Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-21T07:26:17.669Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

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

By
Grace Hanzelin ,
Krystia Reed ,
Morgan Wagner  and
Brian H. Bornstein
Edited by
Monica K. Miller ,
Logan A. Yelderman ,
Matthew T. Huss  and
Jason A. Cantone
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
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-makingjury processtrialjury dutycourtroom factors
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making , pp. 324 - 338
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.)

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

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×