Advertisement

The Trial: A Research Reviews

  • Amiram Elwork
  • Bruce Dennis Sales
  • David Suggs
Part of the Perspectives in Law & Psychology book series (PILP, volume 2)

Abstract

In a democracy, law represents a people’s attempt to achieve justice by agreeing on a set of behavioral norms and rules. These, in turn, are based on “an underlying set of assumptions about how people act and how their actions can be controlled” (Special Commission on the Social Sciences of the National Science Board, 1969, p. 35). Since lawyers are not equipped to study those assumptions, psychologists and other behavioral scientists have a unique contribution to make in this area. Their research can help in the achievement of justice by exposing invalid assumptions and by documenting how court decisions and administrative procedures can conform to empirically derived knowledge about human behavior.

Keywords

Trial Process Mock Juror Applied Social Psychology Jury Trial Guilty Verdict 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adkins, J. C. An art? A science? Or luck? Trial, 1968–1969, 5, 37–39.Google Scholar
  2. Allport, G. W., & Kramer, B. M. Some roots of prejudice. Journal of Psychology, 1946, 22, 9–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Appleman, J. A. Selection of the jury. Trial Lawyer’s Guide, 1968, 12, 207–239.Google Scholar
  4. Asch, S. E. Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics. Evanston, Ill.: Row-Peterson, 1953.Google Scholar
  5. Bailey, F. L., & Rothblatt, H. B. Fundamentals of criminal advocacy. Rochester, N.Y.: Lawyer’s Co-operative, 1974.Google Scholar
  6. Bakan, D. On method: Toward a reconstruction of psychological investigation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1967.Google Scholar
  7. Balch, R. W., Griffiths, L. T., Hall, E. O., & Winfree, L. T. The socialization of jurors: The voir dire as a rite of passage. Journal of Criminal Justice, 1976, 4, 271–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bazelon, D. L. Psychiatrists and the adversary process. Scientific American, 1974, 230(6), 18–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Becker, T. L., Hildum, D. C., & Bateman, K. The influence of juror’s values on their verdicts: A courts and politics experiment. The Southwestern Social Science Quarterly,1965, 46(2), 130–140.Google Scholar
  10. Beecher, F. Evidence versus psychology. The Canadian Law Times, 1904, 24, 195–200.Google Scholar
  11. Berk, R. A. Social science and jury selection: A case study of a civil suit. In G. Bermant, C. Nemeth, & N. Vidmar (Eds.), Psychology and the law. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1976.Google Scholar
  12. Berman, J., & Sales, B. D. A critical evaluation of the systematic approach to jury selection. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1977, 4, 219–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bermant, G. Critique—Data in search of policy: Behavioral responses to videotape in the courtroom. Brigham Young University Law Review, 1975, 467–485.Google Scholar
  14. Bermant, G., & Coppock, R. Outcomes of six and twelve member jury trials: An analysis of 128 civil cases in the State of Washington. Washington Law Review, 1973, 48, 593–596.Google Scholar
  15. Bermant, G., & Jacoubovitch, M. D. Fish out of water: A brief overview of social and psychological concerns about videotaped trials. Hastings Law Journal, 1975, 26, 999–1011.Google Scholar
  16. Bermant, G., & Shepard, J. The voir dire examination, juror challenges, and adversary advocacy. In B. D. Sales (Ed.), Perspectives in law and psychology. Vol. 2: The trial process. New York: Plenum, 1981.Google Scholar
  17. Bermant, G., Chappell, D., Crockett, G. T., Jacoubovitch, M. D., & McGuire, M. Juror responses to prerecorded videotape trial presentation in California and Ohio. Hastings Law Journal, 1975, 26, 975–998.Google Scholar
  18. Bevan, W., Albert, R. S., Loiseaux, P. R., Mayfield, P. N., & Wright, G. Jury behavior as a function of the prestige of the foreman and the nature of his leadership. Journal of Public Law, 1958, 7, 419–449.Google Scholar
  19. Bird, C. The influence of the press upon the accuracy of report. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1927, 22, 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Black, H. C. Black’s law dictionary (4th ed.). St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1968.Google Scholar
  21. Blunk, R. A., & Sales, B. D. Persuasion during the voir dire. In B. D. Sales (Ed.), Psychology in the legal process. New York: Spectrum Publications, 1977.Google Scholar
  22. Bodin, H. S. Selecting a jury. New York: Practicing Law Institute, 1954.Google Scholar
  23. Boor, M. Effects of victim injury, victim competence, and defendant opportunism on the decision of simulated jurors. Journal of Social Psychology, 1976, 100, 315–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Bray, R. M., & Noble, A. M. Authoritarianism and decisions of mock juries: Evidence of jury bias and group polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978, 36, 1424, 1430.Google Scholar
  25. Bray, R. M., Struckman-Johnson, C., Osborne, M. D., McFarlane, J. B., & Scott, J. The effects of defendant status on the decisions of students and community juries. Social Psychology, 1978, 41, 256–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Brett, P. Legal decision making and bias: A critique of an experiment. University of Colorado Law Review, 1973, 45, 1–24.Google Scholar
  27. Broeder, D. W. The University of Chicago jury project. Nebraska Law Review, 1958, 38, 744–761.Google Scholar
  28. Broeder, D. W. The voir dire examination—An empirical study. Southern California Law Review, 1965, 38(4), 503–528.Google Scholar
  29. Brooks, W. N., & Doob, A. N. Justice and the jury. Journal of Social Issues, 1975, 31(3), 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Buckhout, R. Eyewitness testimony. Scientific American, 1974, 231(6), 23–31.Google Scholar
  31. Bullock, H. A. Significance of the racial factor in the length of prison sentences. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 1961, 52, 411–415.Google Scholar
  32. Bush, N. The case for expansive voir dire. Law and Psychology Review, 1976, 2, 9–26.Google Scholar
  33. Calder, B. J., Insko, C. A., & Yandell, B. The relation of cognitive and memorial processes to persuasion in a simulated jury trial. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1974, 4, 62–93.Google Scholar
  34. Carroll, J. S., & Ruback, R. B. Sentencing by parole board: The parole revocation decision. In B. D. Sales (Ed.), Perspectives in law and psychology. Vol. 2: The trial process. New York: Plenum, 1981.Google Scholar
  35. Centers, R., Shomer, R., & Rodrigues, A. A field experiment in interpersonal persuasion using authoritative influence. Journal of Personality, 1970, 38, 392–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Chaikin, A. L., & Darley, J. M., Jr. Victim or perpetrator: Defensive attribution of responsibility and the need for order and justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 25, 268–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Christie, R. Probability v. precedence: The social psychology of jury selection. In G. Bermant, C. Nemeth, & N. Vidmar (Eds.), Psychology and the law. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1976.Google Scholar
  38. Chu, G. C. Prior familiarity, perceived bias, and one sided versus two sided communication. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,1967, 3, 243–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Cohen, J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  40. Crosson, R. F. An investigation into certain personality variables among capital trial jurors. Proceedings of the 76th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1968, 3, 287–288. (Summary)Google Scholar
  41. D’Agostino, L. P., Sr Brown, J. R. Loaded for acquittal? Psychiatry in the jury selection process. University of West Los Angeles Law Review,1975, 7, 199–212.Google Scholar
  42. Darrow, C. Attorney for the defense. Esquire Magazine, May, 1936, pp. 36–37, 211–213.Google Scholar
  43. Davis, B. E., & Wiley, R. E. Forty-nine thoughts on jury selection. Trial Lawyer’s Guide, 1965, 9, 351–356.Google Scholar
  44. Davis, F. Inside intuition. New York: The New American Library, 1975.Google Scholar
  45. Davis, J. H., Kerr, N. L., Atkin, R. S., Holt, R., & Meek, D. The decision processes of 6 and 12 person mock juries assigned unanimous and two-thirds majority rules. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1975, 32(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Davis, J. H., Bray, R. M., & Holt, R. W. The empirical study of decision processes in juries: A critical review. In J. L. Tapp & F. J. Levine (Eds.), Law, justice,and the individual in society: Psychological and legal issues. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1977.Google Scholar
  47. Davis, J. H., Kerr, N. L., Stasser, G., Meek, D., & Holt, R. Victim consequences, sentence severity and decision processes in mock juries. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,1977, 18, 346–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. DeJong, W., Morris, W. N., & Hastorf, A. H. Effect of an escaped accomplice on the punishment assigned to a criminal defendant. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1976, 33(2), 192–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Diamond, S. S. A jury experiment re-analyzed. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 1974, 7, 520–532.Google Scholar
  50. Diamond, S. S. Exploring sources of sentencing disparity. In B. D. Sales (Ed.), Perspectives in law and psychology. Vol. 2: The trial process. New York: Plenum, 1981.Google Scholar
  51. Dion, K. Physical attractiveness and evaluation of children’s transgressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 24, 285–290.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Doob, A. N., & Kirshenbaum, H. M. Some empirical evidence on the effect of S.12 of the Canada Evidence Act upon an accused. Criminal Law Quarterly, 1972, 15, 88–96.Google Scholar
  53. Doob, A. N., & Kirshenbaum, H. M. Bias in police lineups: partial remembering. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 1973, 1(3), 287–293.Google Scholar
  54. Doret, D. Trial by videotape—can justice be done? Temple Law Quarterly, 1974, 47, 228–267.Google Scholar
  55. Downing, J. D. H. Inaccurate perception and evidence in court. New Law Journal, 1972, 122, 600–602.Google Scholar
  56. Ebbesen, E. B., & Konecni, V. J. The process of sentencing adult felons: A causal analysis of judicial decisions. In B. D. Sales (Ed.), Perspectives in law and psychology. Vol. 2: The trial process. New York: Plenum, 1981.Google Scholar
  57. Efran, M. G. The effect of physical appearance on the judgment of guilt, interpersonal attraction, and severity of recommended punishment in a simulated jury task. Journal of Research in Personality, 1974, 8, 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Eisenberg, A. M., & Smith, R. R. Nonverbal communication. New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1971.Google Scholar
  59. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. Unmasking the face. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975.Google Scholar
  60. Elwork, A., & Sales, B. D. Psycholegal research on the jury and trial process. In W. Curran, L. McGarry, D. Petty (Eds.), Modern Legal Medicine Psychiatry and Forensic Science. Philadelphia: F. A. Davis, 1980.Google Scholar
  61. Elwork, A., Sales, B. D., & Alfini, J. J. Juridic decisions: In ignorance of the law or in light of it? Law and Human Behavior, 1977, 1(2), 163–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Elwork, A., Sales, B. D., & Alfini, J. J. Jury deliberations. manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
  63. Elliott, E. S., Wills, E. J., & Goldstein, A. G. The effects of discrimination training on the recognition of white and oriental faces. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Science, 1973, 2, 71–73.Google Scholar
  64. Erickson, B., Lind, E. A., Johnson, B. C., & O’Barr, W. M. Speech style and impression formation in a court setting: The effects of ‘powerful’ and ‘powerless’ speech. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1978, 14, 266–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Erlanger, H. S. Jury research in America: Its past and future. Law and Society Review, 1970, 4, 345–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Etzioni, A. Creating an imbalance. Trial, 1974, 10(6), 28–30.Google Scholar
  67. Farmer, L. C., Williams, G. R., Lee, R. E., Cundick, B. P., Howell, R. J., & Rooker, C. K. Juror perceptions of trial testimony as a function of the method of presentation. In G. Bermant, C. Nemeth, & N. Vidmar (Eds.), Psychology and the law. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1976.Google Scholar
  68. Field, L. Voir dire examination—A neglected art. University of Missouri at Kansas City Law Review 1965, 33, 171–178.Google Scholar
  69. Fontaine, G., & Kiger, R. The effects of defendant dress and supervision on judgments of simulated jurors: An exploratory study. Law and Human Behavior 1978, 2, 63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Forston, R. F. Judges instructions: A quantitative analysis of jurors’ listening comprehension. Today’s Speech 1970, 18, 34–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Foss, R. D. Group decision processes in the simulated trial jury. Sociometry 1976, 39, 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Friedman, H. Trial by jury: Criteria for convictions; jury size and type I and type II errors. American Statistician 1972, 26(2), 21–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Friend, R. M., & Vinson, M. Leaning over backwards—Jurors’ responses to defendants’ attractiveness. Journal of Communication 1974, 24 124–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Gardner, D. S. The perception and memory of witnesses. Cornell Law Quarterly 1933, 18, 391–409.Google Scholar
  75. Gelfand, A. E., & Solomon, H. A study of Poisson’s models for jury verdicts in criminal and civil trials. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1973, 68(342), 271–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Gelfand, A. E., & Solomon, H. Modeling jury verdicts in the American legal system. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1974, 69(345), 32–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Gelfand, A. E., & Solomon, H. Analyzing the decision-making process of the American jury. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1975, 70(350), 305–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Gelfand, A. E., & Solomon, H. An argument in favor of 12-member juries. In S. S. Nagel (Ed.), Modeling the criminal justice system. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1977.Google Scholar
  79. Gerbasi, K. D., Zuckerman, M., & Reis, H. T. Justice needs a new blindfold: A review of mock jury research. Psychological Bulletin 1977, 84(2), 323–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Gladstone, R. Authoritarianism, social status, transgression, and punitiveness. Proceedings of the 77th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association 1969, 4, 287–288.Google Scholar
  81. Gleason, J. M., & Harris, V. A. Group discussion and defendant’s socioeconomic status as determinants of judgments by simulated jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1976, 6(2), 186–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Goldman, J., Maitland, K. A., & Norton, P. L. Psychological aspects of jury performance. Journal of Psychiatry and Law 1975, 3, 367–379.Google Scholar
  83. Goldstein, A. G. The fallability of the eye witness: Psychological evidence. In B. D. Sales (Ed.), Psychology in the legal process. Jamaica, N.Y.: Spectrum Publications, 1977.Google Scholar
  84. Goldstein, I. Trial technique. Chicago: Callaghan, 1938.Google Scholar
  85. Greenbaum, A. F. Judges’ nonverbal behavior in jury trials: A thread to judicial impartiality. Virginia Law Review 1975, 61(6), 1266–1298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Greer, D. S. Anything but the truth? The reliability of testimony in criminal trials. The British Journal of Criminology, 1971, 11, 131–154.Google Scholar
  87. Griffitt, W., & Jackson, T. Simulated jury decisions: Influence of jury-defendant attitude similarity-dissimilarity. Social Behavior and Personality 1973, 1, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Grofman, B. Not necessarily twelve and not necessarily unanimous: Evaluating the impact of Williams v. Florida and Johnson v. Louisiana. In G. Bermant, C. Nemeth, & N. Vidmar (Eds.), Psychology and the law. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1976.Google Scholar
  89. Grofman, B. Mathematical models of juror and jury decision making: The state of the art. In B. D. Sales (Ed.), Perspectives in law and psychology. Vol 2: The trial process. New York: Plenum, 1981.Google Scholar
  90. Gutman, S. M. The attorney-conducted voir dire of jurors: A constitutional right. Brooklyn Law Review, 1972, 39, 290–329.Google Scholar
  91. Hagan, J. Extra legal attributes and sentencing: An assessment of a sociological viewpoint. Law and Society Review, 1974, 8, 357–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Hamilton, L. V. Individual differences in ascriptions of responsibility, guilt, and appropriate punishment. In G. Bermant, C. Nemeth, & H. Vidmar (Eds.), Psychology and the Law. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1976.Google Scholar
  93. Hardy, K. R. Determinants of conformity and attitude change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1957, 54, 289–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Hare, A. P. Interaction and consensus in different sized groups. American Sociological Review, 1952, 17, 261–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Harrington, D. C., & Dempsey, J. Psychological factors in jury selection. Tennessee Law Review, 1969, 37, 173–184.Google Scholar
  96. Haward, L. R. C. The reliability of corroborated police evidence in a case flagrante delicto. Journal of Forensic Science Society, 1963, 3, 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Haward, L. R. C. Some psychological aspects of oral evidence. British Journal of Criminology, 1963, 3, 342, 360.Google Scholar
  98. Haward, L. R. C. Psychological experiments and judicial doubt. Bulletin of British Psychological Society, 1964, 17, 54–64.Google Scholar
  99. Hawkins, C. Interaction rates of jurors aligned in factions. American Sociological Review 1962, 27, 689–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Hendrick, C., & Shaffer, D. R. Murder: Effects of number of killers and victim mutiliation on simulated jurors’ judgements. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 1975, 6(3), 313–316.Google Scholar
  101. Herbsleb, J., Sales, B. D., & Berman, J. The legal and ethical consequences of social scientists aiding the voir dire. In L. E. Abt & I. Stuart (Eds.), The social psychology of discretionary law. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1979.Google Scholar
  102. Hester, R. K., & Smith, R. E. Effects of a mandatory death penalty on the decisions of simulated jurors as a function of heinousness of the crime. Journal of Criminal Justice 1973, 1, 319–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Hoiberg, B. C., & Stires, L. K. The effect of several types of pretrial publicity on the guilt attributions of simulated jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1973, 3, 267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Hovland, C. J., & Mandell, W. Is there a law of primacy in persuasion? In C. I. Hovland et al. (Eds.), The order of presentation in persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957.Google Scholar
  105. Hovland, C. I., Lumsdaine, A. A., & Sheffield, F. D. Experiments on mass communication Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1949.Google Scholar
  106. Hovland, C. I., Campbell, E. H., & Brock, T. The effects of commitment on opinion change following communication. In C. I. Hovland et al. (Eds.), The order of presentation in persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957.Google Scholar
  107. Howard, J. C. Racial Discrimination in Sentencing. Judicature 1975, 59, 120–125.Google Scholar
  108. Howitt, D. Situational and victims’ characteristics in simulated penal judgements. Psychological Reports 1977, 40 55–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Hutchins, R. M., & Slesinger, D. Some observations on the law of evidence. Columbia Law Review 1928, 28 432 440.Google Scholar
  110. Insko, C. A. One sided versus two-sided communications and countercommunications. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 1962, 65, 203–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Izzett, R., & Fishman, L. Defendant sentences as a function of attractiveness and justification for actions. Journal of Social Psychology 1976, 100 285–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Izzett, R. R., & Leginski, W. Group discussion and the influence of defendant characteris- tics in a simulated jury setting. Journal of Social Psychology 1974, 93, 271–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Izzett, R. R., & Sales, B. D. Person perception and jurors’ reactions to defendants: An equity theory interpretation. In B. D. Sales (Ed.), Perspectives in law and psychology. Vol. 2: The trial process. New York: Plenum, 1981.Google Scholar
  114. James, R. Status and competence of jurors. American Journal of Sociology 1959, 64, 563–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Janis, I. L. Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972.Google Scholar
  116. Jurow, G. L. New data on the effect of a “death qualified” jury on the guilt determination process. Harvard Law Review 1971, 84 567–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Kadish, M., & Kadish, S. Discretion to disobey. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  118. Kairys, D., Schulman, J., & Harring, S. (Eds.) The jury system: New methods for reducing prejudice. A manual for lawyers, legal workers and social scientists. Philadelphia: National Jury Project and National Lawyers Guild, 1975.Google Scholar
  119. Kalven, H., Jr., & Zeisel, H. The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown 1966.Google Scholar
  120. Kaplan, M. F. Discussion polarization effects in a modified jury decision paradigm: Informational influences. Sociometry 1977, 40 262–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Kaplan, M. F., & Kemmerick, G. D. Juror judgment as information integration: Combining evidential and nonevidential information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1974, 30 493–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Kaplan, M. F., & Miller, C. E. Judgements and group discussion: Effect of presentation and memory factors on polarization. Sociometry 1977, 40 337–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Kaplan, M. F., & Schersching, C. An information integration analysis. In B. D. Sales (Ed.), Perspectives in law and psychology. Vol. 2: The trial process. New York: Plenum, 1981.Google Scholar
  124. Kasprzyk, D., Montano, D. E., & Loftus, E. F. Effect of leading questions on jurors’ verdicts. Jurimetrics Journal 1975, 16, 48–51.Google Scholar
  125. Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. On the requirements of proof: The timing of judicial instruction and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1979, 37, 1877–1887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Katz, L. S. The twelve man jury. Trial 1968–1969, 5, 39–40, 42.Google Scholar
  127. Kerr, N. L. Severity of prescribed penalty and mock jurors’ verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1978, 36, 1431–1442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Kerr, N. L., Atkin, R. S., Stasser, G., Meek, D., Holt, R. W., & Davis, J. H. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: Effect of concept definition and assigned decision rule on the judgements of mock jurors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1976, 34, 282295.Google Scholar
  129. Kessler, J. B. An empirical study of six and twelve member jury decision making processes. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 1973, 6, 712–734.Google Scholar
  130. Kessler, J. B. The social psychology of jury deliberations. In R. J. Simon (Ed.), The jury system in America. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1975.Google Scholar
  131. Konecni, V. J., & Ebbesen, E. B. A critique of theory and method in social-psychological approaches to legal issues. In B. D. Sales (Ed.), Perspectives in law and psychology. Vol. 2: The trial process. New York: Plenum, 1981.Google Scholar
  132. Korbakes, C. A. Criminal sentencing: Is the judge’s sound discretion subject to review? Judicature 1975, 59, 112–119.Google Scholar
  133. Korbakes, C. A. Criminal sentencing: Should the “judge’s sound discretion” be explained? Judicature 1975, 59, 184–191.Google Scholar
  134. Kreindler, L. S. The jury system in court cases. In G. R. Winters (Ed.), The jury. Chicago: The American Judicature Society, 1971.Google Scholar
  135. Lana, R. E. Familiarity and the order of presentation of persuasive communications. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 1961, 62 573–577.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Landis, B. Jury trials and the delay of justice. In G. R. Winters (Ed.), The jury. Chicago: The American Judicature Society, 1971.Google Scholar
  137. Landy, D., & Aronson, E. The influence of the character of the criminal and his victim on the decisions of simulated jurors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1969, 5, 141–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. La Tour, S. Determinants of participant and observer satisfaction with adversary and inquisitorial modes of adjudication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1978, 36, 1531–1545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Lawson, R. G. The law of primacy in the criminal courtroom. Journal of Social Psychology 1969, 77 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Lawson, R. G. Relative effectiveness of one-sided and two-sided communications in courtroom persuasion. Journal of General Psychology 1970, 82, 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Levine, F. J., & Tapp, J. L. Psychology of criminal identification: the gap from Wade to Kirby. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1973, 121 1079–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Levine, M. Scientific method and the adversary model. American Psychologist 1974, 29, 661–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Levine, M., Farrell, M. P., & Perotta, P. The impact of rules of jury deliberation on group developmental processes. In B. D. Sales (Ed.), Perspectives in law and psychology. Vol. 2: The trial process. New York: Plenum, 1981.Google Scholar
  144. Levitt, W. H., Nelson, D. W., Ball, V. C., & Chernick, R. Expediting voir dire: An empirical study. Southern California Law Review 1971, 44 916–995.Google Scholar
  145. Lezak, M. D. Some psychological limitations on witness reliability, Wayne Law Review 1973, 20 117–133.Google Scholar
  146. Lind, E. A. The exercise of information influence in legal advocacy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1975, 5, 127–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Lind, E. A., Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. Discovery and presentation of evidence in adversary and nonadversary proceedings, Michigan Law Review 1973, 71, 1129–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Loftus, E. F. Reconstructing memory: The incredible eyewitness. Psychology Today 1974, 8 116–119.Google Scholar
  149. Loftus, E. F. Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology 1975, 1, 560–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Loftus, E. F. Reconstructive memory processes in eyewitness testimony. In B. D. Sales (Ed.), Perspectives in law and psychology. Vol. 2: The trial process. New York: Plenum, 1981.Google Scholar
  151. Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1974, 13, 585–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Loftus, E. F., & Zanni, G. Eyewitness testimony: The influence of the wording of a question. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 1975, 5, 86–88.Google Scholar
  153. Loftus, E. F., Miller, D. G., & Burns, H. J. Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 1978, 4, 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Luchins, A. S. Primacy-recency in impression formation. In C. I. Hovland et al. (Eds.), The order of presentation in persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957.Google Scholar
  155. Luchins, A. S. Definitiveness of impression and primacy-recency in communications. Journal of Social Psychology 1958, 48 275–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Lumsdaine, A. A., & Janis, I. L. Resistance to counterpropaganda produced by one sided and two sided propaganda presentations. Public Opinion Quarterly 1953, 17, 311–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Lund, F. H. The psychology of belief: IV. The law of primacy in persuasion. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 1925, 20 183–191.Google Scholar
  158. Malpass, R. S., & Kravitz, J. Recognition for faces of own and other “race.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1969, 13, 330–335.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Marquis, K. H., Marshall, J., & Oskamp, S. Testimony validity as a function of question form, atmosphere, and item difficulty. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1972, 2 167–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Marshall, J. Law and psychology in conflict. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966.Google Scholar
  161. Maslow, A. H. The psychology of science. Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1969.Google Scholar
  162. McCart, S. W. Trial by jury: A complete guide to the jury system. Philadelphia: Chilton Books, 1964.Google Scholar
  163. McConahay, J. D., Mullin, C. J., & Frederick, J. The uses of social science in trials with political and racial overtones: The trial of Joan Little. Law and Contemporary Problems 1977, 41, 205–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. McGhee, P. E., & Teevan, R. C. Conformity behavior and need for affiliation. Journal of Social Psychology 1967, 72 117–121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. McGinnies, E. Studies in persuasion: III. Reactions of Japanese students to one sided and two sided communications. Journal of Social Psychology 1966, 70 87–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. McGlynn, R. P., Megas, J. C., & Benson, D. H. Sex and race as factors affecting the attribution of insanity in a murder trial. Journal of Psychology 1976, 93, 93–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. McGuire, W. J. Inducing resistance to persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. I). New York: Academic Press, 1964.Google Scholar
  168. Meehl, P. E. Law and the fireside inductions: some reflections of a clinical psychologist. Journal of Social Issues 1971, 27(4), 65–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. Miller, G. R. The effects of videotaped trial materials on juror response. In G. Bermant, C. Nemeth, & N. Vidmar, (Eds.), Psychology and the law. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1976.Google Scholar
  170. Miller, G. R., & Siebert, F. S. Effects of videotaped testimony on information processing and decision-making in jury trials. Progress Report 2, NSF-RANN Grant #GI 38398, Department of Communication, Michigan State University, March, 1974.Google Scholar
  171. Miller, G. R., & Siebert, F. S. Effects of videotaped testimony on information processing and decision-making in jury trials. Progress Report 2, NSF-RANN Grant #GI38398, Department of Communication, Michigan State University, February, 1975.Google Scholar
  172. Miller, G. R., Bender, D. C., Florence, B. T., & Nicholson, H. E. Real versus reel: What’s the verdict? Journal of Communication 1974, 24, 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. Miller, G. R., Bender, D. C., Boster, F. J., Florence, B. T., Fontes, N. E., Hocking, J. E., & Nicholson, H. E. The effects of videotape testimony in jury trials: Studies on juror decision-making, information retention, and emotional arousal. Brigham Young University Law Review 1975, 331–373.Google Scholar
  174. Mills, L. R. Six-member and twelve-member juries: An empirical study of trial results. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 1973, 6, 671–711.Google Scholar
  175. Mitchell, H. E., & Byrne, D. The defendant’s dilemma: Effect of juror’s attitudes and authoritarianism on judicial decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1973, 25 123–129.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. Monahan, J., & Hood, G. L. Psychologically disordered and criminal offenders: Perceptions of their volition and responsibility. Criminal Justice and Behavior 1976, 3(2), 123–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. Moskitis, R. L. The constituted need for discovery of pre-voir dire juror studies. Southern California Law Review 1976, 49, 597–634.Google Scholar
  178. Munsterberg, H. On the witness stand. New York: Doubleday, Page, 1908.Google Scholar
  179. Myers, D. G., & Kaplan, M. F. Group-induced polarization in simulated juries. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 1976, 2, 63–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  180. Mysliwiec, S. R. Toward principles of jury equity. The Yale Law Journal 1974, 83 1023–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. Nagel, S. Disparities in criminal procedure. U.C.L.A. Law Review 1967, 14 1272–1305.Google Scholar
  182. Nagel, S., & Neef, M. Using deductive modeling to determine an optimum jury size and fraction required to convict. Washington University Law Quarterly 1975, 1975(4), 933–978.Google Scholar
  183. Nagel, S. S., & Weitzman, L. J. Women as litigants. Hastings Law Journal 1971, 23, 171–198.Google Scholar
  184. Nagel, S., Lamm, D., & Neef, M. Decision theory and juror decision-making. In B. D. Sales (Ed.), Perspectives in law and psychology. Vol. 2: The trial process. New York: Plenum, 1981.Google Scholar
  185. Nemeth, C. Interactions between jurors as a function of majority v. unanimity decision rules. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1977, 7(1), 38–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. Nemeth, C., & Sosis, R. H. A simulated jury study: Characteristics of the defendant and the jurors. Journal of Social Psychology 1973, 90 221–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  187. Nemeth, C., Endicott, J., & Wachtler, J. From the ‘50’s to the ’70’s: Women in jury deliberations. Sociometry 1976, 4, 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. Nierenberg, G. I., & Calero, H. H. How to read a person like a book. Richmond Hill, Ontario: Simon & Schuster of Canada, 1973.Google Scholar
  189. O’Barr, W. M., & Lind, E. A. Ethnography and experimentation—Partners in legal research. In B. D. Sales (Ed.), Perspectives in law and psychology. Vol. 2: The trial process. New York: Plenum, 1981.Google Scholar
  190. O’Mara, J. Standard jury charges-findings of pilot project. Pennsylvania Bar Association Quarterly 1972, January, 166–175.Google Scholar
  191. Owen, I. Defending criminal cases before juries: A common sense approach. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973.Google Scholar
  192. Pabst, W. R., Jr. What do six member juries really save? Judicature 1973, 57, 6–11.Google Scholar
  193. Padawer-Singer, A. M., Singer, A., & Singer, R. Voir dire by two lawyers: An essential safeguard. Judicature 1974, 57, 386–391.Google Scholar
  194. Padawer-Singer, A. M., Singer, A. N., & Singer, R. L. J. An experimental study of twelve v. six member juries under unanimous v. nonunanimous decisions. In B. D. Sales (Ed.), Psychology in the Legal Process. Jamaica, N.Y.: Spectrum Publications, 1977.Google Scholar
  195. Penrod, S., & Hastie, R. Models of jury decision making: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin 1979, 86 462–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  196. Pepitone, A., & DiNubile, M. Contrasts effects in judgments of crime severity and the punishment of criminal violators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1976, 33, 448–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  197. Phillips, L. D. Bayesian statistics for social scientists. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1973.Google Scholar
  198. Reed, J. P. Jury deliberations, voting, and verdict trends. Southwestern Social Science Quarterly 1965, 45(4), 361–370.Google Scholar
  199. Robinson, W. Bias, probability and trial by jury. American Sociological Review 1950, 15, 73–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  200. Rosenblatt, J. C. Should the size of the jury in criminal cases be reduced to six? An examination of psychological evidence. The Prosecutor: Journal of the National District Attorney’s Association 1972, 8 309–314.Google Scholar
  201. Rothblatt, H. B. Techniques for jury selection. Criminal Law Bulletin 1966, 2(4), 14–29.Google Scholar
  202. Ryan, J. P., Ashman, A., Sales, B. D., & Shane-Dubow, S. America’s trial judges at work: The role of organizational influences. New York: Free Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  203. Rychlak, J. F. A philosophy of science for personality theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  204. Saks, M. Scientific jury selection: Social scientists can’t rig juries. Psychology Today 1976, 9(8), 48–50, 55–57.Google Scholar
  205. Saks, M. J. Jury verdicts. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1977.Google Scholar
  206. Sales, B. D., Elwork, A., & Alfini, J. Improving Jury Instruction. In B. D. Sales, (Ed.), Perspectives in law and psychology. Vol. 1: The criminal justice system. New York: Plenum, 1977.Google Scholar
  207. Samoff, I., & Zimbardo, P. G. Anxiety, fear, and social affiliation. Abnormal and Social Psychology 1961, 62, 356–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  208. Savitsky, J. C., & Sim, M. E. Trading emotions: Equity theory of reward and punishment. Journal of Communication 1974, 24 140–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  209. Schachter, S. The psychology of affiliation. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1959.Google Scholar
  210. Schlaiffer, R. Probability and statistics for business decisions. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.Google Scholar
  211. Schulman, J., Shaver, P., Colman, R., Emrich, B., & Christie, R. Recipe for a jury. Psychology Today 1973, 6, 3714, 78–84.Google Scholar
  212. Schulman, J., Kairys, D., Harring, S., Benora, B., & Christie, R. Systematic jury selection. Law and Psychology Review 1976, 2, 31–42.Google Scholar
  213. Sealy, A. P., & Cornish, W. R. Jurors and their verdicts. The Modern Law Review 1973, 36, 496–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  214. Sealy, A. P., & Cornish, W. R. Juries and the rules of evidence. Criminal Law Review 1973, April, 208–223.Google Scholar
  215. Sears, D. O. Opinion formation and information preferences in an adversary situation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1966, 2, 130–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  216. Shaver, K. G. Defensive attribution: Effects of severity and relevance on the responsibility assigned for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1970, 14 101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  217. Shepherd, J. C. Techniques of jury selection from the defendant’s point of view. Proceedings of the American Bar Association Section of Insurance, Negligence, and Compensation Law 1964–1965, 359–362.Google Scholar
  218. Shepherd, J. W., & Ellis, H. D. The effect of attractiveness on recognition memory for faces. American Journal of Psychology 1973, 86 627–634.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  219. Shepherd, J. W., Deregowski, J. B., & Ellis, H. D. A cross cultural study of memory for faces. International Journal of Psychology 1974, 9, 205–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  220. Sherif, C. W., Sherif, M., & Nebergall, R. Attitude and attitude change: The social judgment-involvement approach. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1965.Google Scholar
  221. Short, E. H., Florence, B. T., & Marsh, M. A. An assessment of videotape in the criminal courts. Brigham Young University Law Review 1975, 1975, 423–465.Google Scholar
  222. Sigall, H., & Landy, D. Effects of the defendant’s character and suffering on juridic judgment: A replication and clarification. The Journal of Social Psychology 1972, 88 149–150.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  223. Sigall, H., & Ostrove, N. Effects of the physical attractiveness of the defendant and nature of crime on juridic judgment. Proceedings of 81st Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association 1973, 8 267–268.Google Scholar
  224. Sigworth, H., & Henze, F. Jurors’ comprehension of jury instructions in southern Arizona. Unpublished report prepared for the Committee on Uniform Jury Instructions of the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona, 1973.Google Scholar
  225. Simon, R. J. The Jury and the Defense of Insanity. Boston: Little, Brown, 1967.Google Scholar
  226. Simon, R. Use of semantic differential in research on the jury. Journalism Quarterly 1968, 45, 670–6676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  227. Snortum, J., & Ashear, V. Prejudice, punitiveness and personality. Journal of Personality Assessment 1972, 36, 291–292.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  228. Snortum, J. R., Klein, J. E., & Sherman, W. A. The import of an aggressive juror in sixand twelve-member juries. Criminal Justice and Behavior 1976, 3(3), 255–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  229. Snyder, E. Sex role differential and jury decisions. Sociology and Social Research 1971, 55, 442–448.Google Scholar
  230. Sommer, R. The new look on the witness stand. Canadian Psychologist 1959, 8 94–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  231. Special Commission on the Social Sciences of the National Science Board. Knowledge into action: Improving the nation’s use of the social sciences. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 1969.Google Scholar
  232. Stephan, D., & Tully, J. C. The influence of physical attractiveness of a plantiff on the decisions of simulated jurors. Journal of Social Psychology 1977, 101 147–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  233. Stern, W. The psychology of testimony. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 1939, 34, 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  234. Stoever, W. A comparison of six and twelve member juries in New Jersey Superior and County Courts. New York: The Institute of Judicial Administration, Inc., 1972.Google Scholar
  235. Stone, V. A. A primacy effect in decision making by jurors. Journal of Communication 1969, 19, 239–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  236. Strawn, D. U., & Buchanan, R. W. Jury confusion: A threat to justice. Judicature 1976, 5a(10), 478–483.Google Scholar
  237. Strodtbeck, F., & Mann, R. Sex role differentiation in jury deliberations. Sociometry 1956, 29, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  238. Strodtbeck, F., James, R., & Hawkins, C. Social status in jury deliberations. American Sociological Review 1957, 22, 713–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  239. Strongman, K. T. The psychology of emotion. New York: John Wiley, 1973.Google Scholar
  240. Sue, S., & Smith, R. E. How not to get a fair trial. Psychology Today 1974, 7 86–90.Google Scholar
  241. Sue, S., Smith, R. E., & Caldwell, C. Effects of inadmissable evidence on the decisions of simulated jurors: A moral dilemma. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1973, 3, 345–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  242. Sue, S., Smith, R. E., & Gilbert, R. Biasing effects of pretrial publicity on judicial decisions. Journal of Criminal Justice 1974, 2, 163–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  243. Sue, S., Smith, R. E., & Pedroza, G. Authoritarianism, pretrial publicity and awareness of bias in simulated jurors. Psychological Reports 1975, 37, 1299–1302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  244. Suggs, D., & Sales, B. The art and science of conducting the voir dire. Journal of Professional Psychology 1978, 9, 367–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  245. Suggs, D., & Sales, B. D. Social-psychological factors affecting jurors self-disclosure in voir dire. In preparation.Google Scholar
  246. Tate, E., Hawrish, E., & Clark, S. Communication variables in jury selection. Journal of Communication 1974, 24, 130–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  247. Thayer, R. Attitude and personality differences between potential jurors who could return a death verdict and those who could not. Proceedings of the 78th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association 1970, 5, 445–446.Google Scholar
  248. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillside, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1975.Google Scholar
  249. Thibaut, J., Walker, L., & Lind, E. A. Adversary presentation and bias in legal decision making. Harvard Law Review 1972, 86 386–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  250. Thomas, E. A. C., & Hogue, A. Apparent weight of evidence, decision criteria, and confidence ratings in juror decision making. Psychological Review 1976, 83(6) 442–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  251. Thornberry, T. P. Race, socioeconomic status, and sentencing in the juvenile justice system. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1973, 64 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  252. Valenti, A. C., & Downing, L. L. Differential effects of jury size on verdicts following deliberation as a function of the apparent guilt of a defendant. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1975, 32, 655–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  253. Van Dyke, J. M. Jury selection procedures. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1977.Google Scholar
  254. Vidmar, N. Effects of decision alternatives on the verdicts and social perceptions of simulated jurors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1972, 22 211–218.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  255. Walker, L., Thibaut, J., & Andreoli, V. Order of presentation at trial. Yale Law Journal 1972, 82, 216–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  256. Walker, L., LaTour, S., Lind, E. A., & Thibaut, J. Reactions of participants and observers to modes of adjudication. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1974, 4, 295–310.Google Scholar
  257. Walster, E. Assignment of responsibility for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1966, 3, 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  258. Weiten, W., & Diamond, S. S. A critical review of the jury simulation paradigm: The case of defendant characteristics. Law and Human Behavior 1979, 3, 71–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  259. Weitz, S., (Ed.). Nonverbal communication. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  260. Weld, H., & Danzig, E. A study of the way in which a verdict is reached by a jury. American Journal of Psychology 1940, 53, 518–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  261. Weld, H., & Roff, M. A study in the formation of opinion based upon legal evidence. American Journal of Psychology 1938, 51, 609–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  262. Wells, G. L. Applied eyewitness-testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1978, 36, 1546–1557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  263. Whipple, G. M. The observer as reported: A survey of the psychology of testimony. Psychological Bulletin 1909, 6, 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  264. Wigmore, J. H. Professor Munsterberg and the psychology of testimony. Illinois Law Review (may be listed under Northwestern University Law Review) 1909, 3, 399–445.Google Scholar
  265. Williams, G., Farmer, L., Lee, R., Cundick, B., Howell, R., & Rooker, C. Juror perceptions of trial testimony as a function of the method of presentation: A comparison of live, color video, black and white video, and audio and transcript presentations. Brigham Young University Law Review 1975, 1975, 375–421.Google Scholar
  266. Wolf, R. L. The application of select legal concepts to evaluation research. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois-Urbana, School of Education, 1973.Google Scholar
  267. Woocher, F. D. Did your eyes deceive you? Expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification. Stanford Law Review 1977, 29, 969–1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  268. Zeisel, H. The waning of the American jury. American Bar Association Journal 1972, 58 367–370.Google Scholar
  269. Zeisel, H. Reflections on experimental techniques in the law. The Journal of Legal Studies 1973, 2, 107–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  270. Zeisel, H., & Diamond, S. S. Convincing empirical evidence on the six member jury. University of Chicago Law Review 1974, 41, 281–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  271. Zeisel, H., & Diamond, S. The effect of peremptory challenges on the jury and verdict. Stanford Law Review 1978, 30 491–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amiram Elwork
    • 1
  • Bruce Dennis Sales
    • 2
  • David Suggs
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of NebraskaLincolnUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychology and College of LawUniversity of NebraskaLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations