1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Law and Social Science
  4. Volume 14, 2018
  5. Article

Annual Review of Law and Social Science

Volume 14, 2018

The Contemporary American Jury

Abstract

The contemporary American jury is more inclusive than ever before, although multiple obstacles continue to make racial and ethnic representation a work in progress. Drastic contraction has also occurred: The rate of jury trials is at an all-time low, dampening the signal that jury verdicts provide to the justice system, reducing the opportunity for jury service, and potentially threatening the legitimacy of judgments. At the same time, new areas of jury research have been producing important explanations for how the jury goes about reaching its verdict in response to challenging questions, like how to assess damages. Yet the persistent focus on individual juror judgments as opposed to decision making by the jury as a group leaves unanswered important questions about how jury performance is influenced by a primary distinctive feature of the jury: the deliberation process.

Keyword(s): competence, damage awards, juries, jury selection, representativeness, trial rates
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113618
2018-10-13
2024-05-11
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/14/1/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113618.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113618&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Alexander M 2010. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Era of Color-Blindness New York: New Press
  2. Am. Bar Assoc. 2005. Principles for Juries and Jury Trials Chicago: Am. Bar Assoc https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/american_jury/principles.authcheckdam.pdf
  3. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc 477 U.S. 242 1986.
  4. Anwar S, Bayer P, Hjalmarsson R 2012. The impact of race in criminal trials. Q. J. Econ. 127:1017–55
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co LTD., 727 F.3d 1214 2013.
  6. Appleman LI 2015. Defending the Jury: Crime, Community and the Constitution New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  7. Aprile JV II. 2014. Judicial imposition of the trial tax. Crim. Justice 29:30
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Ariely D, Loewenstein G, Prelec D 2003. “Coherent arbitrariness”: stable demand curves without stable preferences. Q. J. Econ. 118:73–105
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Ashcroft v. Iqbal 129 S. Ct 1937 2009.
  10. Avraham R 2006. Putting a price on pain-and-suffering damages: a critique of the current approaches and a preliminary proposal for change. Northwest. Law Rev. 100:87–119
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Baker B, Rytina N 2014. Estimates of the lawful permanent resident population in the United States: January 2013 Policy Dir., Off. Homel. Secur. Washington, DC: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ois_lpr_pe_2013_0.pdf
  12. Baldus DC, Woodworth G, Zuckerman D, Weiner NA, Broffit B 2001. The use of peremptory challenges in capital murder trials: a legal and empirical analysis. Univ. Penn. J. Const. Law 3:3–169
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Batson v. Kentucky 476 U.S. 79 1986.
  14. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly 127 S. Ct. 1955 2007.
  15. Berghuis v. Smith 559 U.S. 314 2010.
  16. Binnall JM 2014. A field study of the presumptively biased: Is there empirical support for excluding convicted felons from jury service. Law Policy 36:1–34
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Boatright RG 1998. Why citizens don't respond to jury summonses and what courts can do about it. Judicature 82:156–64
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Bowler S, Esterling K, Holmes D 2014. GOTJ: Get out the juror. Political Behav 36:515–33
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Brown EG 2013. Letter to the members of the California State Assembly Lett., Off. Gov., Oct. 7
  20. Buckeye Check Cashing v. Cardehna 546 U.S. 440 2006.
  21. Bueker JP 1997. Jury source lists: Does supplementation really work. Cornell Law Rev 82:390–431
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Caprathe W, Hannaford-Agor P, Loquvam SM, Diamond SS 2016. Increasing jury representativeness. Judges J 55:16–20
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Cecil JS, Eyre RN, Miletich D, Rindskopf D 2007. A quarter-century of summary judgment practice in six federal district courts. J. Empir. Legal Stud. 4:861–907
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Chávez EL 2008. New Mexico's success with non-English speaking jurors. J. Court Innov. 1:303–27
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Chavez H 2012. Examining the effects of non-English speaking jurors on jury verdicts and juror experiences PhD diss., Univ. Nev. Reno, NV:
  26. Chernoff N 2016. No records, no right: discovery and the fair cross-section guarantee. Iowa Law Rev 101:1719–85
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Cowan CL, Thompson WC, Ellsworth PC 1984. The effects of death qualification on jurors' predisposition to convict and on the quality of deliberation. Law Hum. Behav. 8:53–79
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Davis JH, Kerr NL, Atkin RS, Holt R, Meek D 1975. The decision processes of 6- and 12-person mock juries assigned unanimous and two-thirds majority rules. J. Personal. Soc. Psych. 32:1–14
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Davis JH, Stasson MF, Ono K, Zimmerman SK 1988. Effects of straw polls on group decision making: sequential voting pattern, timing, and local majorities. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 55:918–26
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Denver M 2011. The future of capital trials: an exploration of procedural justice, race, and willingness to serve again. Crim. Justice Rev. 36:183–200
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Devine DJ 2012. Jury Decision Making: The State of the Science New York: N. Y. Univ. Press
  32. Devine DJ, Clayton LD, Dunford BB, Seying R, Pryce J 2001. Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychol. Public Policy Law 7:622–727
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Devine DJ, Olafson KM, Jarvis LL, Bott JP, Clayton LD, Wolfe JT 2004. Explaining jury verdicts: Is leniency bias for real. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 34:2069–98
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Diamond SS, Casper JD 1992. Blindfolding the jury to verdict consequences: damages, experts, and the civil jury. Law Soc. Rev. 26:513–63
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Diamond SS, Kaiser J 2016. Race and jury selection: the pernicious effects of backstrikes. Howard Law J 59:705–38
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Diamond SS, Murphy B, Rose MR 2012. The “kettleful of law” in real jury deliberations: successes, failures and next steps. Northwest. Univ. Law Rev. 106:1537–608
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Diamond SS, Peery D, Dolan FJ, Dolan E 2009. Achieving diversity on the jury: jury size and the peremptory challenge. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 6:425–49
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Diamond SS, Rose MR 2017. Judging experts: what real juries do Colloquium, Univ. Tex. Law School Austin, TX:
  39. Diamond SS, Rose MR, Murphy B 2014. Embedded experts on real juries: a delicate balance. William Mary Law Rev 55:885–933
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Diamond SS, Rose MR, Murphy B, Meixner J 2011. Damage anchors on real juries. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 8:s1148–78
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Diamond SS, Saks MJ, Landsman S 1998. Juror judgments about liability and damages: sources of variability and ways to increase consistency. DePaul Law Rev 48:301–26
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Diamond SS, Vidmar N, Rose MR, Ellis L, Murphy B 2003. Juror discussions in civil trials: studying an Arizona innovation. Ariz. Law Rev. 45:1–81
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Dote LT 2006. Citizen willingness to serve: explaining attitudes toward jury service in Philadelphia PhD Diss., Temple Univ. Philadelphia, PA:
  44. Eisenberg T, Hannaford-Agor PL, Heise M, LaFountain N, Munsterman GT et al. 2006. Juries, judges, and punitive damages: empirical analyses using the civil justice survey of state courts 1992, 1996, and 2001 data. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 3:263–95
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Ellis L, Diamond SS 2003. Race, diversity, and jury composition: battering and bolstering legitimacy. Chicago-Kent Law Rev 78:1033–58
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Ellsworth P 1989. Are twelve heads better than one. Law Contemp. Probl. 52:207–24
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Elwork A, Alfini JJ, Sales BD 1982. Toward understandable jury instructions. Judicature 65:432–43
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker 128 S. Ct. 2605 2008.
  49. Foster v. Chatman 136 S. Ct 1737 2016.
  50. Fukurai H, Butler EW, Krooth R 1993. Race and the Jury: Racial Disenfranchisement and the Search for Justice New York: Plenum
  51. Galanter M 1974. Why the “haves” come out ahead: speculations on the limits of legal change. Law Soc. Rev. 9:95–160
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Galanter M 2004. The vanishing trial: an examination of trials and related matters in federal and state courts. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 3:459–570
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Gastil J, Deess EP, Weiser PJ, Simmons C 2010. The Jury and Democracy: How Jury Deliberation Promotes Civic Engagement and Political Participation Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  54. Gau JM 2016. A jury of whose peers? The impact of selection procedures on racial composition and the prevalence of majority-white juries. J. Crim. Justice 39:75–87
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Gomes LF, Zomer AP 2001–2002. The Brazilian jury system. St. Louis-Warsaw Transatl. Law J. 2001–2002:75–79
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Greene E, Sturm KA, Evelo AJ 2016. Affective forecasting about hedonic loss and adaptation: implications for damage awards. Law Hum. Behav. 40:244–56
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Grosso CM, O'Brien B 2011–2012. A stubborn legacy: the overwhelming importance of race in jury selection in 173 North Carolina capital trials. Iowa Law Rev 97:1531–59
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Guthrie C, Rachlinski JJ, Wistrich AJ 2001. Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Rev 86:777–830
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Guthrie C, Rachlinski JJ, Wistrich AJ 2007. Blinking on the bench: how judges decide cases. Cornell Law Rev 93:1–43
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Guzy N 2012. Citizen participation in juries. The Social History of Crime and Punishment in America WR Miller Los Angeles, CA: Sage
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Haltom W, McCann M 2004. Distorting the Law: Politics, Media, and the Litigation Crisis Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  62. Hannaford-Agor PL, Hans VP, Mott NL, Munsterman GT 2002. Are hung juries a problem? Rep Natl. Inst. Justice Washington, DC:
  63. Hannaford-Agor P, Hans VP, Munsterman GT 1999. How much justice hangs in the balance? A new look at hung jury rates. Judicature 83:59–67
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Hannaford-Agor P, Waters NL 2011. Safe harbors from fair cross section challenges? The practical limitations of measuring representation in the jury pool. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 8:762–91
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Hans VP 2017. Trial by jury: story of a legal transplant. Law Soc. Rev. 51:471–99
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Hans VP, Kaye DH, Dann BM, Farley EJ, Albertson S 2011. Science in the jury box: Jurors’ comprehension of mitochondrial DNA evidence. Law Hum. Behav. 35:60–71
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Hans VP, Reyna VF 2011. To dollars from sense: qualitative to quantitative translation in jury damage awards. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 8:s1120–47
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Hastie R, Penrod SD, Pennington N 1983. Inside the Jury Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  69. Hastie R, Schkade DA, Payne JW 1998. A study of juror and jury judgments in civil cases: deciding liability for punitive damages. Law Hum. Behav. 22:287–314
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Hersch J, Viscusi WK 2004. Punitive damages: how judges and juries perform. J. Leg. Stud. 33:1–36
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Hoffman MB 1997. Peremptory challenges should be abolished: a trial judge's perspective. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 64:809–71
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Hoffmeister T, Watts AC 2018. Social media, the internet, and trial by jury. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 14:259–70
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Kalven H Jr., Zeisel H 1966. The American Jury Boston: Little Brown
  74. Kerwin J, Shaffer DR 1994. Mock jurors versus mock juries: the role of deliberations in reactions to inadmissible testimony. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 20:153–62
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Kirk DS, Papachristos AV 2011. Cultural mechanisms and the persistence of neighborhood violence. Am. J. Soc. 116:1190–233
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Koehler JJ, Meixner JB Jr. 2017. Jury simulation goals. The Psychology of Juries M. Kovera 161–184 Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Kramer GP, Kerr NL, Carroll JS 1990. Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies, and jury bias. Law Hum. Behav. 14:409–38
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Lafler v. Cooper 132 S. Ct. 1376 2012.
  79. Lieberman JD, Sales BD 2000. Jury instructions: past, present, and future. Psychol. Public Policy Law 6:587–90
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Lipsky DB 2016. The New York Times’ attack on arbitration. Dispute Resolution Magazine Summer 6–10
  81. London KY, Nuñez N 2000. The effect of jury deliberation on jurors’ propensity to disregard inadmissible evidence. J. Appl. Psychol. 85:932–39
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Marder NS 1995. Beyond gender: peremptory challenges and the roles of the jury. Tex. Law Rev. 73:1041–138
     [Google Scholar]
  83. McAuliff BD, Bornstein BH 2010. All anchors are not created equal: the effects of per diem versus lump sum requests on pain and suffering awards. Law Hum. Behav. 34:164–74
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Miller-El v. Dretke 545 U.S. 231 2005.
  85. Mize GE, Hannaford-Agor P, Waters NL 2007. The State-of-the-States Survey of Jury Improvement Efforts: A Compendium Report Williamsburg, VA: Natl. Cent. State Courts http://www.ncsc-jurystudies.org/State-of-the-States-Survey.aspx
  86. Motomura A 2012. The American jury: Can noncitizens still be excluded. Stanford Law Rev 64:1503–49
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Mott NL, Hans VP, Simpson L 2000. What's half a lung worth? Civil jurors’ accounts of their award decision making. Law Hum. Behav. 24:401–19
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Musick MA, Rose MR, Dury S, Rose RP 2015. Much obliged: volunteering, normative activities and willingness to serve on juries. Law Soc. Inq. 40:433–60
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Neeley E 2011. Addressing nonsystematic factors contributing to the underrepresentation of minorities as jurors. Court Rev 47:96–101
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Newman TC 1995. Fair cross sections and good intentions: representation in federal juries. Justice Sys. J. 18:211–32
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Nuñez N, McCrea SM, Calhane SE 2011. Jury decision-making research: Are researchers focusing on the mouse and not the elephant in the room. Behav. Sci. Law 29:439–51
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado 137 S. Ct. 855 2017.
  93. Pennington N, Hastie R 1992. Explaining the evidence: tests of the story model for juror decision making. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 62:189–206
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Rent-A-Center West v. Jackson 561 U.S. 63 2010.
  95. Reyna VF, Hans VP, Corbin JC, Yeh R, Lin K, Royer C 2015. The gist of juries: testing a model of damage award decision making. Psychol. Public Policy Law. 21:280–94
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Robbennolt JK, Sobus MS 1997. An integration of hindsight bias and counterfactual thinking: decision making and drug courier profiles. Law Hum. Behav. 21:539–60
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Rose MR 1999. The peremptory challenge accused of race or gender discrimination? Some data from one county. Law Hum. Behav. 23:695–702
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Rose MR 2005. A dutiful voice: justice in the distribution of jury service. Law Soc. Rev. 39:601–34
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Rose MR, Abramson JB 2011. Data, race, and the courts: some lessons on empiricism from jury representation cases. Mich. State Law Rev. 2011:911–66
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Rose MR, Brinkman M 2008. Crossing the “digital divide”: using the internet to impanel jurors in Travis County, Texas. J. Court Innov. 1:5–32
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Rose MR, Casarez RS, Gutierrez C 2018. Jury pool underrepresentation in the modern era: evidence from federal courts. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 15:378–405
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Rose MR, Diamond SS 2008. Judging bias: juror confidence and judicial rulings on challenges for cause. Law Soc. Rev. 42:513–546
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Rose MR, Diamond SS 2017.a Juries judging injuries: the special role of special damages in personal injury civil cases Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association Montreal, Can.: August 14.
  104. Rose MR, Diamond SS 2017.b Patterned variability: what deliberations reveal about general damage decisions Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association Mexico City, Mex.: June 21
  105. Rose MR, Diamond SS, Ellison CG, Krebs AV 2017. Juries and viewpoint representation. Justice Q 35:114–38
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Rose MR, Diamond SS, Musick MA 2012. Selected to serve: an analysis of lifetime jury participation. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 9:33–55
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Rose MR, Ellison C, Diamond SS 2008. Preferences for juries over judges across racial and ethnic groups. Soc. Sci. Q. 89:372–91
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Ruva C, McEvoy C, Bryant JB 2007. Effects of pre-trial publicity and jury deliberation on juror bias and source memory errors. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 21:45–67
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Saks MJ, Hollinger LA, Wissler RL, Evans DL, Hart AJ 1997. Reducing variability in civil jury awards. Law Hum. Behav. 21:243–56
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Sandys M, Dillehay RC 1995. First-ballot votes, predeliberation dispositions, and final verdicts in jury trials. Law Hum. Behav. 19:175–95
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Santos F 2014. As the demand for court interpreters climbs, state budget conflicts grow as well. New York Times June 14. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/us/as-the-demand-for-court-interpreters-climbs-state-budget-conflicts-grow-as-well.html?_r=1
  112. Saxton B 1998. How well do jurors understand jury instructions? A field test using real juries and real trials in Wyoming. Land Water Law Rev 33:59–189
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Severance LJ, Greene E, Loftus E 1984. Toward criminal jury instructions that jurors can understand. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 75:198–233
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Simon D 2004. A third view of the black box: coherence reasoning in legal decision making. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 71:511–86
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Sommers SR 2006. On racial diversity and group decision making: identifying multiple effects of racial composition on jury deliberations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 90:597–612
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Sommers SR, Norton MI 2007. Race-based judgments, race-neutral explanations: experimental examination of peremptory use and the Batson challenge procedure. Law Hum. Behav. 31:261–73
     [Google Scholar]
  117. State v. Rico 52 P. 3d 942 (N.M 2002.
  118. Stone K, Colvin A 2015. The arbitration epidemic: Mandatory arbitration deprives workers and consumers of their rights Brief. Pap. #414 Econ. Policy Inst. Washington, DC: http://www.epi.org/publication/the-arbitration-epidemic/
  119. Strickland SM, Schauffler R, LaFountain R, Holt K State Court Organization Williamsburg, VA: Natl. Cent. State Courts accessed Jan. 4 2017. https://www.ncsc.org/sco
  120. Sunstein CR, Hastie R, Payne JW, Schkade DA, Viscusi WK 2002. Punitive Damages: How Juries Decide Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.
  121. Thomas SA 2007. Why summary judgment is unconstitutional. Va. Law Rev. 93:139–80
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Thomas SA 2010. The new summary judgment motion: the motion to dismiss under Twombly and Iqbal. Lewis Clark Law Rev. 14:15–42
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Thomas SA 2016. The Missing American Jury: Restoring the Fundamental Constitutional Role of the Criminal, Civil and Grand Juries New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  124. Tocqueville A 1899 (1841). Democracy in America transl. H Reeve Washington, DC: Gateway Eds.
  125. Tyler TR 1990. Why People Obey the Law New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  126. Uggen C, Manza J, Thompson M 2006. Citizenship, democracy, and the civic reintegration of criminal offenders. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 605:281–310
     [Google Scholar]
  127. US Sentencing Comm. 2014. Guidelines Manual Washington, DC: US Sentencing Comm.
  128. US Sentencing Comm. 2017. An Overview of Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice System Washington, DC: US Sentencing Comm.
  129. Van Dyke J 1977. Jury Selection Procedures: Our Uncertain Commitment to Representative Juries Cambridge, MA: Ballinger
  130. Vidmar N, Rose MR 2001. Punitive damages by juries in Florida: in terrorem and in reality. Harvard J. Legis. 38:487–513
     [Google Scholar]
  131. Walters R, Curriden M 2004. A jury of one's peers? Investigating underrepresentation in jury venires. Judges J 43:17–21
     [Google Scholar]
  132. Wheelock D 2011. A jury of one's “peers”: the racial impact of felon jury exclusion in Georgia. Justice Sys. J. 32:335–59
     [Google Scholar]
  133. Wilson T, Gilbert D 2005. Affective forecasting: knowing what to want. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 14:131–34
     [Google Scholar]
  134. Wissler RL, Evans DL, Hart AJ, Morry MM, Saks MJ 1997. Explaining “pain and suffering” awards: the role of injury characteristics and fault attributions. Law Hum. Behav. 21:181–207
     [Google Scholar]
  135. Wissler RL, Rector KA, Saks MJ 2001. The impact of jury instructions on the fusion of liability and compensatory damages. Law Hum. Behav. 25:125–39
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113618
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error