Abstract
Significant relationships between jurors' demographic characteristics, attitudes, and verdicts have stimulated an interest in systematic jury selection. However, critics of this approach argue that verdicts are based on the strength of the evidence presented rather than on the composition of the jury. This analysis of demographic and attitudinal data and the responses to a vignette collected from a jury-eligible sample explores the association between perception of strength of evidence and both case-relevant attitudes and demographic characteristics and then examines the amount of variation in verdict explained by juror characteristics when strength of evidence is already taken into account. The findings point to the inclusion of strength of evidence in systematic jury selection procedures.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Berk, R. Social science and jury selection: A case study of a civil suit. In Bermant, G., Nemeth, C., & Vidmanr, N. (Eds.)Psychology and the Law. Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath, 1976.
Berk, R., Hennessey, M., & Swan, J. The vagaries and vulgarities of ‘scientific’ jury selection: A methodological evaluation.Evaluation Quarterly, 1977,1, 143–158.
Berman, J., & Sales, B. A critical evaluation of the systematic approach to jury selection.Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1977,4, 219–240.
Boehm, V. Mr. Prejudice, Miss Sympathy, and the authoritarian personality: An application of psychological measuring techniques to the problem of jury bias.Wisconsin Law Review, 1968, 734–750.
Bray, R., & Noble, A. Authoritarianism and decisions of mock juries.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978,36, 1424–1430.
Bronson, E. On the conviction proneness and representativeness of the death-qualified jury.University of Colorado Law Review, 1970,42, 1–32.
Buckhout, R. Jury without peers. CR-2, Center for Responsive Psychology, 1973.
Davis, J., Bray, R., & Holt, R. The empirical study of decision processes in juries. In Tapp, J., & Levine, F. (Eds.)Law, Justice and the Individual in Society: Psychological and Legal Issues. Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1977.
Doob, A. Evidence, procedure, and psychological research. In Bermant, G., Nemeth, C., & Vidmar, N. (Eds.)Psychology and the Law. Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath, 1976.
Etzioni, A. Creating an imbalance.Trial, 1974,10, 28–30.
Farmer, L., Williams, G., Lee, R., Cundick, B., Howell, R., & Rooker, C.K. Juror perceptions of trial testimony as a function of the method of presentation. In Bermant, G., Nemeth, C., & Vidmar, N. (Eds.)Psychology and the Law. Lexington, Massachusetts D.C. Heath, 1976.
Feild, H. Juror background characteristics and attitudes toward rape.Law and Human Behavior, 1978,2, 73–93.
Herbsleb, J., Sales, B., & Berman, J. When psychologists aid in the voir dire: Legal and ethical issues. In Abt, L., & Stuart, I. (Eds.)The Social Psychology of Discretionary Law. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1978.
Kairys, D. Juror selection: The law, a mathematical model of analysis, and a case study.American Criminal Law Journal, 1972,10, 771–806.
Kairys, D., Schulman, J., & Harring, S.The Jury System: New Methods for Reducing prejudice. Philadelphia: National Jury Project and National Lawyers Guild, 1975.
Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H.The American Jury. Boston: Little, Brown, 1966.
Kaplan, K., & Simon, R. Latitude and severity of sentencing options, race of victim and decisions of simulated jurors.Law and Society Review, 1972,7, 87–98.
McConahay, M., Mullin, C., & 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.
Mitchell, H., & Byrne, D. The defendant's dilemma: Effects of jurors' attitudes and authoritarianism on judicial decision.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973,25, 123–129.
Moore, H., Jr. Redressing the balance.Trial, 1974,10, 29–35.
Nemeth, C., Rules governing jury deliberations: A consideration of recent changes. In Bermant, G., Nemeth, C., & Vidmar, N. (Eds.)Psychology and the Law. Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath, 1976.
Reed, J., & Reed, R. Liberalism-conservatism as an indicator of jury product and process.Law and Human Behavior, 1977,1, 81–86.
Rokeach, M., & Vidmar, N. Testimony concerning possible jury bias in a Black Panther murder trial.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1973,3, 19–29.
Sage, W. Psychology and the Angela Davis jury.Human Behavior, 1973,2, 56–61.
Saks, M. The limits of scientific jury selection: Ethical and empirical.Jurimetrics Journal, 1976a,17, 3–22.
Saks, M. Social scientists can't rig juries.Psychology Today, 1976b,9, 48–50, 55–57.
Schulman, J., Shaver, P., Colman, R., Emrich, B., & Christie, R. Recipe for a jury.Psychology Today, 1973,7, 34–44, 79–84.
Shapely, D. Jury selection: Social scientists gamble in an already loaded game.Science, 1974,185, 1033–1034, 1071.
Simon, R.The Jury and the Defense of Insanity. Boston: Little, Brown, 1967.
Skolnick, J.Justice without Trial. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966.
Suggs, D., & Sales, B. The art and science of conducting the voir dire.Professional Psychology, 1978,9, 367–388.
Thayer, R. Attitude and personality differences between potential jurors who could return a death verdict and those who could not. InProceedings of the American Psychological Association, 78th annual convention. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1970.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The article has benefited from the comments made by Eric Poole to an earlier version.
About this article
Cite this article
Hepburn, J.R. The objective reality of evidence and the utility of systematic jury selection. Law Hum Behav 4, 89–101 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01040485
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01040485