Advertisement

Mathematical Models of Juror and Jury Decision-Making

The State of the Art
  • Bernard Grofman
Part of the Perspectives in Law & Psychology book series (PILP, volume 2)

Abstract

The jury is a remarkable example of the use of groups to make decisions. A jury is composed of untrained citizens, drawn randomly from the eligible population, convened briefly for a particular trial, entrusted with great official powers, permitted to deliberate in secret, to render a verdict without explanation, and without any accountability then or ever, to return to private life. In that such a firm institution is composed of such fluid members, and that these ordinary citizens judge criminal responsibility in place of professional agents of the state, the jury is a unique political institution. More than representative legislatures and popularly elected executives, it is the jury that characterizes democratic political systems. (Saks, 1977, p. 6)

Keywords

Mock Juror Innocent Defendant Jury Verdict Member Jury Guilty Defendant 
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. Auchumuty, G. & Grofman, B. Some theorems on optimal jury rules. Unpublished manuscript Department of Political Science, State University of New York at Stony Brook, 1972.Google Scholar
  2. Asch, S. E. Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 1956, 70, 1–70.Google Scholar
  3. Badger, W. Political individualism, positional preferences, and optimal decision rules. In R. Nierai & H. Weisberg (Eds.), Probability Models of collective decision-making. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1972.Google Scholar
  4. Barton, A. H. Personal communication, 1975.Google Scholar
  5. Black, D. The theory of committees and elections. London: Cambridge University Press, 1958.Google Scholar
  6. Bloomstein, M. J. Verdict: The jury system. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1968.Google Scholar
  7. Bray, R. M. The mock trial: Problems and prospects for jury research. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., September 3, 1976.Google Scholar
  8. Bray, R. M., & Struckman-Johnson, L. Effects of juror population, assigned decision rule and insurance on the decisions of simulated juries. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., September 3, 1976.Google Scholar
  9. Broeder, D. W. The functions of the jury: Facts or fictions? University of Chicago Law Review, 1954, 21.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, B. Conflict and conformity, Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1963.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, B., & Lee, H. Convlict, conformity, and social status. New York: Elsevier, 1975.Google Scholar
  12. Coleman, J. S. Introduction to mathematical sociology. New York: Free Press, 1964.Google Scholar
  13. Condorcet, N. C. de. Essai sur l’application de l’analyse d la probabilité des décisions rendues d lapluralité des voix. Paris: 1785.Google Scholar
  14. Coombs, C. A theory of data. New York: John Wiley, 1964.Google Scholar
  15. Coombs, C. H., Dawes, R. M., & Tversky, A. Mathematical psychology: An elemenatary introduction. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970.Google Scholar
  16. Curtis, R. Decision rules and collective values in constitutional choice. In R. Niemi & H. Weisberg (Eds.), Probability models of collective decision making. Colombus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1972.Google Scholar
  17. Davis, J. H. Group Decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review, 1973, 80, 97–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davis, J. H., Kerr, N., Sussman, M., & Rissman, A. Social decision schemes under risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 30, 248–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Davis, J., Kerr, N. L., Atkin, R. S., Holt, R., & Meek, D. The decision processes of 6- and 12-person mock juries assigned unanimous and 2/3 majority rules. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Davis, J. H., Kerr, N. L. Stasser, G., Meek, D., & Holt, R. Victim consequences, sentence severity and decision processes in mock juries. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, 1975.Google Scholar
  21. Davis, J. H. Bray, R. M. & Holt, R. 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. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1977.Google Scholar
  22. Diamond, S. S. A jury experiment reanalyzed. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. Spring, 1974.Google Scholar
  23. Factor, J., Eisner, J., & Shaw, J. The jury: A selected annotated bibliography of social science research on juries (Center Report 30). Brooklyn, N.Y.: Center for Responsive Psychology, Brooklyn College, CUNY, January, 1977.Google Scholar
  24. Feinberg, W. E. Teaching the type I and type II errors: The judicial process. The American Statistician,June, 1971, 30–32.Google Scholar
  25. Feller, W. An introduction to probability theory and its applications (Vol. 1.) New York: John Wiley, 1971.Google Scholar
  26. Finkelstein, M. D., & Fairley, W. B. A Bayesian approach to evidence identification. Harvard Law Review, 1970, 38, 489–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Friedman, H. Trial by jury: Criteria for corrections, jury size, and Type I and Type II errors. The American Statistician. April, 1972, pp. 21–23.Google Scholar
  28. Gelfand, A. A., & Solomon, H. A study of Poisson’s models for jury verdicts in criminal and civil trials. Journal of American Statistical Association,1973, 68, 271–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gelfand, A. A. & Solomon, H. Modelling jury verdicts in the American legal system. Journal of American Statistical Association, 1974, 69, 32–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gelfand, A. A. & Solomon, H. Analyzing the decision-making process of the American jury. Journal of the American Statistical Association,1975, 70, 305–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gelfand, A. & Solomon, H. An argument in favor of 12-member juries. In S. Nagel (Ed.), Modeling the criminal justice system. Vol. 7, Justice systems analysis. Beverly Hills, Cal.: Sage Publications, 1977. Pp. 205–224.Google Scholar
  32. Gerbasi, K. C., Zuckerman, M., & Reis, A. T. Justice needs a new blindfold: A review of mock jury research. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 1977, 84, 323–345.Google Scholar
  33. Grofman, B. Some notes on voting schemes and the will of the majority. Public Choice, 1969, 7, 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Grofman, B. Mathematics and politics: Mathematical reasoning and optimal jury rules. In M. Black (Ed.), Proceedings of the Cornell Aspen Colloquium on Decision and Choice. Cornell Program in Humanities, Science and Technology, 1974.Google Scholar
  35. Grofman, B. A singlepeakedness model of juror choice. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Political Science, State University of New York at Stony Brook, 1975.Google Scholar
  36. Grofman, B. A comment on democratic theory: A preliminary mathematical model. Public Choice, 1975, 21, 99–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Grofman, B. Not necessarily twelve and not necessarily unanimous. In G. Bermant & N. Vidmar (Eds.), Psychology and the law: Research frontiers. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1976.Google Scholar
  38. Grofman, B. Models of individual and collective decision-making. Unpublished manuscript, School of Social Sciences, University of California, Irvine, 1976.Google Scholar
  39. Grofman, B. Jury-decision-making models. In S. Nagel (Ed.), Modeling the criminal justice system. Vol. 7, Justice System Annuals. Beverly Hills, Cal.: Sage Publications, 1977.Google Scholar
  40. Grofman, B. Communication: Sloppy sampling—A comment on “six member juries in the federal courts.” Social Action and the Law Newsletter, 1977, 4 (2), 4–5.Google Scholar
  41. Grofman, B. Communication: Differential effects of jury sizeChrw(133) Revisited. Social Action and the Law Newsletter, 1977, 4, (2), 7–11.Google Scholar
  42. Grofman, B. Judgmental competence of individuals and groups in a dichotomous choice situation. Journal of athematical Sociology, 1978, 5 (3), 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Grofman, B. A Markov model of jury decision-making. Unpublished manuscript, School of Social Sciences, University of California, Irvine, 1978.Google Scholar
  44. Grofman, B. A pilot study of individual behavior: Three and five member mock juries. Experimental Study of Politics, 1979, 7, 41–54.Google Scholar
  45. Grofman, B. Some preliminary models of jury decision-making. In G. Tullock (Ed.), Frontiers of Economics (Vol. 3). The Hague: Nijhoff, 1980.Google Scholar
  46. Grofman, B. Jury decision-making models and the Supreme Court: The jury cases from Williams vs. Florida to Ballew vs. Georgia. Policy Studies Journal, 1980, 749–772.Google Scholar
  47. Grofman, B. The slippery slope: Jury size and jury verdict requirements, legal and social science approaches. Law and Politics Quarterly, 2(3), July 1980, 285–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Grofman, B., & Feld, S. A note on clique avoidance in repeated jury selection from among a fixed pool of jurors: Comparisons of manpower savings in six-and twelve-member juries., Public Choice, 1976, 26, 145–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Gustafson, D. H., Shukla, R. K., Delbecq, A. L., & Walster, G. W. A comparative study of difference in subjective likelihood estimates made by individuals, interacting groups, delphi groups, and nominal groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,1973, 9, 280–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hamilton, L. Personal communication, Department of Sociology, University of Michigan, 1976.Google Scholar
  51. Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown, 1966.Google Scholar
  52. Kaplan, J. Decision theory and the fact-finding process. Stanford Law Review, 1968, 20, 1065–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kazmann, R. Democratic theory: A preliminary mathematical model. Public Choice,1973, 16, 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kemeny, J., Snell, L., & Thompson, N. An introduction to finite mathematics (rev. ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972.Google Scholar
  55. Kerr, N., Atkin, R., Stasser, G., Meek, D., Holt, R., & Davis, J. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: Effects of concept definition and assigned decision rule on the judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Personality and Social Behavior, 1976, 34, 282–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Klevorick, A. Personal communication. Yale University Law School, 1977.Google Scholar
  57. Klevorick, A. Personal communication. Yale University Law School, 1978.Google Scholar
  58. Klevorick, A. & Rothschild, M. A model of the jury decision process. Journal of Legal Studies,January 1979, 141–164Google Scholar
  59. Larkin, M. A. Should the military less-than unanimous verdict of guilt be retained? Hastings Law Journal, 1971, 22, 237–258.Google Scholar
  60. Larntz, K. Reanalysis of Vidmar’s data on the effects of decision alternatives on verdicts of simulated jurors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 123–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Laughlin, P., Kerr, N. L., Munch, M. M., & Haggarth, C. A. Social decision schemes of the same four person groups on two different intelligence tasks. Journal Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 33, 80–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lempert, R. O. Uncovering nondiscernible differences: Empirical research and the jury-size cases. Michigan Law Review, 1975, 73, 644–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lempert, R. O. Personal communication, University of Michigan Law School, August 27, 1976.Google Scholar
  64. Luce, R. D. Individual choice behavior. New York: John Wiley, 1959.Google Scholar
  65. Luce, R. D., & Raiffa, H. Games and decisions. New York: John Wiley, 1957.Google Scholar
  66. Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. The group polarization phenomenon. Psychology Bulletin, 1976, 83, 602–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Nagel, S. S. & Neef, M. Deductive modeling to determine an optimum jury size and fraction required to convict. Washington University Law Review, 1975, 646–656.Google Scholar
  68. Nagel, S. S., & Neef, M. Legal Policy analysis: Finding an optimum level or mix. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Book, 1976. Chap. 2, pp. 75–157.Google Scholar
  69. Nemeth, C. Rules governing jury deliberations: A consideration of recent changes. In G. Bermant & N. Vidmar (Eds.), Psychology and the law: Research frontiers. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath, 1976.Google Scholar
  70. Nemeth, C. Interactions between jurors as a function of majority vs. unanimity decision rules. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 1977, 38–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. New York Times. Retreat on rights (editorial). May 24, 1972, p. 44.Google Scholar
  72. Niemi, R., & Weisberg, H. The effects of group size on collective decision making. In R. Niemi & H. Weisberg (Eds.), Probability models of collective decision making. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merill, 1972.Google Scholar
  73. Oelsner, L. Smaller juries increase: Divided verdicts allowed. New York Times. July 20, 1975.Google Scholar
  74. Padawer-Singer, A., & Barton, A. H. Interim report: experimental study of decision-making in the 12vs. 6-man jury under unanimous and non-unanimous decisions. Unpublished mimeographed manuscript, Bureau of Applied Social Research, Columbia University, May, 1975.Google Scholar
  75. Parducci, A. Range frequency compromise in judgement. Psychology Monographs, 77, Whole No. 565. 1963.Google Scholar
  76. Poisson, S. D. Recherches sur la probabilité de judgement en matière criminal et en matière civile: Precédées des regles générales du calcul des probabilités. Paris: Bachelier, Imprimateur Libraire, 1837.Google Scholar
  77. Rae, D. Decision rules and individual values in collective choice. American Political Science Review, 1969, 63, 40–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Restie, F., & Greeno, J. G. Introduction to mathematical psychology. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1970.Google Scholar
  79. Saari, D. J. The criminal jury faces future shock. Judicature, 1973 (June July), 57, 12–16.Google Scholar
  80. Saks, M. J. Jury verdicts: The role of group size and social decision rule. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath, 1977.Google Scholar
  81. Saks, M. J., & Ostrom, T. M. Jury size and consensus requirements: The laws of probability v. the laws of the land. Journal of Contemporary Law, 1975, 1, 163–173.Google Scholar
  82. Schofield, N. Ethical decision rules for uncertain voters. British Journal of Political Science, 1971, 2, 193–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Schofield, N. Is majority rule special? In R. Niemi & H. Weisberg (Eds.), Probability models in collective decision-making. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1972.Google Scholar
  84. Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. The own categories procedure in attitude research. In M. Fishbeing (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and measurement. New York: John Wiley, 1967. Pp. 190–198.Google Scholar
  85. Simon, R. J. The jury and the defense of insanity. Boston: Little, Brown, 1967.Google Scholar
  86. Simon, R. J., & Mahan, L. Quantifying burdens of proof: A view from the bench, the jury, and the classroom. Law and Society Review, 1971, 5, 319–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Strawn, D. U., & Buchanan, R. W. Jury confusion: A threat to justice. Judicature, 1976, 59, 478–484.Google Scholar
  88. Tapp, J. L. Psychology and the law: An overture. Annual Review of Psychology,1976, 27, 359–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Taylor, M. Proof of a theorem on majority rule. Behavioral Science, 1969, 14 (3), 228–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Tribe, L. H. Trial by mathematics: Precision and ritual in the legal process. Harvard Law Review, 1971, 84, 1329–1393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 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
  92. Walbert, T. D. Note: Effect of jury size on probability of conviction—An evaluation of Williams vs. Florida. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 1971, 22, 529–555.Google Scholar
  93. Zeisel, H. And then there were none: The dimunition of the federal jury. University of Chicago Law Review, 1971, 38, 710–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Zeisel, H. The waning of the American jury. American Bar Association Journal, 1972, 58, 367–370.Google Scholar
  95. Zeisel, H., & Diamond, S. S. Convincing empirical evidence and the six-member jury. University of Chicago Law Review,1974, 41,281–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernard Grofman
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Social SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations