Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reform Proposals

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Trial Consulting

Abstract

As trial consulting proliferates, two broad categories of concerns regarding its use have spurred calls for reform. The first concern pertains to fairness, both as popularly conceived and as contemplated under the Constitution. The second involves the professional standards of trial consultants. This chapter outlines the specific problematic issues within each category and then presents various reforms proposed in response. The sources of the proposals vary; academic scholars, judges, attorneys, psychologists, and trial consultants themselves have all contributed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Per 6/22/05 email from Kenneth Broda-Bahm, chair of the ASTC Credentialing Task Force.

References

  • “Laying Down a Challenge” (editorial, June 15, 2005). Los Angeles Times, B12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adler, S. (1989, Oct. 21). Consultants dope out the mysteries of jurors for clients being sued. Wall Street Journal, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  • American Bar Association. (2003). Model rules of professional conduct.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Bar Association. (2005). Principles for juries and jury trials.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Society of Trial Consultants. (1997). Code of professional standards. Phoenix: ASTC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. (1998). Catch me if you can! Resolving the ethical tragedies in the brave new world of jury selection. New England Law Review, 32, 343.

    Google Scholar 

  • ASTC Comments on ABA Jury Standards, www.astcweb.org, last visited 20 Jun 2005.

  • Bader, C. (1996). Batson meets the First Amendment: Prohibiting peremptory challenges that violate a prospective juror’s speech and association rights. Hofstra Law Review, 24, 569–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber, J. (1994). The jury is still out: The role of jury science in the modern American courtroom. American Criminal Law Review, 40, 1226–1252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  • Buser, L. (1994, Feb. 4). Indigents’ plea for experts stirs issues of cost and fairness. The Commercial Appeal, A1.

    Google Scholar 

  • California Civ. Proc. Code, sec. 223, as amended 15 Jun 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • In re Cendant Corporation Securities Litigation, 343 F.3d 658, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council for Court Excellence, Washington, D.C. Jury Project. (1998). Juries for the year 2000 and beyond: Proposals to improve the jury system in Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, G. (1993, May 3). King trial the real story. National Law Journal, 38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Criminal Justice Act. (1964). 18 U.S.C.sec. 3006 (e).

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, S., & Beisecker, T. (1994). Discovering trial consultant work product: A new way to borrow an adversary’s wits? American Journal of Trial Advocacy, 17, 581.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni, A. (1974, May 26). Threatening the jury trial. Washington Post, C3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(b)(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulero, S., & Penrod, S. (1990). Attorney jury selection folklore: What do they think and how can psychologists help? Forensic Reports, 3, 233–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geller, L., & Hemenway, P. (1997). Last chance for justice: The juror’s lonely quest. Dallas: NCDS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gobert, J. J., & Jordan, W. E. (1990). Jury selection: The law, art and science of selecting a jury (2dth ed.). Colorado Springs: Shepard’s/McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gold, V. (1987). Covert advocacy: Reflections on the use of psychological persuasion in the courtroom. North Carolina Law Review, 65, 481–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, R. (1995, Feb. 6). Setting parameters for trial science. Legal Times, A34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanna, J., & O’Brien, J. (1995, Oct. 31). O.J. case leads Philip to make a case against consultants. Chicago Tribune, sec. 3, 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hans, V., & Vidmar, N. (1986). Judging the jury. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartje, R. (2005). A jury of your peers? How jury consulting may actually help trial lawyers resolve constitutional limitations imposed on the selection of juries. California Western Law Review, 41, 479–503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, R. (1991). Is attorney-conducted voir dire an effective procedure for the selection of impartial juries? American University Law Review, 40, 703–726.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, R., & Pennington, N. (1996). The O.J. Simpson stories: Behavioral scientists’ reflections on the People of California v. Orenthal James Simpson. University of Colorado Law Review, 67, 957–976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbsleb, J., Sales, D., & Berman, J. (1979). When psychologists aid in the voir dire: Legal and ethical considerations. In L. E. Abt & I. R. Stuart (Eds.), Social psychology and discretionary law. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, M. (1982). Putting juries on the couch. NY Times, 71–72, 82–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonakait, R. (2003). The American jury system. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, S. E. (1987). Judge versus attorney-conducted voir dire: An empirical investigation of juror candor. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 131–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, T., et al. (1990). Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies and jury bias. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 409–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, W. (1994, Feb. 4). Trial consultants lose mystique as firms tighten their belts. Wall Street Journal, B7.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeGrande, N., & Mierau, K. (2004). Witness preparation and the trial consulting industry. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 17, 947–960.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • Montoya, J. (1996). The future of the post-Batson peremptory challenge: Voir dire by questionnaire and the “blind” peremptory. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 29, 981.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moran, G. (2001). Trial consultation Why licensure is not necessary. Journal of Forensic Psychology., 4(1), 77–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moran, G., & Cutler, B. (1991). The projected impact of pretrial publicity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 345–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moskitis, R. (1976). The constitutional need for discovery of pre-voir dire juror studies. Southern California Law Review, 49, 597–634.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nietzel, M., & Dillehay, R. (1983). Psychologists as consultants for change of venue: The use of public opinion surveys. Law and Human Behavior, 7, 309–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborn v. U.S., 385 U.S. 323 (1966).

    Google Scholar 

  • Padawer, A., et al. (1975). The impact of pretrial publicity on jurors’ verdicts. In R. Simon (Ed.), The jury system in America (pp. 5–25). Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • People ex rel Keller v. Superior Court, 175 Cal. App. 2d 830 (1959).

    Google Scholar 

  • People v. Aldridge, 47 Mich. App. 639 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  • People v. Heard, 58 Mich. App. 312 (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, J. (1990). Selecting the perfect jury: Use of jury consultants in voir dire. Law and Psychology Review, 14, 167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, L. (2004, April 19). High-profile trials keep jury consultants busy. Palm Beach Daily Business Review, 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahler, D. (1996). Scientifically selecting jurors while maintaining professional responsibility: A proposed model rule. Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology, 6, 403–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saks, M. (1987). Social scientists can’t rig juries. In L. Wrightsman (Ed.), In the jury box: Controversies in the courtroom. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shahani, V. (2005). Change the motion, not the venue: A critical look at the change of venue motion. 42. American Criminal Law Review, 93, 118–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, R. J. (1980). The impact of pretrial publicity on the jury. In R. J. Simon (Ed.), The jury: Its role in American society (pp. 6-). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spivey v. State, 319 S.E.2d 420 (Georgia 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stapley, G. (2004, Jan. 9). Trial moved; survey flawed? Students say they faked poll results. The Modesto Bee, A1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steblay, N. M., Besirevic, J., Fulero, S. M., & Jimenez-Lorente, B. (1999). The effects of pretrial publicity on juror verdicts: A meta-analytic review. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 219–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stolle, D., et al. (1996). The perceived fairness of the psychologist trial consultant: An empirical investigation. Law and Psychology Review, 20, 139–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strier, F. (1996). Reconstructing justice: An agenda for trial reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strier, F. (2001). Why trial consultants should be licensed. Journal of Forensic Psychology, 4(1), 69–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strier, F., & Shestowsky, D. (1999). Profiling the profilers: A study of the trial consulting profession, its impact on trial justice and what, if anything, to do about it. Wisconsin Law Review, 1999, 442–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, D. (1997). Protecting a juror’s right to privacy: Constitutional constraints and policy options. Temple Law Review, 70, 1–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willging, T. (1986). Court appointed experts. Washington, D.C.: Federal Judicial Center.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. California State University, Dominguez Hills, 1000 E Victoria Street, Carson, CA, 90747, USA

    Franklin Strier

Authors
  1. Franklin Strier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Franklin Strier .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska/Lincoln, Burnett Hall 338, Lincoln, 68588-9296, Nebraska, USA

    Richard L. Wiener

  2. Dept. Psychology, University of Nebraska, Burnett Hall 335, Lincoln, 68588-0308, Nebraska, USA

    Brian H. Bornstein

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Strier, F. (2011). Reform Proposals. In: Wiener, R., Bornstein, B. (eds) Handbook of Trial Consulting. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7569-0_17

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation