Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Jury Decision Making

  • Chapter
Handbook of Psychology and Law

Abstract

The jury decision-making process has been one of the most frequently studied research topics in the field of psychology and law.1 Despite its popularity in the laboratory, in the real world, trial by jury is a statistically rare event. Historical analyses of the jury indicate that at one time the jury decided far more trials than the approximately 8% of criminal cases that it is estimated to hear today (Green, 1985; Hans & Vidmar, 1986). Social and political changes, greater judicial control over the jury, and the rise in plea bargaining have operated to reduce the use of the criminal trial jury. Likewise, most civil cases in the United States are resolved through settlement; only a small minority are decided by the jury. In other countries with a tradition of trial by jury, such as Great Britain and Canada, the use of the civil jury has been sharply curtailed.

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 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Adler, S.J. (1989a, December 21). Can juries do justice to complex suits? Wall Street Journal, pp. B1, B6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adler, S.J. (1989b, October 24). Litigation science: Consultants dope out the mysteries of jurors for clients being sued. Wall Street Journal, pp. A1, A10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N.H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  • Arkes, H.R., & Hammond, K.R. (Eds.). (1986). Judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, J., & McConville, M. (1979). Jury trials. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, J. (1990, August 20). Anger over verdicts in jogger case is mixed with calls for compassion. The New York Times, p. B4.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, W.L., & Feldman, M. (1981). Reconstructing reality in the courtroom. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordens, K.S., & Horowitz, I.A. (1988). Mass tort civil litigation: The impact of procedural changes on jury decisions. Judicature, 73, 22–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bray, R.M., & Kerr, N.L. (1982). Methodological considerations in the study of the psychology of the courtroom. In R.M. Bray & N.L. Kerr (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 287–323). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brekke, N., & Borgida, E. (1988). Expert psychological testimony in rape trials: A social-cognitive analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 372–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burch v. Louisiana, 441 U.S. 130 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  • Casper, J.D., Benedict, K., & Perry, J.L. (1989). Juror decision making, attitudes, and the hindsight bias. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 291–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Champion, M. (1989, December 15). Give me the jury that I dreamed of. The Independent, p. 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charrow, R.P., & Charrow, V.R. (1979). Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review, 79, 1306–1374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin, A., & Peterson, M.A. (1985). Deep pockets, empty pockets: Who wins in Cook County jury trials? Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colgrove v. Battin, 413 U.S. 149 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  • “Conscientious jurors and racial tension.” (1990, August 20) [editorial]. The New York Times, p. A14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, C.L., Thompson, W.C., & Ellsworth, P.C. (1984). The effects of death qualification on jurors’ predisposition to convict and on the quality of deliberation. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 53–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, G.D. (1989, May 29). Consultants to the stars, they deploy an army of 100-I- Ph.D.s. National Law Journal, pp. 26–27’.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, M. (1988, December 5). How lawyers stack juries against doctors. Medical Economics, pp. 40, 42–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, B.L. (1990). Introduction: The status of scientific jury selection in psychology and law. Forensic Reports, 3, 227–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, S. (1989a). The Aetna article: A comment. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, S. (1989b, June). Jury verdicts in medical malpractice cases. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Law and Society Association, Madison, WI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, S. (1989c). The question of jury competence and the politics of civil justice reform: Symbols, rhetoric, and agenda-building. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 269–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J.H. (1973). Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review, 80, 97–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, S.S. (1979). Simulation: Does the microscope lens distort? [Editor’s introduction to special issue, Simulation research and the law.] Law and Human Behavior, 3, 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, S.S. (1989 August 8). Discussant, symposium on Contemporary psychological and legal perspectives on jury selection. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, S.S., Casper, J.D., & Ostergren, L. (1989). Blindfolding the jury. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 247–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doob, A.N., & Kirshenbaum, H. (1972). Some empirical evidence on the effect of s. 12 of the Canada Evidence Act upon the accused. Criminal Law Quarterly, 15, 88–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drazen, D. (1989). The case for special juries in toxic tort litigation. Judicature, 72, 292–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellsworth, P.C. (1988). Unpleasant facts: The Supreme Court’s response to empirical research on capital punishment. In K.C. Haas & J.A. Inciardi (Eds.), Challenging capital punishment: Legal and social science approaches (pp. 177 – 211). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellsworth, P.C. (1989). Are twelve heads better than one? Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 205–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellsworth, P.C., Bukaty, R.M., Cowan, C.L., & Thompson, W.C. (1984). The death-qualified jury and the defense of insanity. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 81–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elwork, A., & Sales, B.D. (1985). Jury instructions. In S.M. Kassin & L.S. Wrightsman (Eds.), The psychology of evidence and trial procedure (pp. 280–297). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elwork, A., Sales, B.D., & Alfini, J.J. (1982). Making jury instructions understandable. Charlottesville, VA: Michie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erlanger, H.S. (1970). Jury research in America: Its past and future. Law and Society Review, 4, 345–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni, A. (1974, November/December). Creating an imbalance. Trial, 10, 28–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feild, H.S. (1978). Juror background characteristics and attitudes toward rape: Correlates of jurors’ decisions in rape trials. Law and Human Behavior, 2, 73–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg, S.E. (1989). (Ed.). The evolving role of statistical assessments as evidence in the courts. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, R., & Ellsworth, P.C. (1984). Due process vs. crime control: Death qualification and jury attitudes. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 31–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, J. (1945). Courts on trial. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frisby, M.K., & Ramo, J.C. (1990, August 11). 1 guilty verdict and a mistrial for D.C.’s Barry. The Boston Globe, pp. 1, 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galanter, M. (1987). Jury shadows: Reflections on the civil jury and the “litigation explosion.” In The American civil jury (pp. 15–42). Roscoe Pound-American Trial Lawyers Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillers, S. (1980). Deciding who dies. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 129, 1–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaberson, W. (1990, May 19). Bensonhurst jury rejects murder charge. The New York Times, pp. Al, A27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golden, T. (1990, August 20). Jurors at jogger trial remember a lengthy ordeal of their own. The New York Times, pp. Al, B4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, J. (1988, June). Jurors’ comprehension of scientific evidence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Law and Society Association, Vail, CO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, J., Greene, E., & Loftus, E.F. (1985). What confuses jurors in complex cases: Judges and jurors outline the problem. Trial, 21, 65–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, E. (1989). On juries and damage awards: The process of decisionmaking. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 225–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, T.A. (1985). Verdict according to conscience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guinther, J. (1988). The jury in America. New York: Facts on File Publications. [Published with The civil juror: A research project sponsored by the Roscoe Pound Foundation. Bettyruth Walter, research director]

    Google Scholar 

  • Haney, C. (Ed.) (1984). [Special issue on death qualification.] Law and Human Behavior, 8, 1–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hans, V.P. (1986). The conduct of voir dire: A psychological analysis. Justice System Journal, 11, 40–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hans, V.P. (1988). Death by jury. In K.C. Haas & J. A. Inciardi (Eds.), Challenging capital punishment: Legal and social science approaches (pp. 149–175). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hans, V.P. (1989a). The jury’s response to business and corporate wrongdoing. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 177–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hans, V.P. (1989b). Psychology and the law. In W.L. Gregory & W.J. Burroughs (Eds.), Introduction to applied psychology (pp. 327–368). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hans, V.P., & Doob, A.N. (1976). Section 12 of the Canada Evidence Act and the deliberations of simulated juries. Criminal Law Quarterly, 18, 235–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hans, V.P., & Ermann, M.D. (1989). Responses to corporate versus individual wrongdoing. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 151–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hans, V.P., & Lofquist, W.S. (1990, June). Personal versus corporate responsibility perspectives: Evidence from juror interviews. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Law and Society Association, Oakland, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hans, V.P., & Vidmar, N. (1982). Jury selection. In R.M. Bray & N.L. Kerr (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 39–82). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, R., Penrod, S.D., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensler, D.R., Vaiana, M.E., Kakalik, J.S., & Peterson, M.A. (1987). Trends in tort litigation: The story behind the statistics. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. (1988). Increasing jurors’ participation in trials: A field experiment with jury notetaking and question asking. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 231–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. (1989). Instructing jurors: A field experiment with written and preliminary instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 409–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, I.A., & Bordens, K.S. (1988). The effects of outlier presence, plaintiff population size, and aggregation of plaintiffs on simulated civil jury decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 209–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57 (1961).

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, P. (1988). Liability: The legal revolution and its consequences. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, 631 F.2d 1069 (3rd Cir. 1980).

    Google Scholar 

  • In re U.S. Financial Securities Litigation, 609 F.2d 411 (9th Cir. 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalven, H., Jr. (1964). The dignity of the civil jury. Virginia Law Review, 50, 1055–1075.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalven, H., Jr., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, M.F., & Kemmerick, G.D. (1974). Juror judgment as information integration: Combining evidential and nonevidential information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 493–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S.M., & Wrightsman, L.S. (1979). On the requirements of proof: The timing of judicial instruction and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1877–1887.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S.M., & Wrightsman, L.S. (1985). Confessions. In S.M. Kassin & L.S. Wrightsman (Eds.), The psychology of evidence and trial procedure (pp. 67–94). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S.M., & Wrightsman, L.S. (1988). The American jury on trial. New York: Hemisphere.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelman, H., & Hamilton, V.L. (1989). Crimes of obedience: Toward a social psychology of authority and responsibility. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N.L. (1981). Social transition schemes: Charting the group’s road to agreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 684–702.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N.L. (1982). Trial participants’ behaviors and jury verdicts: An exploratory field study. In V.J. Koneeni & E.B. Ebbesen (Eds.), The criminal justice system: A social-psychological perspective (pp. 261–290). San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kifner, J. (1990, May 20). After 2d Bensonhurst verdict, a march amid cries for calm. The New York Times, pp. Al, A34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koneeni, V.J., & Ebbesen, E.B. (1979). External validity of research in legal psychology. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 39–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koneeni, V.J., & Ebbesen, E.B. (1982). Social psychology and the law: The choice of research problems, settings, and methodology. In V.J. Koneeni & E.B. Ebbesen (Eds.), The criminal justice system: A social-psychological perspective (pp. 27–44). San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law Reform Commission of Canada (1980). The jury in criminal trials. (Working paper 27.) Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lempert, R.O. (1981). Civil juries and complex cases: Let’s not rush to judgment. Michigan Law Review, 80, 68–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, A. (Producer). (1986, April 8). Frontline. Inside the jury room [Television program]. Boston: WGBH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd-Bostock, S. (1989, June). The jury in the United Kingdom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Law and Society Association, Madison, WI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  • Locy, T. (1990, August 11). Barry jurors have sent a message against entrapment, observers say. The Boston Globe, p. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, E.F. (1986). Ten years in the life of an expert witness. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 241–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCoun, R.J. (1987). Getting inside the black box: Toward a better understanding of civil jury behavior. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCoun, R.J. (1989). Experimental research on jury decision-making. Science, 244, 1046–1050.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marder, D., & Stemmler, L. (1989, November 25). What does jury think? The shadow knows. Philadelphia Inquirer, pp. Bl, B3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, D., Goodman J., Greene, E., Hanley, R.F., & Loftus, E.F. (1990, March 22). Findings of the Section of Litigation’s three year empirical study of jury comprehension in complex cases. Panel presented at American Bar Association Satellite Seminar, Jury comprehension in complex cases.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martz, L., & Parry, R. (1989, May 15). The hero’s clay feet. Newsweek, pp. 32–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • McConahay, J., Mullin, C., & Frederick, J. (1977). The uses of social science in trials with political and racial overtones: The trial of Joan Little. Law and Contemporary Problems, 41, 205–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mnookin, R., & Kornhauser, L. (1979). Bargaining in the shadow of law: The case of divorce. Yale Law Journal, 88, 950–997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moran, G.P., & Cutler, B.L. (1989, August 8). Dispositional predictors of criminal case verdicts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosteller, R.P. (1989). Legal doctrines governing the admissibility of expert testimony concerning social framework evidence. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 85–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, M. (1979). Rule departures and making law: Juries and their verdicts. Law and Society Review, 13, 781–798.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Jury Project. (1990). Jury work: Systematic techniques (release 9). New York: Clark Boardman Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson, S., Mayo, C., & Smith, A. (1986). Racism in the courtroom. In J.F. Dovidio & S.L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 255–278). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett, R.E., & Wilson, T.D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Note: Public disclosures of jury deliberations. (1983). Harvard Law Review, 96, 886–906.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Barr, W.M., & Conley, J.M. (1988). Lay expectations of the civil justice system. Law and Society Review, 22, 137–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborn, A.S. (1937). The mind of the juror as judge of the facts, or, the layman’s view of the law: A study of the contentious trial. Albany, NY: Boyd Printing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, T.M., Werner, C., & Saks, M.J. (1978). An integration theory analysis of jurors’ presumptions of guilt and innocence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 436–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pendell, J.W. (1989). Enhancing juror effectiveness: An insurer’s perspective. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 311–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 242–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1988). Explanation-based decision making: The effects of memory structure on judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 521–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, M.A. (1984). Compensation of injuries: Civil jury verdicts in Cook County. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, M.A., & Priest, G.L. (1982). The civil jury: Trends in trials and verdicts, Cook County, Illinois, 1960–1979. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeifer, J.E. (1990). Reviewing the empirical evidence on jury racism: Findings of discrimination or discriminatory findings? Nebraska Law Review, 69, 230–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ponting, C. (1987). R. v. Ponting. Journal of Law and Society, 14, 366–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powers v. Ohio. Ill S. Ct. 1364 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • Priest, G.L. (1985). The invention of enterprise liability: A critical history of the intellectual foundations of modern tort law. Journal of Legal Studies, 14, 461–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raab, S. (1990, February 10). Gotti not guilty on all 6 charges in assault trial. The New York Times, pp. Al, A28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rainey, J. (1990, January 20). McMartin jurors feel the public’s heat. Los Angeles Times, pp. A30, A31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, D.E. (1989, May 6). North jurors see him as a scapegoat for superiors. The New York Times, pp. Al, A9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saks, M.J. (1976). The limits of scientific jury selection: Ethical and empirical. Jurimetrics Journal, 17, 3–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saks, M.J. (1977). Jury verdicts. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuller, R. (1990). The impact of expert testimony pertaining to the (i battered woman syndrome on jurors’ information processing and decisions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Western Ontario.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulman, J., Shaver, P., Colman, R., Emrick, B., & Christie, R. (1973, May). Recipe for a jury. Psychology Today, pp. 37–44, 79–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schum, D.A., & Martin, A.W. (1982). Formal and empirical research on cascaded inference in jurisprudence. Law and Society Review, 17, 105–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selvin, M., & Picus, L. (1987). The debate over jury performance: Observations from a recent asbestos case. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Severance, L., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). Improving the ability of jurors to comprehend and apply criminal jury instructions. Law and Society Review, 17, 153–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanley, M.G., & Peterson, M.A. (1983). Comparative justice: Civil jury verdicts in San Francisco and Cook Counties, 1959–1980. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaver, K.G. (1985). The attribution of blame: Causality, responsibility, and blameworthiness. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V.L. (1987). The psychological and legal implications of pretrial instruction in the law. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V.L. (1991). Prototypes in the courtroom: Lay representations of legal concepts. Unpublished manuscript, North-western University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaziano V. Florida, 468 U.S. 447 (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stasser, G., Kerr, N.L., & Bray, R.M. (1982). The social psychology of jury deliberations: Structure, process, and product. In R.M. Bray & N.L. Kerr (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 221–256). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • State v. Hall, 187 So. 2d 861 (Miss.), appeal dismissed 385 U.S. 98 (1966).

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanford, J.A. (1989, June 8). Thirty years and still waiting: The negligible effect of jury instruction research on judicial decisions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Law and Society Association, Madison, WI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanford, S. (1989, August 8). Survey research and jury selection. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanke, E.T., & Tanke, T.J. (1979). Getting off a slippery slope: Social science in the judicial process. American Psychologist, 34, 1130–1138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, W.C. (1989a). Are juries competent to evaluate statistical evidence in criminal trials? Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 9–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, W.C. (1989b). Death qualification after Wainwright v. Witt and Lockhart v. McCree. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 185–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Congress (1982). Limiting the insanity defense. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Criminal Law of the Committee on the Judiciary. United States Senate, 97th Congress, 2nd Session. (Testimony by the Hinckley jurors: June 24, pp. 155–201.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidmar, N. (1979). The other issues in jury simulation research. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 95–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidmar, N. (1989a). Assessing the impact of statistical evidence, a social science perspective. In S.E. Feinberg (Ed.), The evolving role of statistical assessments as evidence in the courts (pp. 279–319). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidmar, N. (Ed.) (1989b). Is the jury competent? [Special issue]. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 1–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidmar, N., & Schuller, R. (1989). Juries and expert evidence: Social framework testimony. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 133–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinson, D.E. (1982). The shadow jury: An experiment in litigation science. American Bar Association Journal, 68, 1242–1246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visher, C.A. (1987). Jury decision making: The importance of evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiten, W., & Diamond, S.S. (1979). A critical review of the jury simulation paradigm: The case of defendant characteristics. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 71–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner, CM., Strube, M.J., Cole, A.M., & Kagehiro, D.K. (1985). The impact of case characteristics and prior jury experience on jury verdicts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 409–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, E.C (1987). Procedural innovations to enhance juror comprehension in complex litigation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, G. (1963). The proof of guilt (3rd ed.). London: Stevens.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wissler, R., & Saks, M.J. (1985). On the inefficacy of limiting instruction: When jurors use prior conviction evidence to decide guilt. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 37–48.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Valerie P. Hans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. 19130, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Dorothy K. Kagehiro

  2. Department of Legal Studies, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 19104-6369, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    William S. Laufer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1992 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hans, V.P. (1992). Jury Decision Making. In: Kagehiro, D.K., Laufer, W.S. (eds) Handbook of Psychology and Law. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-4038-7_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-4038-7_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4757-4040-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-4038-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation