Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice

2014 Edition
| Editors: Gerben Bruinsma, David Weisburd

Jury Impartiality in the Modern Era

  • Nicole L. Waters
  • Paula Hannaford-Agor
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_40


The strength of the jury system in an adversarial system of justice depends on the impartiality of the jurors. Yet the rapid evolution of Internet-based communication technologies poses serious challenges to the traditional concept of juror impartiality. It is now possible for jurors to access virtually any piece of published information about pending cases in minutes, and the volume of potentially case-relevant information is growing exponentially. Many jurors have become accustomed to using these technologies to conduct research and communicate with friends and family. For some jurors, reliance on these technologies has become so ingrained that it would require conscious effort to refrain from doing so for the duration of a trial.

This entry discusses the notion of what it means for a juror to be and to remain impartial in the digital age. First, it focuses on the impact of new media on how jurors acquire and process information. Then it discusses the impact of new media on...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Recommended Reading and References

  1. Amey G (2011) Social media and the legal system: analyzing various responses to using technology from the jury box. J Leg Prof 35:111–130Google Scholar
  2. Artigliere R (2011) Sequestration for the Twenty-First Century: disconnecting jurors from the internet. Drake Law Rev 59:621–645Google Scholar
  3. Blackman J, Brickman E (2011) Let’s talk: addressing the challenges of Internet-Era jurors. Jury Expert 23(2):35–45Google Scholar
  4. Carr N (2010) The shallows: how the internet is changing our brains. New York, W. W NortonGoogle Scholar
  5. Chesterman M (1997) O.J. and the dingo: how media publicity relating to criminal cases tried by jury is dealt with in Australia and America. Am J Comp Law 45:109–147Google Scholar
  6. Dann BM (1993) “Learning lessons” and “speaking rights”: creating educated and democratic juries. Indiana Law J 68:1229–1279Google Scholar
  7. Farrell A, Givelber D (2010) Liberation reconsidered: understanding why judges and juries disagree about guilt. J Crim Law Criminol 100:1549–1586Google Scholar
  8. Fiske ST, Taylor SE (eds) (1991) Social cognition, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Greene E (1990) Media effects on jurors. Law Hum Behav 14:439–450Google Scholar
  10. Hannaford-Agor PL (2008) When all eyes are watching: trial characteristics and practices in notorious trials. Judicature 91:197–201Google Scholar
  11. Hannaford-Agor P, Hans VP, Mott NL, Munsterman GT (2002) Are hung juries a problem? National Center for State Courts, WilliamsburgGoogle Scholar
  12. Hannaford-Agor P, Rottman D, Waters NL (2012) Jurors & new media: an experiment. Perspectives on state court leadership. National Center for State Courts, WilliamsburgGoogle Scholar
  13. Hans V (2007) Deliberation and dissent: 12 Angry Men versus the empirical reality of juries. Chicago-Kent Law Rev 82:579–589Google Scholar
  14. Hans V, Vidmar N (2007) American juries: the verdict. Prometheus Books, AmhearstGoogle Scholar
  15. Hans VP, Hannaford-Agor PL, Mott NL, Munsterman GT (2003) The hung jury: The American jury’s insights and contemporary understanding. Crim Law Bull 39(1):33–50Google Scholar
  16. Hastie R, Penrod SD, Pennington N (1983) Inside the jury. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961)Google Scholar
  18. Marder N (2001a) Juries and technology: equipping jurors for the Twenty-First Century. Brooklyn Law Rev 66:1257–1299Google Scholar
  19. Marder N (2001b) Cyberjuries: a new role as online mock juries. Univ Toledo Law Rev 38:239–269Google Scholar
  20. McGee A (2010) Juror misconduct in the Twenty-First Century: the prevalence of the Internet and its effect on American courtrooms. Loyola Los Angel Entertain Law Rev 30:301–326Google Scholar
  21. Meringolo JC (2010–11) The media, the jury, and the high-profile defendant: a defense perspective on the media circus. NY Law Sch Law Rev 55:981–1012Google Scholar
  22. Munsterman GT, Hannaford-Agor PL, Whitehead GM (2006) Jury trial innovations, 2nd edn. National Center for State Courts, WilliamsburgGoogle Scholar
  23. Murphy v. Florida, 421 US 794 (1975)Google Scholar
  24. Murphy TR, Hannaford PL, Loveland GK, Munsterman GT (1998) Managing notorious trials, 2nd ed. National Center for State Courts, WilliamsburgGoogle Scholar
  25. Salaz K, Hodson T, Davey C (2010) New media and the courts: the current status and a look at the future. A report of the New Media Committee of the Conference of Court Public Information Officers (available at www.ccpio.org)
  26. Steblay NM, Besirevic J, Fulero SM, Jimenez-Lorente B (1999) The effects of pretrial publicity on juror verdicts: a meta-analytic review. Law Hum Behav 23:219–235Google Scholar
  27. United States v. Jeffrey Skilling, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010)Google Scholar
  28. United States v. Rod Blagojevich and Robert Blagojevich, 612 F. 3d 558 (7th Cir. 2010); 614 F. 3d 287 (7th Cir. 2010); 743 F. Supp. 2d 794 (N.D. Ill. 2010)Google Scholar
  29. Vidmar N (2002) Case studies of pre- and midtrial prejudice in criminal and civil litigation. Law Hum Behav 26:73–105Google Scholar
  30. Vidmar N (2006) When jurors talk about their verdict. In: Jury ethics: juror conduct and jury dynamics. Paradigm Publishers, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  31. Waters NL, Hans VP (2009) A jury of one: opinion formation, conformity, and dissent on juries. J Empir Leg Stud 6:513–540Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Center for State CourtsWilliamsburgUSA
  2. 2.Center for Jury StudiesNational Center for State CourtsWilliamsburgUSA