases: A Re-Analysis of Data from the State of Maryland.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 21: 365-90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blume, John H., Garvey, Stephen P., and Johnson, Sheri Lynn. 2000. “Future Dangerousness in Capital Cases: Always at Issue.” Cornell Law Review 86: 397–410.Google Scholar
Bowers, William J., Steiner, Benjamin D., and Sandys, Marla. 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: 171–274.Google Scholar
Brewer, Thomas W. 2004. “Race and Jurors' Receptivity to Mitigation in Capital Cases: The Effect of Jurors', Defendants', and Victims' Race in Combination.” Law and Human Behavior 28: 529-45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butler, Brooke M., and Moran, Gary. 2002. “The Role of Death Qualification in Venirepersons' Evaluations of Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances in Capital Trials.” Law and Human Behavior 26: 175–274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlsmith, Kevin M., Darley, John M., and Robinson, Paul H. 2002. “Why Do We Punish? Deterrence and Just Deserts as Motives for Punishment.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83: 284-99. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.2.284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Castle, Lauren. 2021. “Arizona Ready to Execute Death Row Inmates, Corrections Director Says. Arizona Republic.” https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2021/03/05/arizona-ready-resume-death-row-executions-corrections-chief-says/4599281001/.Google Scholar
Cohen, G. Ben, and Smith, Robert J. 2010. “The Racial Geography of the Federal Death Penalty.” Washington Law Review 85: 425-92.Google Scholar
Current Statistics re Use of the Federal Death Penalty. 2021. “Federal Death Penalty Resource Council.” https://fdprc.capdefnet.org/doj-activity/statistics/current-statistics-re-use-of-federal-death-penalty-february-2017.Google Scholar
Daly, Kathleen. 1987. “Structure and Practice of Familial-Based Justice in a Criminal Court.” Law & Society Review 21: 267-90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, Dennis J., and Kelly, Christopher E. 2015. “Life or Death: An Examination of Jury Sentencing with the Capital Jury Project Database.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 21: 393–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, Shari Seidman. 1993. “Instructing on Death: Psychologists, Juries, and Judges.” American Psychologist 48: 423-34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.4.423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, Kerry, and Kaplan, Paul J. 2009. “The Ironies of Helping: Social Interventions and Executable Subjects.” Law & Society Review 43: 337-68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberhardt, Jennifer L., Davies, Paul G., Purdie-Vaughns, Valerie J., and Johnson, Sheri Lynn. 2006. “Looking Deathworthy: Perceived Stereotypicality of Black Defendants Predicts Capital-Sentencing Outcomes.” Psychological Science 17: 383-6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eisenberg, Theodore, Garvey, Stephen P., and Wells, Martin T. 1997. “But Was He Sorry? The Role of Remorse in Capital Sentencing.” Cornell Law Review 83: 1599–637.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Theodore, and Wells, Martin T. 1993. “Deadly Confusion: Juror Instructions in Capital Cases.” Cornell Law Review 79: 1–17.Google Scholar
Eisenstein, James, Flemming, Roy, and Nardulli, Peter. 1988. The Contours of Justice: Communities and Their Courts. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Garvey, Stephen P. 1998. “Aggravation and Mitigation in Capital Cases: What Do Jurors Think?” Columbia Law Review 98: 1538-76. https://doi.org/10.2307/1123305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, Jon, and Greenman, Lisa. 2010. “Report to the Committee on Defender Services Judicial Conference of the United States Update on the Cost and Quality of Defense Representation in Federal Death Penalty Cases.” https://files.deathpenaltyinfo.org/legacy/documents/FederalDPCost2010.pdf.Google Scholar
Haney, Craig. 2005. Death by Design: Capital Punishment as a Social Psychological System. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haney, Craig. 2008. “Evolving Standards of Decency: Advancing the Nature and Logic of Capital Mitigation.” Hofstra Law Review 36: 835-82.Google Scholar
Heinrich, Joseph. 2020. The Weirdest People in the World. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Holcomb, Jefferson E., Williams, Marian R., and Demuth, Stephen. 2004. “White Female Victims and Death Penalty Disparity Research.” Justice Quarterly 21: 877–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hritz, Amanda Courtney, Royer, Caisa Elizabeth, and Hans, Valerie P. 2019. “Diminishing Support for the Death Penalty: Implications for Fair Capital Case Outcomes.” In Criminal Juries in the 21st Century, edited by Najdowski, C. J. and Stevenson, M. C., 41–60. New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
Jennings, Wesley G., Richards, Tara N., Smith, M. Dwayne, Bjerregaard, Beth, and Fogel, Sondra J. 2014. “A Critical Examination of the “White Victim Effect” and Death Penalty Decision-Making from a Propensity Score Matching Approach: The North Carolina Experience.” Journal of Criminal Justice 42: 384-98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Nancy J., and Noble, Rosevelt L. 2004. “Felony Jury Sentencing in Practice: A Three-State Study.” Vanderbilt Law Review 57: 885–962.Google Scholar
Kleinstuber, Ross. 2013. “‘We're all Born with Equal Opportunities’: Hegemonic Individualism and Contextual Mitigation among Delaware Capital Jurors.” Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice & Criminology 1: 152-80.Google Scholar
Kramer, John H., and Ulmer, Jeffery T. 2009. Sentencing Guidelines: Lessons from Pennsylvania. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
Kremling, Janine, Smith, M. Dwayne, Cochran, John K., Bjerregaard, Beth, and Fogel, Sondra J. 2007. “The Role of Mitigating Factors in Capital Sentencing before and after McKoy v. North Carolina.” Justice Quarterly 24: 357-81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liptak, Adam. 2021. “Expedited Spree of Executions” Faced Little Supreme Court Scrutiny. New York Times.” https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/18/us/executions-death-penalty-supreme-court.html.Google Scholar
Luginbuhl, James, and Middendorf, Kathi. 1988. “Death Penalty Beliefs and Jurors' Responses to Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances in Capital Trials.” Law and Human Behavior 12: 263-81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, Mona. 2019. “Focally Concerned about Focal Concerns: A Conceptual and Methodological Critique of Sentencing Disparities Research.” Justice Quarterly 36: 1148-75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, Mona, and Haney, Craig. 2000. “Discrimination and Instructional Comprehension: Guided Discretion, Racial Bias, and the Death Penalty.” Law and Human Behavior 24: 337-58. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005588221761.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynch, Mona, and Haney, Craig. 2009. “Capital Jury Deliberation: Effects on Death Sentencing, Comprehension, and Discrimination.” Law and Human Behavior 33: 481-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9168-2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Research Council, Nagin, Daniel S., and Pepper, John V. 2012. Deterrence and the Death Penalty. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Paternoster, Raymond, and Brame, Robert. 2008. “Reassessing Race Disparities in Maryland Capital Cases.” Criminology 46: 971–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penalty Phase Verdict Forms. 2017. https://fdprc.capdefnet.org/verdict-formsGoogle Scholar
Richards, Tara N., Smith, M. Dwayne, Jennings, Wesley G., Bjerregaard, Beth, and Fogel, Sondra J. 2014. “An Examination of Defendant Sex Disparity in Capital Sentencing: A Propensity Score Matching Approach.” American Journal of Criminal Justice 39: 681-97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Mary R., Casarez, Raul S., and Gutierrez, Carmen. 2018. “Jury Pool Underrepresentation in the Modern Era: Evidence from Federal Courts.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 15: 378–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossi, Peter Henry, and Berk, Richard Alan. 1997. Just Punishments: Federal Guidelines and Public Views Compared. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Rountree, Meredith Martin, and Rose, Mary R. 2021. “The Complexities of Conscience: Reconciling Death Penalty Law with Capital Jurors' Concerns.” Buffalo Law Review 69: 1237–328.Google Scholar
Smith, Amy E., and Haney, Craig. 2011. “Getting to the Point: Attempting to Improve Comprehension of Capital Penalty Phase Instructions.” Law and Human Behavior 35: 339-50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steffensmeier, Darrell, and Demuth, Stephen. 2000. “Ethnicity and Sentencing Outcomes in US Federal Courts: Who Is Punished More Harshly?” American Sociological Review 65: 705-29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steffensmeier, Darrell, Kramer, John, and Streifel, Cathy. 1993. “Gender and Imprisonment Decisions.” Criminology 31: 411-46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steffensmeier, Darrell, Ulmer, Jeffery, and Kramer, John. 1998. “The Interaction of Race, Gender, and Age in Criminal Sentencing: The Punishment Cost of Being Young, Black, and Male.” Criminology 36: 763-98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, Margaret C., Bottoms, Bette L., and Diamond, Shari S. 2010. “Jurors' Discussions of a Defendant's History of Child Abuse and Alcohol Abuse in Capital Sentencing Deliberations.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 16: 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundby, Scott E. 1997. “The Jury as Critic: An Empirical Look at How Capital Juries Perceive Expert and Lay Testimony.” Virginia Law Review 83: 1109-88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trahan, Adam. 2011. “In Their Own Words: Capital Jurors' Reactions to Mitigation Strategies.” IJPS 7: 1–17.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. 2006. Why People Obey the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulmer, Jeffery T. 1997. Social Worlds of Sentencing: Court Communities Under Sentencing Guidelines. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Ulmer, Jeffery T. 2012. “Recent Developments and New Directions in Sentencing Research.” Justice Quarterly 29: 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Marian R., Demuth, Stephen, and Holcomb, Jefferson E. 2007. “Understanding the Influence of Victim Gender in Death Penalty Cases: The Importance of Victim Race, Sex-Related Victimization, and Jury Decision Making.” Criminology 45: 865-91.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Gregg v. Georgia. 1976. “428 U.S. 153.”Google Scholar
Lockett v. Ohio. 1978. “438 U.S. 586.”Google Scholar
Penry v. Lynaugh. 1989. “492 U.S. 302.”Google Scholar
Tennard v. Dretke. 2004. “542 U.S. 274.”Google Scholar
United States v. Alexander. D.C Cir. 1973. “471 F.2d 923,961.”Google Scholar
Wainwright v. Witt. 1985. “469 U.S. 412.”CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witherspoon v. Illinois. 1968. “391 U.S. 510.”Google Scholar