Administrative Issues Journal Volume 4 Article 11 Issue 2 VOLUME 4, ISSUE 2: DECEMBER 2014

12-2014 EXAMINATION OF CAPITAL MURDER JURORS’ : METHODS AND ISSUES Keith Price

Susan Coleman

Gary R. Byrd

Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.swosu.edu/aij Part of the Health and Medical Administration Commons, Higher Education Administration Commons, and the Public Administration Commons

Recommended Citation Price, Keith; Coleman, Susan; and Byrd, Gary R. (2014) "EXAMINATION OF CAPITAL MURDER JURORS’ DELIBERATIONS: METHODS AND ISSUES," Administrative Issues Journal: Vol. 4 : Iss. 2 , Article 11. Available at: https://dc.swosu.edu/aij/vol4/iss2/11

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at SWOSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Administrative Issues Journal by an authorized editor of SWOSU Digital Commons. An ADA compliant document is available upon request. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES JOURNAL: EDUCATION, CONNECTING PRACTICE, AND RESEARCH 83 penalty is penalty Story, sitting as circuit in capital cases by judge, a juror arguedparticipation who opposes the death that mandatory effects onthejuror himself andtheintegrity ofthejudicialsystem. Justice Supreme Joseph Court The initialfocus ofexcluding thoseopposedto incapitalcasesoriginally was thedeath castinterms ofthe penalty Court through neutrality diversity is relevantachieving to adetermination of guilt as well as penalty” ( this group dilutes therepresentativeness despite thecourts’ ofthejury declaration that the “constitutional of principle convict andto assessthedeath penalty, thereby jury. addition,theexclusion negating theconcept In of ofanimpartial United States hasapproved Supreme Court thepractice, argue critics that thisexclusion predisposes bothto religious orideological oppositionto (DeathPenalty thedeath penalty Information Center, 2014b). Although the people who were tried, convicted, and sentenced to death under procedures that excluded jurors based on their in April of 2013, death states rows and the federal in thirty-two system prison held 3,108 (including the U.S. Military) AmendmentThe to Sixth theUnited States Constitution mandates an jury”“impartial prosecutions. inallcriminal Yet, murder case? case. thisallegation istrue, If doesadefendant receive anunbiasedconsideration ofguiltorinnocence inacapital disqualification process that isbiasedinfavor produces oftheprosecution’s ajury presentation ofacapitalmurder willing to consider allpenaltiesasappropriate forms ofpunishment maintain 2002).Critics (Butler&Moran, that the the prospective jurors’ beliefs order aboutcapital punishment. In for ajuror to be “death qualified,” aperson must be disqualification ofpotential jurors whoare opposed aspublicpolicy.to thedeath penalty This occurs by questioning T Keywords problems inexamining through decision-making juries. theuseofmock biastowardevidence to support conviction incapital punishment cases whilealsoidentifyingseveral methodological Yet, thequestionofdeathqualification andprosecutorial bias remains open to inquiry. studyfound This preliminary case juries;otherscholarsemployedpenalty utilizingmock different techniques to addmore information in thelate 1990s. for examination thesubjects’ debate conviction ofthistopic about intheir1984seminalstudyby inadeath observing well scientists. aslegalscholarsandsocial Cowan, establishedoneofthestandard methodologies Thompson, andEllsworth The studyofcapital juriesremains ofcritical asubject interest makers forthepublicandlegislative as andjudicialpolicy DELIBERATIONS: METHODS AND ISSUES EXAMINATION OF CAPITAL MURDER JURORS’ VOLUME 4,ISSUE2 West TexasA&MUniversity Gary R.Byrd,PhD Susan Coleman,JD Keith Price,PhD DOI: 10.5929/2014.4.2.4 Price, Coleman, &Byrd , p. 1311). the sources of alleged bias is the process of death qualification of jurors that in capital mandates the contend that capitalpunishmentparties procedures inoursociety. produce parties Oneof biasto certain he implementation of continues to arouse lively discussion in theUnited States. Many verdict according to law andevidence, by ofatrial jury, would theobjects beto and to into subvert bring himselfto beunderinfluencesin acasewhenheacknowledges .whichwillprevent himfrom giving atrue to compel him to decide against his conscience, . . . . or to commit a solemn perjury To insist on a juror’s sitting : capital punishment,capital juries, deathpenalty, deathqualification b Hovey v. Superior ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES JOURNAL: CONNECTING EDUCATION, PRACTICE, AND RESEARCH 84 Witherspoon v. v. Witherspoon Price, Coleman, & Byrd Coleman, Price, DOI: 10.5929/2014.4.2.4 , pp. 655-656) , pp. United States v. Cornell v. States United (1968), the Supreme Court that (1968), the Supreme stated a METHOD ). modified the legal standard for death qualification, these studies have have these studies qualification, for death modified the legal standard ) and then asked each group to consider criminal cases. In each instance, the In criminal each instance, cases. consider to ) and then asked each group Witherspoon v. Illinois v. Witherspoon Witherspoon Witherspoon Hovey v. Superior Court v. Hovey ; studies adopted the language and thrust of that decision to compare the conviction proneness of proneness conviction the compare to decision the language and thrust of that studies adopted and the punishment stage. In stage. and the punishment the all of consider to he be willing that is regard this man in venire a of be demanded can that most The vote the to has begun, before committed, he not be irrevocably and that law, state by penalties provided of in the course emerge might that the facts of and circumstances against the penalty regardless of death the to without regard against death vote automatically who would only those jurors is, that the proceedings, 522) (p. stages of trial. punishment and both the guilt and innocence from will be excluded circumstances disgrace and contempt, the proceedings of courts of justice. ( of courts proceedings the of justice. and contempt, disgrace jury rights, selection cases in capital defendant’s the effect on the shiftedthe emphasis has Although to cannot be and if a juror dire voir through qualification of death the process incorporates routinely today the jury from stage trial—theboth stages of the at guilt or innocence excluded she is he or “death-qualified,” Lockhart v. McCree Lockhart v. ; Witherspoon case. In order to accomplish this, we attempted to develop and evaluate methods and procedures to measure measure to methods and procedures and evaluate develop to attempted we this, accomplish to In order case. the in differences were if there the study also examined these procedures, jury Using simulated deliberations. a death-qualified between jury process and a juryat least one individual who cannot be includes that as well as legislation proposed in other states and moratoriums on executions in yet other states (Simpson, 2013). other states in yet on executions and moratoriums in other states proposed as legislation as well of death testing if the process of effectively a way explore to study was purpose of the current overriding The of a capital murder presentation prosecution’s of the decision in favor biases a jury’s jurors of potential qualification Penalty Information Center, 2014a). Examining factors affecting the assessment of the death penalty in , given its given Texas, penalty 2014a). Examining factors of the death affecting the assessment in Center, Information Penalty penalty the death the nation, particularly is Across on capital punishment, reliance and historical relevant. continued in six years) states (six states in eighteen high on the public agenda with the abolition of capital punishment remains by the Capital Jury Project (Bowers, 1996; Sandys & McClelland, 2003). & McClelland, 1996; Sandys Jury the Capital (Bowers, by Project in 2013 (Death carried out in nine states of the executions 59 percent for accounted and , Texas states, Two examining it in the context of the shifting legal and cultural landscape a quarter-century later. Members of death- of the shifting it in the context landscape a quarter-centuryexamining legal and cultural later. an opportunityqualified and non-deathprovided qualified panels observed for that exactlypresentation the same interviews conducted post-sentence intense the on based studies the than findings and analysis of methods different The methodology of this preliminary study revived the classical research design of the seminal study of Cowan, of the seminal study of Cowan, design the classical research methodology of this preliminaryThe study revived the actual and then as closely as possible, decision-making jurors of process and EllsworthThompson, replicating, by of capital punishment in opinions replete with detailed discussions of various social science studies ( of various social science with detailed discussions in opinions replete of capital punishment Illinois The issue of death-qualified juries is a unique nexus of constitutional law, judicial and public policy, and social science. social science. and judicial and public policy, issue of death-qualifiedThe constitutional law, juries of is a unique nexus jury especially of criminal defendants; an impartial, decide the fate that representative Sixth requires The Amendment those opposing the imposition for but courts crafted an exception have loss of life, penalty, those facing the ultimate that death qualified juries are conviction prone (Cowan, Thompson, & Ellsworth 1984; Fitzgerald & EllsworthFitzgerald 1984; & EllsworthThompson, 1984; (Cowan, conviction prone qualified juries are death that Ellsworth, & Harrington 1984). Cowan, Thompson, 1971; Haney 1984; Jurow limited application. limited Post- the findings indicated Again, sample. of the penalty impose the death remainder with the never those who would “non-scrupled” respondents were more likely to convict. The same propensity was found by Bronson (1970), who Bronson by found was same propensity The convict. likely to more were respondents “non-scrupled” subjectswhose (1968), actuallyhad jury Zeisel servedby and interviewedColorado on persons jurieslists, on in Because York. Illinois and New employed mock juries drawn from the general public for their study while Wilson (1964) and Goldberg (1970) divided (1964) and Goldberg Wilson their study while public for the general from mock juries drawn employed penalty against the death scruples” “conscientious based on whether they had groups two into students college prior to (the legal standard that are more likely to convict rather than being neutral fact finders, and indeed, empirical studies by social scientists by social scientists empirical studies fact and indeed, than being neutral finders, rather convict likely to more are that colleagues and her Cowan death-qualifiedconviction prone. that the issue and determined juries are explored have Defendants, legal scholars, judges, and social scientists have argued that this automatic exclusion results in juries results exclusion automatic this that argued have scientists and social judges, scholars, legal Defendants, ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES JOURNAL: EDUCATION, CONNECTING PRACTICE, AND RESEARCH 85 the jury charge. Only the the jurorsjury were present deliberations, during that the discussions although the students knew deliberations ensued. An investigator convened the jury, disseminated thetrial-information packets, andgave them 1981—but were nottold theoutcome. Once thematerials hadbeenread, thejurors aforeperson, elected andthe were advised thatcase— this was an actual (DeathPenalty instructions) the investigation, Information Center, (includingjury andthetrial 2008). The students packet withinformation scene ofwitnessstatements), about ahomicide(includingmapofthecrime andsummaries within thepsychological at theuniversity where laboratory othermockjurors awaited. Eachpersonwas given a theinformedAfter collecting consent forms andjuror questionnaires, eachjuror was directed to a4.3x9.1mroom Procedure and useofallmockjuries. were operationally definedasdeath qualified, and fourasnotdeath qualified. Table1summarizes the composition as established byperson opposing the death theanswer penalty inthe juror questionnaire. theeight juries, four Of jury contained atleastone qualified qualified (NDQ).as eitherdeath qualified(DQ) Eachnon-death or non-death panels ranged from nine people tojury five.In accordance with the established legal precedent, juries were identified asjurorsFifty-nine for students served theeightacross mockjuries two consecutive semesters. spring The size ofthe intheappropriatedeath penalty case. that is, one who would not assess the death penalty, juror, or as a death-qualified that is, one who would consider the impose itinsomecases.” to allowedThe becategorized answer asan theparticipants to thisquery “excusable juror,” cases?” withtheanswers “a) Iwould beunwilling to vote to imposeitinany case” and Iwould“b) consider voting to to imposeitinany case, nomatter what theevidence was, orwould you consider voting to imposeitinat leastsome contained thequestion, “Is your attitude toward suchthat, thedeath asajuror, penalty you would never bewilling consent forms thatto includedpermission bevideotapedandfilledoutajuror questionnaire. The juror questionnaire werenot to participate given alternative assignments andwere completed notdisadvantaged. Eachparticipant the issues related to capitalmurderinthis study was high; however, trials, and participation students who opted of bythe semester enrollinghad transpired, in class the and elective a portion the students were informed about guilt orinnocence process. stageofthetrial thestudents Because hadalready indicated theirinterest inthetopic junior-senior level classstudyingcapitalpunishment were examining onlythe inmockjuries solicited to participate decision Adaptingmaking. that model,examine capital jury students at a medium-sized state university enrolled in a The Cowan, asavaluable tool legitimized to theutilization ofthemockjury (1984)article Thompson, andEllsworth Participants “death-qualified.” And, finally, it examinedifdeliberation differencesjury’s tothe connect final decision. VOLUME 4,ISSUE2 DOI: 10.5929/2014.4.2.4 Price, Coleman, &Byrd Composition Juries ofMock Table 1 Jury # 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Number Number of Students Six Five Seven Six Eight Nine Nine Nine

Texas v. Graham

b Participation Year

2008 2008 2009 2009 2009 2009 2008 2008 , a capital murder County, held in Harris trial Texas in

Not Death Qualified Death Qualified Not Death Qualified Not Death Qualified Death Qualified Death Qualified Death Qualified Not Death Qualified Jury Jury Status

ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES JOURNAL: CONNECTING EDUCATION, PRACTICE, AND RESEARCH 86

1 0 NV Price, Coleman, & Byrd Coleman, Price, DOI: 10.5929/2014.4.2.4

2 4 NG

0 0 GR a

RESULTS

0 0 GM

1 0 GCM

DQ = death qualified; NDQ = not death qualified; GCM = Guilty of Capital Murder; GM = Guilty of Murder; GR Murder; of Guilty GM = Murder; Capital of Guilty = GCM qualified; not death = NDQ qualified; death = DQ

Table 2 Table of Mock JuriesOutcomes Note. No Verdict = NV Guilty; Not = NG Robbery; Guilty = of Status DQ NDQ

using percent agreement and Cohen’s Kappa. Rating over 1300 distinguishable statements, the overall percent percent the overall Kappa. statements, 1300 distinguishable Rating over and Cohen’s agreement using percent coded Kappa in which both raters being .61. Only statements the Cohen’s .70, with was raters between agreement analysis. data used in subsequent the same manner were in precisely the statement Inter-observer Reliability of Raters participants death-qualified who did not know whether any or non-death- were raters, the two Independently, calculated were reliabilities Inter-rater recordings. usable four the of each in made comments the coded qualified, quality occasionally producing indistinguishable comments and 2) insufficient visual cues of a speaker to assist in visual cues of a speaker and 2) insufficient indistinguishable comments quality producing occasionally categories. behavioral one of the five into classifying comments on the recordings. on the recordings. of audio 1) variations and included the following: problems of the technical consequences were problems coding The jury member when he or she spoke because of movement of people during discussion and having only one camera only one camera jury of people during discussion and having member when he or she spoke because of movement bumping or drumming time because of interfering time to 2) changes in audio quality sounds (e.g., from recording; and 3) periodic the members sat; loss of the audio channel on the table where placement microphone on table) due to procedures to analyze the dynamics of jury deliberations, a number of unanticipated problems affected the results. results. the affected problems juryunanticipated of of number dynamics the a analyze to deliberations, procedures problems. and coding technical into can be categorized problems The a partial was on which there 1) occasions obstruction of an individual included the following: problems technical The The study was also designed to analyze jury deliberations. As a result of this study initiating new methods and new methods of this study initiating a result jury As analyze to also designed study was deliberations. The juries are depicted in Table 2. Table depictedjuries in are As shown in Table 1, the study was originally designed to have four juries that were not death qualified (NDQ) and (NDQ) qualified not death juries were that four have to designed originally 1, the study was Table in shown As the of outcomes results or The case. one verdicts but all in juriesThe produced (DQ). qualified death were that four statement directly following either a pro-prosecution or pro-defense statement that supported that or pro-defense either a pro-prosecution side; or the opposing statement directly following statement statement. interrogative question—any according to the following five behavioral categories: pro-prosecution—supporting the prosecution’s case; pro- case; pro-prosecution—supporting categories: prosecution’s the behavioral five the following to according a as such neutral–supportingcase; defense, the nor prosecution the neither defense—supportingdefense’s the counterstatement—a be interpreted; could not that ambiguous statement fact, of or any a clarification, statement unaware of the intent of the study, created coding schemes for the behavioral categories. After considerable training training considerable After categories. behavioral the for schemes coding created study, the of intent the of unaware comments of the transcripts observers generated on the boundaries of each category the sample video, from classified was a juror by each statement deliberations, the recorded From made during all the usable deliberations. Behavioral Observers Rated Recorded Comments Comments Rated Recorded Observers Behavioral observers/raters), who were (the study’s students a sample videotape of mock jury graduate two deliberations, From were videotaped for later analysis. Upon completion of the deliberations, the foreperson returned the signed verdict verdict the signed returned foreperson the deliberations, of the completion Upon analysis. later for videotaped were a one-way possible through as mirror, conducted unobtrusively as was video recording Digital the investigators. to of the table. in the center placed with a microphone done was audio recording while accompanying

Jury Status Jury Not Death Qualified Death Not Qualified Death Not Not Death Qualified Death Not Qualified Death Not Qualified Death Qualified Death Qualified Death Qualified Death

, a capital murder trial held in Harris County, Texas in Texas trial Harrisin held County, murder capital a , 2008 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009 2009 2009

Participation Year Participation

Texas v. Graham v. Texas

Nine Nine Nine Eight Six Seven Five Six Number of Students of Number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

# Jury Table 1 Table of Mock Juries Composition Procedure a 4.3 x 9.1 m room to directed was each juror questionnaires, and juror forms consent collectingAfter the informed a given Each person was awaited. other mock jurors laboratory where the university at within the psychological and summaries about a homicide (including a map of the crime of witness statements), scene packet with information students The 2008). and the trial (including jury Center, Information the investigation, instructions) (Death Penalty actualan was this case—that advised were and the elected a foreperson, the jurors had been read, the materials Once the outcome. not told 1981—but were them and gave packets, the trial-information disseminated the jury, convened investigator An ensued. deliberations knew the students although the discussions that during deliberations, present were jurythe jurors the Only charge. “death-qualified.” And, finally, it examined if deliberation differences connect to the jury’s final decision. connect to the jury’s differences deliberation examined if it finally, And, “death-qualified.” Participants and EllsworthThompson, article (1984) of the mock jury the utilization to legitimized tool as a valuable Cowan, The a in enrolled university state medium-sized a at students jurycapital examine model, that making.decision Adapting participate to solicited in mock juries only the examining were class studying capital punishment level junior-senior the topic in their interest indicated Because had already the students of the trial stage process. guilt or innocence about informed were students the portionelectivea and the class in transpired, had enrolling semester the by of opted who students and participation trials, however, high; study was in this capital murder to issues related the Each participant not disadvantaged. completed and were assignments alternative given participatenot to were questionnaire The juror questionnaire. filled out a juror be videotaped and included permission to that forms consent be willing never would you penalty as a juror, the death such that, toward attitude “Is your the question, contained least some impose it in at to voting consider you or would was, the evidence what matter no case, impose it in any to to voting consider “b) I would and case” impose it in any to vote to be unwilling I would “a) answers with the cases?” juror,” “excusable this query to the participants as an answer be categorized The allowed to impose it in some cases.” the consider would who one is, that death-qualifieda as or juror, penalty, death the assess not would who one is, that case. penaltydeath in the appropriate of the size The spring semesters. consecutive two mock juries across the eight served students for Fifty-nine as jurors identified were juries precedent, legal established the with accordance In five. juryto people nine from ranged panels or non-death qualified (DQ) Each non-deathas either death qualified (NDQ). qualified least one at contained jury Of four juries, the eight questionnaire. juror in the the answer penaltythe death person opposing by as established composition the Table 1 summarizes qualified. four as not death and qualified, defined as death operationally were and use of all mock juries. ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES JOURNAL: EDUCATION, CONNECTING PRACTICE, AND RESEARCH 87 The purpose of this exploratory study was to continue the examination of capital jury decision-making in preparation studywas decision-making The to ofthis exploratory continue purpose theexamination ofcapitaljury as neutral alsodidnotreveal any systematic differences. reveal any significant differences amongthe condition comparisons. of Likewise, comments classified the proportion comments intheDQ/NV condition were identical at .19. ofcounterstatementsThe proportion orquestionsdidnot acrossLooking thesetwo analyses, itisinteresting ofpro-prosecution comments that theproportion andpro-defense (DQ/NG)deliberationsthan death qualified/notguilty (.35). deliberations (.19) hadasignificantly (X lower proportion qualified/no (DQ/NV) verdict different of comments on (DQ/NG) thethandeliberations. proportion death qualified/not guilty However, death regardIn statements, (NDQ/NG)deliberations to pro-defense qualified/notguilty were non-death notsignificantly prosecution comments (DQ/NG)deliberations thandeath qualified/notguilty (.05). (X deliberations (.19)hadasignificantly higher proportion death qualified/no (DQ/NV) verdict ofpro-prosecution comments (DQ/NG)deliberations.on theproportion thandeath qualified/not guilty However, As illustrated inFigure (NDQ/NG)deliberations qualified/notguilty were 1,non-death notsignificantly different (DQ/G)withNDQ/NG, DQ/NG,orDQ/NV.qualified/guilty was usedthroughoutand proportions theresults. Unfortunately, technical problems prevented analyses ofdeath (DQ/NG)deliberations?death qualified/notguilty Examination ofthedata using Fleiss’ (1973)analysis for rates and 2) deliberationsWere different on death qualified/no any ofthebehavioral (DQ/NV) verdict categories than NG) deliberations different onany ofthebehavioral categories (DQ/NG)deliberations? thandeath qualified/notguilty Consequentially, analysis oftheresults centered around two questions:1) Were (NDQ/ qualified/notguilty non-death in Figure 1.As shown inFigure 1,two dimensions, composition andoutcome, were usedto organize theresults. ofdeliberation statements oftheproportion for thefourA summary that juries hadcomplete recordings ispresented Analysis ofDeliberationsandFinalDecisions VOLUME 4,ISSUE2 DOI: 10.5929/2014.4.2.4 Price, Coleman, &Byrd CONCLUSIONS b 2 = 13.71, 2 =37.29, p <.05)comments p <.05)pro-

ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES JOURNAL: CONNECTING EDUCATION, PRACTICE, AND RESEARCH 88 Price, Coleman, & Byrd Coleman, Price, Retrieved from http:// from Retrieved DOI: 10.5929/2014.4.2.4 (5), 220-223. Amarillo Globe News. (1/2), 53-79. (2) 175-184. , 1-32. Judicature, 79 Judicature, a REFERENCES Law and Human Behavior, 8 and Human Behavior, Law Law and Human Behavior, 26 and Human Behavior, Law University of Colorado Law Review, 42 Review, Law University of Colorado org/documents/FactSheet.pdf. (Accessed 29Aug. 2013). 29Aug. (Accessed org/documents/FactSheet.pdf. http://www. end report. from Retrieved Year (2014a). Death penalty in 2013: Center. Information Death Penalty deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/YearEnd2013.pdf. capitalpunishmentincontext.org. capitalpunishmentincontext.org. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo. from Retrieved penalty. about the death Facts (2014b). Center. Information Death Penalty Cowan, C. L., Thompson, W. C., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1984). The effects of death qualification on juror’s predispositions to predispositions on juror’s qualification effects of death The C. (1984). C., & Ellsworth, P. W. Thompson, C. L., Cowan, and on the quality convict of deliberation. Gary in context. punishment www. (2008). Capital from Retrieved Graham. Center. Information Death Penalty Butler, B.M., and Moran, G. (2002). The role of death qualification in venire persons’ evaluations of aggravating and aggravating of evaluations persons’ venire in qualification death of role The (2002). Moran,G. and B.M., Butler, in capital trials. circumstances mitigating Bryant, M. (2013, July 18). Campos found guilty in Canyon teen’s death. death. teen’s guiltyBryant, Canyon in found M. (2013, July 18). Campos amarillo.com/news/local-news/2013-07-18/jury-begins-deliberations-canyon-murder-trial. Bowers, W. J. (1996). The capital jury:The death? toward (1996). Is it tilted J. W. Bowers, qualified jury: of the death and representativeness An empirical proneness G. (1970). On the conviction E. Bronson, men. venire study of Colorado evidence from a juror indicated that the decision was affected by the composition of the death qualified jury qualified death of the composition the by members affected was decision the that indicated a juror from evidence for and pro-conviction qualification a viable area remains question of death The bias 2013). (Interview with juror, stage of capital cases. in the guilt and innocence concern The use of death qualification apparently continues to impact capital jury decision-making. To illustrate, in mid-2013 in To illustrate, to impact continues capital jury apparently qualification decision-making. use of death The of one of the participants in a case based solely on the testimony of capital murder convicted was defendant Texas a (Bryant, corpse 2013). Anecdotal 2013; McBride, the victim’s not even evidence, no forensic was There in the crime. to design. We have meticulously detailed these findings above with the hope that these will provide guidance to guidance will provide these with the hope that detailed these findings above meticulously have We design. to the methodological overcome to with new methods devised continues Our research researchers. other interested reported. we that flaws description of these problems that dominate the findings of this study. dominate that description of these problems regard studies in in subsequent researchers would benefit findings that are Descriptions problems of methodological rather than producing concrete findings. This preliminary study encountered myriad technical and coding problems coding problems technical and myriad This preliminary study encountered findings. concrete than producing rather of the test the full study including the redesign certain for redesign aspects to in preparation the researchers forcing It is the empirical jurors. for process of the recruitment and revision of additional hardware, the purchase instruments, be construed as reasonable doubt. For this reason, the pool for subjects was widened, and the selection process for for and the selection subjects widened, process the pool for was this reason, For doubt. as reasonable be construed study participants altered. was jury with the actual variable, issues collection data decision-making, illustrated of the process examination The and Constitutional Rights of the Accused. Both courses would have heightened the students’ understanding of the understanding students’ the heightened have would Both courses Rights of the Accused. and Constitutional easily could that examples had numerous instrument test The doubt.” a reasonable “beyond of guilt legal standard The jurors in this research were drawn from two capital punishment classes and the majority of these students were majoritythe and classes were punishment capital students these two of from drawn were research this in jurors The their decision-making. influenced this factor that strongly the researchers It by majors. criminal is postulated justice Introduction Law entitled: to courses the had completed majors the criminal justice Bystudies, in their this time verdicts. One DQ jury produced a finding of guilty of capital murder. This was the expected result. One DQ juryresult. expected the was This DQ juryOne of guiltya finding of capital murder. verdicts. produced not guilty. as the NDQ juries, the same results other DQ juries produced Two no verdict. deadlocked and produced much unexpected. was This for more protracted and in-depth research of the topic. Cowan, Thompson, and Ellsworth’s 1984 study challenged study challenged 1984 and Ellsworth’s Thompson, Cowan, of the topic. and in-depth protracted research more for different were that (verdicts) measures outcome project produced current The of inquiry. their line continue others to mixed DQ juries produced The not guilty only verdicts. juries the NDQ delivered expected, As groups. the two for ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES JOURNAL: EDUCATION, CONNECTING PRACTICE, AND RESEARCH 89 making incapitalmurder trials.making experimental psychologist whohas become interested research inconducting onsocialissuessuch as decision R.Byrd, Gary of numerous articles. Texas A&MUniversity. Sheisthecoauthor ofthree books, includingoneinitsseventh edition,as well astheauthor Susan Coleman prisons. including wardenHis prisons. offive research maximumsecurity interests includecapitalpunishment and Texas University. years ofemployment withthe Hespent thirty Texas system prison innumerous where positions, heserved Keith Price, University ofChicagoLaw School. Zeisel, data onjuror H.(1968).Some attitudes toward capitalpunishment. C Witherspoon v. Illinois, Wilson, W. University Unpublishedmanuscript. of performance. incapital punishment C.(1964).Belief andjury Texas. United States v. Cornell, 25F. Cas. 650(C.C.D.R.I. 1820)(No. 14,868). proneness; thetranslation ofattitudes into verdicts. Thompson, W. C.,Cowan, P. C. L., Ellsworth, J. C. &Harrington, attitudes andconviction C.(1984).Death penalty www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USBRE9410TQ20130502 . becomes latest U.S.Simpson, I.(2013,May 2).Maryland state to abolishdeath penalty. Retrieved from Reuters http:// (pp.385-411). NC:Carolina Durham, Academic Press. J.impartiality. In R. Acker, and C. S. Lanier R.(Eds.)M. Bohm, Sandys, M., & McCelland, the deck for S. (2003). Stacking guilt and death; the failure of death qualification to ensure teens-killer. Retrieved from http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2013-07-20/piecing-it-together-police-detail-cold-case-hunt- McBride, J. (2013,July20),Piecing Police ittogether: detailcold casehunt for teen’s killer. v.Lockhart McCree Review, 84, Jurow, ontheguiltdetermination process. jury G.(1971).Newdata ontheeffectofadeath-qualified withcapitaljuror (2013). Interview Hovey v. Court Superior Human Behavior, 8 Haney, ofcapitaljuries: C.(1984).Ontheselection The biasingeffectsofthedeath-qualification process. presumptions inthelaw. Goldberg, F. (1970). Toward expansion of Witherspoon: bias, andtheuseofpsychological capitalscruples, jury Fleiss, J.L. (1973). 8 and HumanBehavior Fitzgerald, P .C. process(1976). Due R. & Ellsworth, vs. control: crime attitudes. death qualification and jury VOLUME 4,ISSUE2 DOI: 10.5929/2014.4.2.4 Price, Coleman, &Byrd 567-611. Ph.D. isanassociate ([email protected]) professor justice ofcriminal andsociologyat West Texas A&M Ph.D. ([email protected]) isaProfessor ofPsychology at West Texas A&MUniversity. Heisan , J.D. ([email protected]) isanattorney and Director Justice oftheCriminal program at West Statistical forrates methods andproportions , 476U.S. 162(1986). (1/2), 21-132.doi:10.1007/BF01044355. 391U.S. 510(1968). (1/2), 31-51.doi:10.1007/BF01044350. , 28Cal. 3d1,616P.2d 1301(1980). Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, Liberties 5, Harvard CivilRights-Civil ABOUT THEAUTHORS Law andHumanBehavior, 8 b . New York: John Wiley &Sons. America’s with Capital Experiment Punishment 53-69. enter for Studiesin Criminal Justice. Chicago. (1/2), 95-113.doi:10.1007/BF01044353. Amarillo Globe News Globe Amarillo Harvard Law (2nded.) Law and The Law ,