Skip to main content

Illuminations and Shadows from Jury Simulations

Abstract

In the 18 years since authors in Law and Human Behavior's special issue on simulation research called for more realistic jury simulations, jury simulations of all kinds have proliferated. While simulations in general represent a significant improvement over nonempirical armchair speculation about jury behavior, the more ecologically valid features of recent simulations increase both the quality and the persuasiveness of simulation results. Still missing, however, are theories and a data base that will signal when these more elaborate and expensive design features are crucial.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

REFERENCES

  • Arizona Supreme Court Committee on More Effective Use of Juries (1994). Jurors: The power of twelve. Phoenix: Arizona Supreme Court Committee.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., & Darley, J. M. (1982). Reducing the biasing effect of perpetrator attractiveness in jury simulation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 286–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brekke, N. J., Enko, P. J., Clavet, G., & Sellau, E. (1991). Of juries and court-appointed experts: The impact of nonadversarial versus adversarial expert testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 451–475.

    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 

  • Connolly, T., & Bukszar, E. W. (1990). Hindsight bias: Self flattery or cognitive error? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 3, 205–211.

    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 

  • Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993).

  • Diamond, S. S. (Ed.). (1979). Simulation research and the law. A special issue of Law and Human Behavior, 3.

  • Diamond, S. S., & Casper, J. D. (1992). Blindfolding the jury to verdict consequences: Damages, experts, and the civil jury. Law & Society Review, 26, 513–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, S. S., Casper, J. D., Heiert, C., & Marshall, A. M. (1996). Juror reactions to attorneys at trial. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 87, 17–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, S. S., & Levi, J. N. (1996). Improving decisions on death by revising and testing jury instructions. Judicature, 79, 224–232.

    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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Judicial Center (1994). Reference manual on scientific evidence, Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischoff, B. (1975). Hindsight ≠ foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 288–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Free v. Peters, 806 F. Supp. 705 (N. D. Ill. 1992); rev'd, 12 F.3d 700 (7th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 513 US 967 (1994).

  • Goldberg, F. (1970). Toward expansion of Witherspoon: Capital scruples, jury bias, and the use of psychological data to raise presumptions in the law. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Review, 5, 53–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, D., & Sherman, J. S. (1996). Stereotypes. In R. S. Wyer, Jr., & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (2nd ed.) (pp. 1–68). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hans, V. P., & Lofquist, W. S. (1992). Jurors' judgments of business liability in tort cases: Implications for the litigation explosion debate. Law & Society Review, 26, 101–115.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. (1994). Juror notetaking and question asking during trials: A national field experiment. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 121–150.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, M. F., & Krupa, S. (1986). Severe penalties under the control of others can reduce guilt verdicts. Law and Psychology Review, 10, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, M. F., & Miller, L. E. (1978). Reducing the effects of juror bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1443–1455.

    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 

  • Kerwin, J., & Schaffer, D. R. (1994). Mock jurors versus juries: The role of deliberations in reactions to inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 153–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, G. P., & Kerr, N. L. (1989). Laboratory simulation and bias in the study of juror behavior: A methodological note. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 89–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linz, D., & Penrod, S. (1982). A meta-analysis of the influence of research methodology on the outcomes of jury simulation studies. Paper presented at the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Louisville, Kentucky.

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

  • MacCoun, R. J., & Kerr, N. L. (1988). Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: Jurors' bias for leniency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 21–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGlynn, R. P., Megas, J. C., & Benson, D. H. (1976). Sex and race as factors affecting the attribution of insanity in a murder trial. Journal of Psychology, 93, 93–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell v. Gonzales, 819 P.2d 872 (Cal. 1991).

  • People v. Allen, 420 N.W.2d 499 (Mich. 1988).

  • Sandys, M., & Dillehay, R. C. (1995). First-ballot votes, predeliberation dispositions, and final verdicts in jury trials. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 175–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sears, D. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 515–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Severance, L. J., Greene, E., & Loftus, E. F. (1984). Toward criminal jury instructions that jurors can understand. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 75, 198–233.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ugwuegbu, D. C. E. (1979). Racial and evidential factors in juror attribution of legal responsibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 133–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidmar, N. (1979). The other issues in jury simulation research: A commentary with particular reference to defendant character studies. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 95–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidmar, N. (1994). Making inferences about jury behavior from jury verdict statistics: Cautions about Lorelei's Lied. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 599–617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, L., & Monahan, J. (1996). Daubert and the Reference Manual: An essay on the future of science in law. Virginia Law Review, 82, 837–857.

    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 

  • Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968).

  • Zeisel, H. (1968). Some data on juror attitudes toward capital punishment, Chicago: Center for Studies in Criminal Justice, University of Chicago Law School.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

About this article

Cite this article

Diamond, S.S. Illuminations and Shadows from Jury Simulations. Law Hum Behav 21, 561–571 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024831908377

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024831908377

Keywords

  • Social Psychology
  • Data Base
  • Human Behavior
  • Design Feature
  • Recent Simulation