Advertisement

Jury Decision Making

  • Valerie P. Hans

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.

Keywords

Expert Testimony Mock Juror Jury Trial Civil Case Jury 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. Adler, S.J. (1989a, December 21). Can juries do justice to complex suits? Wall Street Journal, pp. B1, B6.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Anderson, N.H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972).Google Scholar
  5. Arkes, H.R., & Hammond, K.R. (Eds.). (1986). Judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Baldwin, J., & McConville, M. (1979). Jury trials. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978).Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).Google Scholar
  10. Bennett, W.L., & Feldman, M. (1981). Reconstructing reality in the courtroom. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Burch v. Louisiana, 441 U.S. 130 (1979).Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Champion, M. (1989, December 15). Give me the jury that I dreamed of. The Independent, p. 19.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. Colgrove v. Battin, 413 U.S. 149 (1973).Google Scholar
  20. “Conscientious jurors and racial tension.” (1990, August 20) [editorial]. The New York Times, p. A14.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. Crane, M. (1988, December 5). How lawyers stack juries against doctors. Medical Economics, pp. 40, 42–45.Google Scholar
  24. Cutler, B.L. (1990). Introduction: The status of scientific jury selection in psychology and law. Forensic Reports, 3, 227–232.Google Scholar
  25. Daniels, S. (1989a). The Aetna article: A comment. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 323.Google Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. Davis, J.H. (1973). Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review, 80, 97–125.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. Diamond, S.S., Casper, J.D., & Ostergren, L. (1989). Blindfolding the jury. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 247–267.Google Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Drazen, D. (1989). The case for special juries in toxic tort litigation. Judicature, 72, 292–298.Google Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Ellsworth, P.C. (1989). Are twelve heads better than one? Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 205–224.Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. Elwork, A., Sales, B.D., & Alfini, J.J. (1982). Making jury instructions understandable. Charlottesville, VA: Michie.Google Scholar
  39. Erlanger, H.S. (1970). Jury research in America: Its past and future. Law and Society Review, 4, 345–370.Google Scholar
  40. Etzioni, A. (1974, November/December). Creating an imbalance. Trial, 10, 28–30.Google Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Feinberg, S.E. (1989). (Ed.). The evolving role of statistical assessments as evidence in the courts. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Frank, J. (1945). Courts on trial. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. Gillers, S. (1980). Deciding who dies. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 129, 1–124.Google Scholar
  48. Glaberson, W. (1990, May 19). Bensonhurst jury rejects murder charge. The New York Times, pp. Al, A27.Google Scholar
  49. 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
  50. 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
  51. 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
  52. Greene, E. (1989). On juries and damage awards: The process of decisionmaking. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 225–246.Google Scholar
  53. Green, T.A. (1985). Verdict according to conscience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  54. 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
  55. Haney, C. (Ed.) (1984). [Special issue on death qualification.] Law and Human Behavior, 8, 1–195.Google Scholar
  56. Hans, V.P. (1986). The conduct of voir dire: A psychological analysis. Justice System Journal, 11, 40–58.Google Scholar
  57. 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
  58. Hans, V.P. (1989a). The jury’s response to business and corporate wrongdoing. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 177–203.Google Scholar
  59. 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
  60. 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
  61. Hans, V.P., & Ermann, M.D. (1989). Responses to corporate versus individual wrongdoing. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 151–166.Google Scholar
  62. 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
  63. 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
  64. Hans, V.P., & Vidmar, N. (1986). Judging the jury. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  65. Hastie, R., Penrod, S.D., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  66. 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
  67. 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
  68. Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. (1989). Instructing jurors: A field experiment with written and preliminary instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 409–430.Google Scholar
  69. 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
  70. Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57 (1961).Google Scholar
  71. Huber, P. (1988). Liability: The legal revolution and its consequences. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  72. In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, 631 F.2d 1069 (3rd Cir. 1980).Google Scholar
  73. In re U.S. Financial Securities Litigation, 609 F.2d 411 (9th Cir. 1979).Google Scholar
  74. Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356 (1972).Google Scholar
  75. Kalven, H., Jr. (1964). The dignity of the civil jury. Virginia Law Review, 50, 1055–1075.Google Scholar
  76. Kalven, H., Jr., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  77. 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
  78. 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
  79. 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
  80. Kassin, S.M., & Wrightsman, L.S. (1988). The American jury on trial. New York: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
  81. Kelman, H., & Hamilton, V.L. (1989). Crimes of obedience: Toward a social psychology of authority and responsibility. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  82. 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
  83. 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
  84. Kifner, J. (1990, May 20). After 2d Bensonhurst verdict, a march amid cries for calm. The New York Times, pp. Al, A34.Google Scholar
  85. Koneeni, V.J., & Ebbesen, E.B. (1979). External validity of research in legal psychology. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 39–70.Google Scholar
  86. 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
  87. Law Reform Commission of Canada (1980). The jury in criminal trials. (Working paper 27.) Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada.Google Scholar
  88. Lempert, R.O. (1981). Civil juries and complex cases: Let’s not rush to judgment. Michigan Law Review, 80, 68–132.Google Scholar
  89. Levin, A. (Producer). (1986, April 8). Frontline. Inside the jury room [Television program]. Boston: WGBH.Google Scholar
  90. 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
  91. Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (1986).Google Scholar
  92. Locy, T. (1990, August 11). Barry jurors have sent a message against entrapment, observers say. The Boston Globe, p. 20.Google Scholar
  93. Loftus, E.F. (1986). Ten years in the life of an expert witness. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 241–263.Google Scholar
  94. 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
  95. MacCoun, R.J. (1989). Experimental research on jury decision-making. Science, 244, 1046–1050.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. Marder, D., & Stemmler, L. (1989, November 25). What does jury think? The shadow knows. Philadelphia Inquirer, pp. Bl, B3.Google Scholar
  97. 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
  98. Martz, L., & Parry, R. (1989, May 15). The hero’s clay feet. Newsweek, pp. 32–37.Google Scholar
  99. 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
  100. Mnookin, R., & Kornhauser, L. (1979). Bargaining in the shadow of law: The case of divorce. Yale Law Journal, 88, 950–997.Google Scholar
  101. 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
  102. 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
  103. Myers, M. (1979). Rule departures and making law: Juries and their verdicts. Law and Society Review, 13, 781–798.Google Scholar
  104. National Jury Project. (1990). Jury work: Systematic techniques (release 9). New York: Clark Boardman Company.Google Scholar
  105. 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
  106. 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
  107. Note: Public disclosures of jury deliberations. (1983). Harvard Law Review, 96, 886–906.Google Scholar
  108. O’Barr, W.M., & Conley, J.M. (1988). Lay expectations of the civil justice system. Law and Society Review, 22, 137–161.Google Scholar
  109. 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
  110. 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
  111. Pendell, J.W. (1989). Enhancing juror effectiveness: An insurer’s perspective. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 311–321.Google Scholar
  112. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 242–258.Google Scholar
  113. 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
  114. Peterson, M.A. (1984). Compensation of injuries: Civil jury verdicts in Cook County. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.Google Scholar
  115. 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
  116. 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
  117. Ponting, C. (1987). R. v. Ponting. Journal of Law and Society, 14, 366–372.Google Scholar
  118. Powers v. Ohio. Ill S. Ct. 1364 (1991).Google Scholar
  119. 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
  120. Raab, S. (1990, February 10). Gotti not guilty on all 6 charges in assault trial. The New York Times, pp. Al, A28.Google Scholar
  121. Rainey, J. (1990, January 20). McMartin jurors feel the public’s heat. Los Angeles Times, pp. A30, A31.Google Scholar
  122. Rosenbaum, D.E. (1989, May 6). North jurors see him as a scapegoat for superiors. The New York Times, pp. Al, A9.Google Scholar
  123. Saks, M.J. (1976). The limits of scientific jury selection: Ethical and empirical. Jurimetrics Journal, 17, 3–22.Google Scholar
  124. Saks, M.J. (1977). Jury verdicts. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  125. 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
  126. 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
  127. 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
  128. Selvin, M., & Picus, L. (1987). The debate over jury performance: Observations from a recent asbestos case. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.Google Scholar
  129. 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
  130. 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
  131. Shaver, K.G. (1985). The attribution of blame: Causality, responsibility, and blameworthiness. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  132. Smith, V.L. (1987). The psychological and legal implications of pretrial instruction in the law. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  133. Smith, V.L. (1991). Prototypes in the courtroom: Lay representations of legal concepts. Unpublished manuscript, North-western University.Google Scholar
  134. Spaziano V. Florida, 468 U.S. 447 (1984).Google Scholar
  135. 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
  136. State v. Hall, 187 So. 2d 861 (Miss.), appeal dismissed 385 U.S. 98 (1966).Google Scholar
  137. Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880).Google Scholar
  138. 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
  139. 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
  140. 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
  141. Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975).Google Scholar
  142. Thompson, W.C. (1989a). Are juries competent to evaluate statistical evidence in criminal trials? Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 9–41.Google Scholar
  143. Thompson, W.C. (1989b). Death qualification after Wainwright v. Witt and Lockhart v. McCree. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 185–215.Google Scholar
  144. 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
  145. Vidmar, N. (1979). The other issues in jury simulation research. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 95–106.Google Scholar
  146. 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
  147. Vidmar, N. (Ed.) (1989b). Is the jury competent? [Special issue]. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 1–353.Google Scholar
  148. Vidmar, N., & Schuller, R. (1989). Juries and expert evidence: Social framework testimony. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 133–176.Google Scholar
  149. Vinson, D.E. (1982). The shadow jury: An experiment in litigation science. American Bar Association Journal, 68, 1242–1246.Google Scholar
  150. Visher, C.A. (1987). Jury decision making: The importance of evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 1–17.Google Scholar
  151. 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
  152. 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
  153. Wiggins, E.C (1987). Procedural innovations to enhance juror comprehension in complex litigation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
  154. Williams, G. (1963). The proof of guilt (3rd ed.). London: Stevens.Google Scholar
  155. Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970).Google Scholar
  156. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valerie P. Hans

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations