Psychology Public Policy, and Law Copyright 2001 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 2001, Vol. 7, No. 3, 622-727 1076-8971/01/$5.00 DOI: 10.1037//1076-8971.7.3.622

JURY DECISION MAKING 45 Years of Empirical Research on Deliberating Groups

Dennis J. Devine, Laura D. Clayton, Benjamin B. Dunford, Rasmy Seying, and Jennifer Pryce University—Purdue University at Indianapolis

This article provides a comprehensive review of the empirical research on decision making published between 1955 and 1999. In total, 206 distinguishable studies involving deliberating (actual or mock) were located and grouped into 4 categories on the basis of their focal variables: (a) procedural characteristics, (b) participant characteristics, (c) case characteristics, and (d) characteris- tics. Numerous factors were found to have consistent effects on jury decisions: definitions of key legal terms, verdict/sentence options, structure, jury-defen- dant demographic similarity, jury personality composition related to authoritarian- ism/dogmatism, jury attitude composition, defendant criminal history, evidence strength, pretrial publicity, inadmissible evidence, case type, and the initial distri- bution of juror verdict preferences during deliberation. Key findings, emergent themes, practical implications, and future research directions are discussed. The is a well-known component of the U.S. legal system that needs little introduction. More than 150,000 jury take place each year in the (Landsman, 1999; Saks & Marti, 1997), and tens of thousands more in other countries throughout the world. Hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens serve on juries each year and a sizable percentage of the population will do so at some point in their lives. The jury system has been around for hundreds of years and it is considered a cornerstone of democracy (Abramson, 1994). Despite frequent criticism (see Penrod & Heuer, 1998, for a review), it has proven to be a remarkably resilient institution. Although juries have been used in the United States since its founding, scientific interest in jury decision making is a relatively recent phenomenon. Isolated studies were conducted before World War n (e.g., Weld & Danzig, 1940), but systematic research on juries did not begin until 1953 and the initiation of the Chicago Jury Project. This multiyear effort was undertaken by a team of researchers at the University of Chicago and financed by two large grants from the Ford Foundation (Ellsworth & Mauro, 1998). The broad and (at the time) revolutionary goal of the project was to use social science methods to study legal phenomena (Breeder, 1958). One arm of the project, led by Harry Kalven and

Dennis J. Devine, Laura D. Clayton, Benjamin B. Dunford, Rasmy Seying, and Jennifer Pryce, Department of Psychology, Indiana University—Purdue University at Indianapolis. Laura D. Clayton is now at the Hamilton Center, Terre Haute, Indiana. Benjamin B. Dunford is now in the Department of Human Resources, Cornell University. We thank Brian Dille, Chantal Mees Koch, and Jami Wolfe for assistance with data collection and coding, and Julie Devine for her editorial assistance. We are grateful to James Davis and Garold Stasser for supplying social decision scheme data for several studies. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dennis J. Devine, Department of Psychology, Indiana University—Purdue University at Indianapolis, LD 124, 402 North Black- ford Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202-3275. Electronic mail may be sent to [email protected].

622 JURY DECISION MAKING 623 Hans Zeisel, gathered data on actual juries by surveying judges and attorneys and interviewing ex-jurors. A second arm conducted experimental studies with mock juries after the audiotaping of several jury in federal district court in 1955 drew a storm of protest and led the federal government and most states to ban access to the jury room. The Chicago Jury Project generated a great deal of data and spawned numerous publications in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The most well-known and influential report stemming from the project is Kalven and Zeisel's (1966) book entitled The American Jury, which reported the results of a massive field study comparing actual jury verdicts with the verdicts favored by trial judges in 3,500 civil and criminal jury trials. They found that judges and juries agreed on the appropriate verdict in 78% of the jury trials examined, with juries being more lenient than judges in 19% of the trials and more severe than judges in just 3% of the cases. However, to identify the source of these discrepancies, Kalven and Zeisel also conducted extensive postdeliberation interviews with jurors from 225 trials to reconstruct the distribution of verdict preferences on the first ballot during deliberation. When the distribution of verdict preferences was compared with final verdicts, Kalven and Zeisel discovered one of the most robust and widely replicated findings injury research: The verdict preferred by the majority of jurors on the first ballot was the jury's final verdict over 90% of the time. After the Chicago Jury Project ended, research on jury decision making remained dormant until the early 1970s. then began in earnest following several controversial Supreme Court decisions upholding the use of juries with fewer than 12 persons as well as nonunanimous verdicts (e.g., Apodaca, Cooper, & Madden v. Oregon, 1972; Colgrove v. Battin, 1973; Johnson v. , 1972; Williams v. , 1970). Around that time, J. H. Davis (1973) introduced the social decision scheme (SDS) framework, a stochastic representation of the way in which individual preferences are translated into a collective choice within groups. Applied to juries, SDSs probabilistically relate the initial distribution of juror verdict preferences to final jury verdicts. They can be inferred by identifying the probabilities associated with each verdict alternative for all possible preference distributions as well as tested by generating expected verdict distributions and determining how closely they correspond to actual verdict distributions. Sparked by the implications of the Supreme Court decisions and the structure provided by the SDS framework, a good deal of empirical work in the late 1970s focused on the effects of jury size, assigned decision rule, and the SDSs operating injuries. In the 1980s, the amount and diversity of jury research increased rapidly, particularly with regard to juror demographic characteristics, juror dispositional characteristics, the effects of trial structure, and plaintiff success rates and damage awards in civil jury trials. This expansionistic trend continued into and through the 1990s. Now, once again, the scientific spotlight is on groundbreaking research being conducted in the field with actual juries. One such effort, the (CJP), represents a massive field study of jury decision making in capital trials that involves a consortium of researchers in 15 states (Bowers, 1995). In each participating state, the goal of the project is to collect information on an equal number of trials ending in death sentences and life without parole sentences (20 624 DEVINE, CLAYTON, DUNFORD, SEYING, AND PRYCE or 30 trials in total, depending on when the state's researchers became involved). The data are gathered through extensive structured interviews with four randomly selected jurors from each capital trial. Various preliminary reports have already been released (e.g., Eisenberg, Garvey, & Wells, 1996; Sundby, 1997), and more extensive reports containing analyses of data from multiple states are beginning to emerge as well (e.g., Bowers, Sandys, & Steiner, 1998). The Arizona Jury Reform (AJR) study is a second large-scale field project that focuses on the impact of a controversial jury reform. In 1995, the Arizona Supreme Court allowed jurors to discuss the evidence in their cases while trials were still in progress and permitted the effects of the practice to be formally assessed in the context of a true field experiment with random assignment. As with the CJP, preliminary findings based on portions of the data have already been published (e.g., Hans, 1998; Hans, Hannaford, & Munsterman, 1999) and more comprehensive reports are forthcoming. More than 20 years have elapsed since the last comprehensive review of the empirical literature on jury decision making. In 1977, both Gerbasi, Zuckerman, and Reis (1977) and J. H. Davis, Bray, and Holt (1977) published reviews of the empirical literature on jury decision making at a time when the literature was small enough to include both juror-level and jury-level studies. Although numer- ous excellent reviews have been offered since then, no review of the entire empirical research on deliberating juries has been undertaken. Those reviews that have been conducted in the last 25 years have either focused broadly on psychol- ogy and the law (e.g., J. H. Davis, 1989; Ellsworth & Mauro, 1998) or selected aspects of jury decision-making research (e.g., Costanzo & Costanzo, 1992; J. H. Davis, 1984; King, 1993; Lieberman & Sales, 1997; Saks & Marti, 1997). A comprehensive review affords the opportunity to consolidate what has been learned and consider the collective implications for both science and practice. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive summary and review of the published literature on deliberating juries. Following this, we identify several themes, discuss the practical implications of the findings, and highlight areas for future research. Review of Empirical Research on Jury Decision Making Conceptual Framework Numerous theoretical models have been offered in the last 50 years to further our understanding of jury behavior and predict jury outcomes. Several approaches have been taken to explain how individual jurors process trial-related information and arrive at their preferred verdicts, including Bayesian probability, algebraic weighing, stochastic choice, and cognitive processes (Hastie, 1993; Pennington & Hastie, 1981; Penrod & Hastie, 1979). The first three types possess advantages associated with formal expression (i.e., precision, quantifiable, testable) but do not correspond well to the subjective experience reported by jurors (Ellsworth & Mauro, 1998; MacCoun, 1989; Pennington & Hastie, 1981). Instead, the most widely adopted approach to juror decision making is the "story" model, wherein jurors attempt to assemble the evidence into a coherent whole that is consistent with the facts of the case and makes sense given their existing knowledge (Hastie, 1993; Hastie, Penrod, & Pennington, 1983). In contrast to these cognitive ap- JURY DECISION MAKING 625 preaches, most jury-level models have sought to predict jury outcomes (e.g., verdicts) from a small, highly selected set of input variables. Some of these models have involved attempts to identify relationships between juror or popu- lation characteristics and jury outcomes (e.g., J. H. Davis, 1973; Gelfand & Solomon, 1973); others have focused on deliberation processes (Crott & Werner, 1994; Kerr, 1981; Stasser & Davis, 1981). Several models based on computer simulations have also been offered (Boster, Hunter, & Hale, 1991; Penrod & Hastie, 1980; Tanford & Penrod, 1983). Of these alternatives, the SDS framework offered by J. H. Davis (1973) has been used most frequently and has been extended to model jury-level shifts in the preference distribution during deliber- ation as a function of individual certainty (Stasser & Davis, 1981) as well as previous distributional states (J. H. Davis, Stasser, Spitzer, & Holt, 1976; Kerr, 1981, 1982; Stasser & Davis, 1981). Because of the problem-driven nature of most jury research, however, no overarching theoretical model has emerged around which to structure a compre- hensive review of the broad empirical literature. Therefore, a "bottom-up" ap- proach was taken here that involved sorting the empirical literature by topic and then clustering those topics into four broad categories on the basis of the nature of their focal variables: (a) procedural characteristics, (b) participant characteris- tics, (c) case characteristics, and (d) deliberation characteristics. Procedural char- acteristics are denned as institutional parameters related to jury functioning (e.g., jury size, , juror involvement during the trial, the number of jurors needed for a quorum, etc.). Participant characteristics correspond to individual difference variables associated with jurors, defendants, victims/plaintiffs, judges, and attorneys (e.g., demographic variables, personality traits, experience, atti- tudes, and courtroom behaviors). Generally speaking, these characteristics have no probative value and should ideally not influence jury verdicts. Case charac- teristics refer to variables associated with specific trials (e.g., case type, strength of the evidence, specific charges, etc.). Finally, deliberation characteristics include any and all facets of juror interaction (e.g., the distribution of initial juror preferences, polling mechanics, interpersonal influence and participation, and the content of discussion) that take place in the deliberation room. Literature Search The goal of this study was to provide a comprehensive review of published empirical research on jury decision making. The decision was made to focus on published research because unpublished studies vary considerably in quality and are often difficult, if not impossible, to acquire. We also chose to limit the review to empirical research involving deliberating juries for two reasons: (a) the em- pirical literature on juror decision making is extremely large and nearly impos- sible to review comprehensively, and (b) deliberation is a fundamental aspect of jury decision making (Bray & Kerr, 1979; Diamond, 1997). Of note, the following were included when deliberating groups were involved: (a) studies that analyzed data exclusively at the juror level (e.g., predeliberation and postdeliberation verdict shifts), and (b) studies that involved an experimental confederate in the jury. Many mock jury studies included deliberating groups but did not conduct or report jury-level analyses, typically because of poor statistical power associated with small samples or low variability in the jury verdicts. These studies were 626 DEVINE, CLAYTON, DUNFORD, SEYING, AND PRYCE included on the presumption that they still might provide useful information about some aspects of the deliberation process. A handful of studies involved the use of confederates in deliberating mock juries; these studies were included when it did not appear that deliberation outcomes were determined directly by the confeder- ate's behavior. When two or more publications were based on the same data, they were treated as one study to avoid reporting duplicate findings or "overweighting" data that had been analyzed multiple times. When we found reports with over- lapping data, we decided to treat one as the lead publication for the purpose of creating and ordering annotated summaries. In choosing a lead publication, we considered the scope of the issues examined and the size of the sample involved as well as the comprehensiveness and sophistication of the analyses reported. Sometimes our choice was the first in a series of related reports, other tunes it was the last; admittedly, however, these decisions were somewhat subjective. Finally, the following kinds of studies were excluded from this review: (a) pure computer simulations, (b) archival studies in which jury decisions could not be uniquely identified because bench trials were also involved, and (c) laboratory studies that manipulated the appearance of juror interaction but in which no interaction actually took place. Three converging methods were used to identify relevant studies: (a) com- puter-assisted search of several databases (e.g., Lexis-Nexis, Psyclnfo) using keywords such as "jury," "decision making," "verdict," "mock," "award," and "deliberation"; (b) manual searches through the contents of the following journals for the last 10 or more years: Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, Law and Human Behavior, Judicature, Law & Society Review, Law & Psychology Review, and Personality and Social Psychol- ogy Bulletin; and (c) inspection of the reference lists of recent literature reviews and selected empirical studies. Any published report involving deliberating juries was copied, read, and abstracted regardless of its domain, although the over- whelming majority came from books or journals devoted to psychology or legal issues. As noted above, our explicit goal was to provide a comprehensive review of the published literature on jury decision making based on deliberating groups. However, due to the lengthy time frame covered, the multidisciplinary nature of the subject, and the many journals in which relevant jury research is published, a few relevant studies have no doubt been omitted. Four primary methodologies have been used by researchers to study jury decision making: (a) mock jury experiments involving simulated trials, (b) post- deliberation interviews with, or surveys of, ex-jurors, (c) analyses of jury verdicts obtained from archival sources, and (d) field studies or experiments involving real juries. Although the mock jury paradigm has been used most frequently, each approach clearly has its strengths and weaknesses. Mock jury studies allow a small number of focal variables to be examined with a high level of control over extraneous influences, and they also allow direct access to the deliberation process. However, these advantages come at a cost in terms of structural verisi- militude, which sometimes calls into question the relevance of their findings to actual juries. Field studies involving actual juries are obviously more realistic and their results more generalizable, but they require extensive cooperation from one or more courts, tend to involve small samples as a result, and the interpretation of JURY DECISION MAKING 627 their findings is often plagued by confounding variables. Surveys or interviews of ex-jurors can serve as a rich source of data on real deliberations, but these methods are limited by the cognitive biases and limitations of respondents, which can make it difficult to reconstruct an accurate picture of what happened during deliberation. Finally, archival analyses also have the benefit of using real juries and often attain reasonable sample sizes, but the variables that can be examined are limited to those maintained in court records, and there are again confounding case differences that complicate the interpretation of findings. Ideally, then, for any given topic, multiple approaches will be used and findings will be consistent across methodologies. Tables 1-5 present brief summaries of each empirical study that has involved deliberating groups from 1955 to 1999. Tables 1-4 offer summaries of studies that focused solely on procedural characteristics (Table 1), participant character- istics (Table 2), case characteristics (Table 3), and deliberation characteristics (Table 4), respectively. Table 5 provides summary information for studies that examined two or more of the above types of characteristics. In total, 206 relevant, distinguishable empirical studies were found in over 250 separate publications. Of the 206 studies, 136 involved mock juries (66%), whereas 70 collected data from actual juries: 40 through the analysis of archival data (19%), 14 through retro- spective surveys or interviews with ex-jurors (7%), 13 using field studies or experiments (6%), and 3 with a combination of two methodologies (1%). With regard to court system, 26% (53 studies) examined jury behavior in civil trials, whereas another 5% (10 studies) included both criminal and civil juries. As for focal variables, 53% (110 studies) included one or more participant characteris- tics, 49% (101 studies) studied one or more case characteristics, and 31% (63 studies) examined one or more procedural characteristics, whereas only 17% (34 studies) addressed deliberation variables. Using the first published report as a temporal marker, 4 studies were published in the 1950s (2%), 6 studies in the 1960s (3%), 43 studies in the 1970s (21%), 73 in the 1980s (35%), and 80 in the 1990s (39%). Thus, almost all of the research on deliberating juries has taken place in the last 30 years. Focusing on the mock jury studies, most involved students or jury-eligible participants from the surrounding community, although a few were able to use individuals who showed up for jury duty but were not seated on a jury or actual jurors serving an extended term. Most studies conducted before 1985 used written stimulus materials, whereas the majority of studies since then have used audio- taped or videotaped stimulus materials (or some combination of the two). The time allowed for juries to reach their verdicts has varied greatly (range — 1 min to unlimited), with the typical study allowing 30 min. In keeping with the growing concerns over realism, these limits have increased somewhat over time. At this point, we turn to an examination of the empirical literature based on the four categories noted above. In each section, an overview of the literature is provided, key studies are described, and salient findings are noted. Where appro- priate, evaluative statements are offered regarding the existence of effects; in many cases, these statements are necessarily tentative.

(text continues on p. 665) 628 DEVINE, CLAYTON, DUNFORD, SEYING, AND PRYCE

"o ^ ° ¥ S "5 J

|*|P l •lS|-8& *H UH . S c3 O •^t-a1 ^uN Oe —^^ HfiJ?

00 liSfi g o§- aop ° c '•& B u °"-= ipBtM« a "° on S^ £ c • i^isj .§1 si 1 tl Q

w" «J° u Isl <3 t~ U u uu o o 88 88 oo IX, IX, •1 3

So l oc -s:

\o ' l-H —' °° r-I — 00 CN

4 S O

CB I

II a

<4H 05 o a giS;gS; «s; CO P HH '"^ m {§ JURY DECISION MAKING 629 (Table 1 continues) Primar y finding s : 2 2 r 17 % bette r o n a comprehensio tes t f th e instructions , an d significan t difference s o n verdic r deliberatio tim e a functio successfu l tha n thos e favorin g conviction . Jurie s wit h unanimit y majorit y favore d guilt . Deliberatio n characterize b mor e affect , o f decisio n rule . greate r fo convictin g jurie s unde unanimit y rule . N o impac t f testimony . Unanimou s jurie hun g mor e often Large r deliberate d longe r an member s recalle testimon y better ; hangin g an d verdic t reversa l highe r wit h viabl e minorit y (n o reversal s occurre d withou t one) . Large r jurie wit h viabl e minorit y mor e likel y t o hang ; smalle r jurie s reverse , deliberatin g juror s wh o receive d th e sam instruction performe deliberatin g juror s wh o receive d simplifie instruction performe 38 % better . "reasonabl e doubt. " summatio n o f evidenc e resulte d i shorte r deliberatio time ; judicia l requiremen t mor e likel y o han g an d too k longe r deliberat whe n disagreement , an d informatio n sharin g unde r unanimit y rule . N o o f smalle r jurie s recalle d highe percentag e argument generated . Evidenc e o f "2/ 3 majorit y otherwis hung " SDS . deliberatio n ( M = 1.4 question s pe r trial) . Mos t frequen questio topic s wer e patter n instructio definition o f "intent " an d summatio n plu s evaluatio o f eyewitnes credibilit y reduce d tim e eve n further . jurie s an d non-unanimou tende t o han g more . jur y siz e o r decisio n rul verdicts , deliberatio time recal l f o impac t f jur y siz e r decisio n rul convictio rate , bu large iabl e minoritie s (2+ ) muc h mor likel y i n large r juries ; frequenc o f o impac t f judicia l post-tria comment s n verdicts . Judicia viStron g majorit y effect ; 2/ 3 majoritie s favorin no t guilt muc h mor e Irticipatio n rat e mor equa l i 6-perso juries ; certaint y o f guil t ompare d wit h non-deliberatin g juror s give n origina l instructions , he n allowed , 24 % o f jurie s aske d question th e judg durin g Z PH > U t£ Z< „ W5 fc w pi HH " ° w Z co 5 S Z pi co" *2 Ot co" ^ g Q^ CO PQp O Po U PH CO P O" CO U Po

VO *

S. -o "3 •£• • *- ' " >s • " 13 •c qj fl . c^* M o- b E*H flj crt p 1> O g Cq Q" 0} n ff C re 3'S u b" " 0 O u "O 0 II (U > c -g T3 H? p8oq fS £lf M 1 .a< 3.S 3 s £ £> > 8" 2«Lt3cs9>~ -H && ^-p,3q ;>8r ;•>••>2§ I>T ""—> <2

cs cs r-4 1> . y—t ^ c/T OO ^ ^ ^ t~^ l/~> —c "a, m vo — (N -~. CO ^O ^ VI *O ^ [ 1^ OO 1 Q) O £3 o n flj ON VO S § II II II n -a T3 f II II 3 " " ^ II " 3 II II T ]§> II II !§> II II •§ II II C/5 7; TL^ i. 3 3 < CO <^fe;co^fe:< fc<^;-w^^« CO ^^ ^^^ ^^ ^ 13 C/5 00 eg u O J 1 Jis p: 00 ^ ^r .j£ 2 35 P OO a f C^* O"\ *—' u J- "2 •S > f~~ § 00 > 00 s c« 2 w So I ^ ^ ^ u — N ^H C3 •^ o ^ u W ^^ Z PH co p/ pq CO 630 DEVINE, CLAYTON, DUNFORD, SEYING, AND PRYCE

«.s e ° o os-a :-B 8.--3a s. "O dJ if a>l.s,^g-^yg «s- sO g-T3 g . S u & -^ .£> to ^ =3 2*B« Igllilii

li^s^- s IIP! T3 'fi 8.JJ & g *lll#ll.§^ BJ 5 "I 1

J

<

t^ uu U UU U oo £o 00 O

U 'I *-* ^- VJ a -S3 ifl E O "1 Is iSJ7 •!•* ^^ T1O T3 s

00 S u a\ .C o o\ •C I OS > £ J3 1 CD e2 &H — djjod cd t . 0° .0 a 'S JURY DECISION MAKING 631 b c c P o —i

00 e •3 c

I

»H OO UU &&.OO 0,0,

H m 2

C/3

I JJ

=3 3 u I73 I OS 2 . CTs S S.&E y ew ai •§a" >> |l|§ y «£ J_» — fl&-i r*-S* JS i^-'o §to "*O 3n H 8.S2g C & o -c 632 DEVINE, CLAYTON, DUNFORD, SEYING, AND PRYCE

•C&O —-i— > M

G-a t

-S§' PI I

1.3

a ,

•8 o 1•u»;aSoPc .E c .S1 3 .5 Oc gcScS2 O

H oi 2 UO 80 o < o c« g OTf O Tt H a OS £ OSes ££ 0< g 0<0< 0< a. a. c. o. o. OH OH -5o- r*SlI|l^lE § si ,i i§ • bo C "5h 2 T3> o rj "3. O

I I

>> CN J« 1 3 -8 JURY DECISION MAKING 633

B oi 00 W .2,0 O B E 2 3 oo -S K 1 'oo o I i

1 1

1 1 b an d recommende sentence s 2 X longe r o n averag e tha low-authori i officer s — jur y verdict see n a primaril determine d b evidence , u verdicts . Foreperson s tende d t o b e professiona l an male community ) o n jur y verdicts , bu t longe r sentence s give high-sta defendants . peopl e accuse d o f rap mor likel y t convic tha n jurie s wit h les cynica l jurors . Bia s i n predeliberatio verdict attenuate d bu t no eliminate d b y deliberation . Goo recal l o f cas e fact s juror i n bo sentimen t towar d defendan and/o r victi m see n a s mos importan f i n 25 % o f acquittals . N impac t juro r age , gender socia l clas ; confiden t o f thei r preference s befor e deliberation . Deliberatio n prod i gender , verdicts , o r sentences . Evidenc e fo a "2/ 3 majority " primar y SDS moderate d b y gende r an cas e type . Me n mor likel t o repor cha vot e durin g deliberatio n an d disagreein wit h jury' s fina l verdict . W reporte d bein g les s influentia l tha n me durin deliberation . 14 % o f respondent s indicate d overridin g dut y t o reac h a verdict , eve n i f effec t note d i n reduce sampl e o f 4 0 "close " trials ; jurie s les likel y convic t whe n the y containe d experience juror s expose o stron g prosecutio n evidenc e i 1 o r mor previou s trial (especiall y f thei lenienc y shif t an d eliminate differenc e i n confidenc a s functio uncertain , junes . jur y types , rie s compose d entirel y o f high-authoritaria n juror convicte 35 % m i rie s compose d entirel y o f juror wit h mor e cynica l attitude regardi n urvey s o f tria l judges , prosecutors defens e solicitors an d polic 3 5 impac t o f defendan socioeconomi c statu s r jur y typ e (studen vs . 3 co a.volve d racis t confederate . Me n an thos e preferrin g guil wer mor 1^p e o f jur y (perceive d rea l vs . mock ) di no t affec numbe r poll s i 3ro r race , age an d educatio n weakl y relate t o verdic preferences ireperson s tende d t o b e mal an hav previou experience . Cont r z d E- u,

SO o" - a U P3 ^ C/2 C/5 C/3 Oi fi J C/5 S ^ oi o" o" 7:X go 6 £S — r h" O go ~ 22 (N ONO o o 0 m 01 H HH H P H p H s Oi Oioi Oi Oif— HOi OS Oi Oi o; c- 0*0- C- D- Cu Q. Q, 0- a.

o 13 •3 .. "p B . .. 5 • •• 13 "^ -i-T . «• 'C •' t« •a •a £ o o J2 'Q -rH "O T3 ||g. |l| Me ^ 10 s-g s 1 i *•< H • " ^H ll ^H 1^1 § J S< 8 S >8« UW fflSffl H^- > uS uu

_o «> OO NO c- ^ "E. 2 B £ 2 ^P! 2 1 00 TT NO g^NO-g ""^* J-i S• CS -*g II \\ > II II S *o II II >< | IuI IuI •1§ II II •§ II 11 II II £ II II S

G 0 1 ^H OJ oo § o •^ ctf e ON ^-^ f 00 Q ^ ^ ON 0 "o" •a CO OO ON ""« 0^ ON 3 2 =8 1 o ~ M 2 ?> Z ^2 T3 •a CS a? C ON" iT •a -0 •a 2 <$i u o u o Q ON '% ON S ^ cd K^ 52 o -;c 1" I ' u

Z-c 2 I! 11 18*1 S S1 3 e H .ts "- 3 lid fg.1* ^" ^j cd >> >—^ 5 «>=3a ' OS t^=I

C |S|v •3 c Ills

1lilts a X|8P§-s. •psg.S STS S2 s13 TO ••— CJ 1> •§^So| •fio , . -~ a ^ D o •*-» iitf liliHI x-coA§ S ^ s^ 0E !" isss

c« U H Q on o O 80 80 PO

O ^H OS ft! ao: OH 0. CU Cu Cu Q. OH a, c. (XD-,

1- + 13 T3 ^ •c C +3 ?P CA H o'l P*_§ fll K "^ •SO S-O if! fit ! ! >^< § SSu

o "E cs la O cs 1 II "II II ' -a on "§ ^

eo c 3 s J= •oC ^! «5 * '—' I -^1 = b e i t s re l ic t

dg e i|I Hal f o 47 % o al l juri e d afte r

o f table , I

l e an d stic s o f Vc S M or e a n ixed) ; hea d o O * >> nctory . d fro m fa c wit h conventi o rors . Vot e chang ighlighte d n style . nventiona l clo s nt s fro m defe n mor e likel y d conteste ose d t o cas e facts . icts ; jurie s compo

ositio n replica t •C

n defendants ' s* e rating s o f ju d a|S-q i , c o d po s g ju r a s r y c o n c ctio n fac t a w ssi o e d t o ec t o f ona l u p o f o n j u asoni n 1 vot e g u b e male , -qualifi e evidee - brie f d corr e t o , 32 % n discus n s t o d o f th e l onin g e s c o Mai n e f mora l r e 1 e s mad aSgoS^Jog£2aT3ca ••=,csbsi1^^- °-^gyp3rfK5«a plaintif f an d th e law . Focu s 2 juror s mor e likel y o f instruction s a ve n style ; hal f us e ccurre d i n jur oreperson s tende d r s neve gav e deat h sente n y compositio n (de a oncerne d cas e f a n g deat h penalt y relate d t o juro r mora l e tconventiona l iabl e tha n juri t h penalt y attitud e compo s r afte discussio n mixe d juries. s durin g deliberation . ce ; selectio n proce s iberatio n uncove r

s ts e-a IH §•! g S g»i e-s I'SJ.s g>s lS8BT-S8|.gg^.|| v i g oo-Q n d liiilillllil Hill IIItorney . Bg-gg-s-§r§§.^n •l^gsSS-slSfessS S .= « S s § a t O gs.'g.s&g^!c« r- al?£ T Z -J '(S u u a: 880- O 2o o cs •* - HH a: C<0^ « t 0. O. a, a, 0. C_ 0.

t § 73 eg c 'S TJ .5 ^f " & i>§l< uuC

en ^- o ._ m <— —i c^- >^ o!n

11 SO

U 0!

I" 3

O o 636 DEVINE, CLAYTON, DUNFORD, SEYING, AND PRYCE

c (U u O JS£>» 3-° § c3 ^ ti '>

•sUl^a t l n s I o « ~ * Sp a II9 CI'l T3 O l« iiflii

u S.aM|l S o 3 d

n •%£•% ^ C a, k r e on ; 1§-t.&a-s ?&8.-|§.l p r

t i giel£^ f- r e a t s d mo r stio n elerati o me n c o d e o c p r y Project . Forepers o % tatu s (hig h = socio e se l reased . N o uniqu e f i a juro r (93 % o f var i person s les likel y t o ty l ge ,

tJj t o mentio n nee d fi l in g acts , tende d t o b e s t e me ; to p tici 2 r e we d b y quic k rm a 1 4 C te d d t o llo t eva l

f o S S o o o 1 c e a g o J u

ble), X JJ « « " '5 u e siz e i n self-e v umer o ^ «3 "3 § •£• n t an d f spea k late d t o s duri n ts . M e —' n foll o relate d y relat e rst-ball o y sex . er e firs t articipa t l y ration . vot e c rela t 'N u Chica g onten t o no t r n i c statu s t o part i swer s d xperien c ctio n si z 5 % o f s n d o f ta b n g acts . n d wer e inatio n f late d studies . differe d vers , alt y w e t h attor n rience n ferences , s weakl y rin g deli b w i xp e y e x crease d a s fact i ig h status , an d te d vi a nomin S >o £" w« s. a t a ate d i n s o f dat a fro m -socioeconomi c n) , an d pas t ex p counte d fo r 2 5 a t positio n (en d juror s tende d t o 2 % o f spe a e l a

ovid e mor •:=> M s .- 3 g ent s unre l ii

si s jc '"^-a ^ de c generall y ion ) d e our t obse r erdic t pr e sea t

gh- s l variable s ! sitiv e reactio n r vot e dur i rre l ct s i bot h or n j.— ura^-u)..--.s3-" § p n -

•S1^8ll-|gf6&h i ± l.|S| !l stat e w a Wr e o y - c ti o . Att o l y c

-^ " . r^H* ^ > ^ '& ve r — 00 C o,OM2a>2lC-32Sctud i e So -S-§ u o* II'^'I'S.S'SSS C T-I H u > ., >» 0£ Plllllll § •g cd co H^£ -o is & co I!!!! < <

C Hffl W3 . Q 0 uo O ~- CN HHH HH &,&. « 0.0,0. 0.0.

13

o + ^o cs ^ a\ _ o ex, OCN M 3 oo o •§

^) s .e - •Q ! "^ a\ o o\ ™ Bo^ 0\ | ^sr 13 04 '">' "3 so £ o jfi ^^T1 ^ (Table 2 continu

1

«2 .^ on a S*., < do g < V) O OiOiOi QiQi & •<-*^ -4*^ ^, *?<£, 4*

13 r •c . - . -- • - - ~ •r c ^ 8 ^ £> ^ i.n- -ca: -a ir^U i-i =-u • -ae .ws ra H * " .1 8 " | 8 " > .c 3 "S -S •§ "S •§ U E 09 > 'E oi > E 2-auuQffl6ft||!o!li: 1 oCnS II II u II II "§ II II •§ II II £ II 11 "§ II II .g " " II g ^fe;£ *<^£ ^!&; 55 kS;5^fe:^ k^S S.jtjfe£

^ riJ t~* O 3 =a ON .a u -a s ^ S3 g te ^ on =o 2 ^ H 'N 2 E j= >>2 g ° §0c/5 g ~%~ § ^ |C |« x & m oa E u. 03 638 DEVINE, CLAYTON, DUNFORD, SEYING, AND PRYCE

j ** S" !*S gt5 JSliS

lell • a s •« .& ri

c e i le v - I"3 1-1 uH O I—><-115i ^ a1s .C2 £^(• "Ou ^c £Pc « s^s 3.5,« ° § I >,&a f ESK oz ur y verdic t 53 ts I ^ t h highe r °<|^ ^ w i ro r d o t h j i t u ISlte-8-8 s g ^ -o •§ S .2,

s i 1 t y po n p o ili t . po s ilsi^a w §|a|^ nsib i o n f e comtio n o r e reibili t

sex ; -deli b 2 1 ° o 1 |te d S 'a 1 c s S"S ' tit y o f spe a stro y c o !< ora l reasonin g predicte d j q aking . u s o n a v e wer e bot h

&|S an d occur r preference s fo r individua l jurie s place d fecte d b y gend e mos t ngl y orrela n difference s b y place d mor e r •g*|s it y ^§|g or s S X> e C a 1-1 gj T3 c C o-S, « u •§s -123 «

0 O

O O -

00

ill l| so S • S ll^ojll •*•* SIS'P =§:§£> I a> J^ O -a 'o S-o^ •-^ rB>6 *=-2 XeI OONN ll'-l 8 SS .O ac. £ (§ JURY DECISION MAKING 639

I u iff!!

i!HS° 1^-ia •c6 ••c e 'I 11! il si5l rii 1

O So 80 OO OHO O HO

-H t~ C7N t- t^ C4 *-^ cs i—i —< — CN CN1 u uu UU U U U U U U U CO c/3 on on co on co co co co co u UU UU u uu U UUU

M.s|i

_o g -°° g •Qil •^ u u "2 ;a>n u •§ u u •§ •§

oo a o\ o

-1=ffl "S (C2S u™ fl 640 DEVINE, CLAYTON, DUNFORD, SEYING, AND PRYCE

a.l e lc

BPo

«2«3 c« w on « < OU U u U

|

te 1ra3

l

-3 « > o

T§3 I 1

1 i S •c1 1 M

Q ua UHO o

cs co CN CS CS cs cs HJPJ UU c/3 co on on GO OO O U UU OU

i3 ..% H

i> 10 ro cs cs o \o *o t~

•o 3

~a a g 00 a CQ 642 DEVINE, CLAYTON, DUNFORD, SEYING, AND PRYCE

O •Ssf •8 III '•a „£•& "Si. "S - of-a E «|il£3l g. .yls 1*l5.t« g sag s'^fi a| I ^s Q —* ^ *pj Is 8 «i| ^!* 1 51-1^^- ^•1 SC -J 0) W5 £~|l l?l»1 •S'^aa •^. o e3 . ^o- -3c "u5 'Ue 11 g§" s bo §"S^i 00= ..sos^ " .S. so _ H ll £••§ I •3 W-3 ItS-f c ^ 1C >,*:§:il<^ll.g §•§ ^ iu-a •obfC'Z!.2Sc«ojSoU.y.c g •§ S -a J 73 a 'g 2«. oC>_e*sCrS- ac ->i ^p- "-5S3 S'C SO« «j*j — wcSG^. sgl-i^-gs*e .g i -g •s a£ . . .s Isslltlsl ta§li^ |_|2S>,|S-aS w O- *-' rvtd ' iiii&lisi ^ E'S|'|l'§ ipjllilsjjs g>« ex—->"s *.fa^«iS|o^M| |§ &S-- •"•a g-s§ £ S i§ aS -o » u <-•: iiii§t|iyii •sas §s ,S|.S •S"g 3 eH.s.ssgEa^s^E oo ""I ,2 j

o

r- o oo t^ cs ffl on S U uuu u u U

73 If t5 £• o.S5 .. S | S'S s o- -3 " a -H a -! 3 > 'T C3 _> .s 73 .sy3 filr \ "^ /C^ l« U Z BH S

^^ ^B ^^ TO "§

3 .S I

I <£ J3 O . e^ 73 <^ £ •>a, 3 - U Ox S3 ^H 3 2 -C T3 o. oo 1° JURY DECISION MAKING 643

«> c _fi t*- ^ (Table 3 continue:

I 1 b G succes s rate betwee n federa l an d stat e court acros mos t N o upwar d tren i n plaintif f succes s rate ove r 14-yea tim victim' s motivation , an d behavio r testimon y durin g year s o f federa l distric t cour data . Media n award varie d considerabl y b cas e type . Strikin g similarit i n plaintif f cas e types , bu t media n award s 2 X highe r i federa l courts . span . Succes s rate i n jur y trial lowe r tha succes convictio n rates , frequenc y o f discussio regardin g th e deliberation ; juror s expose d t o a repetitiv e exper recalle testimon y bette r an d wer e mor likel t o prefe conviction . anesthesiologist s i n 5 o f 8 medica l malpractic e case involvin g anesthesia . discussio n o f polygrap h evidenc e r eyewitnes s testimony . Rate d importanc e o f polygrap h dat a strongl y correlate wit ] verdic t preferenc e befor deliberatio n bu no after , vote s durin g deliberation ; thos e tha t di d tende o shif "liable. " Stron g majorit y influenc e effec t a s i n crimina l cases . Recallin g an d discussin evidenc e mos t commo n benc h trial s fo r mos t cas e types . N o uniqu findings , tha t di d no warran them . 77 % o f juror s chang e predictor s o f jur y verdict ; deliberatio n content code double d th e varianc explained . Comprehensio n o f instruction s abysmal ; deliberatio n thoroughnes o point la w goo d predicto r o f verdic t accuracy . Foreperson s tende t o b e mal an d bette r educate bu n mor influentia l tha othe r jurors . deliberatio n topic . Initia l factio siz e an d cas wer goo 'laintif f succes s rate varie d considerabl y b cas e typ i n 1 4 xper t testimon y (standard , repetitive concrete ) influence d ir y verdict s consisten t wit h consensu judgment o f exper o impac t f polygrap h evidenc e n jur y verdicts ; ver littl irie s awarde d punitiv e damage 67 % o f th tim i n 4 case a Bi ^ Z ^

gw fc'tff > £ci < 80 J U H O" U U- U"

CS ro — f- oo cs cs cs cs —i ~H CS U U cocw wo cao cwo co co UU U U U U

13 8 "H ^ U c^_ ~ 3 • - c ^ D •-C"r3J ™ e3 . . c 6 ^- u -a 3 ^- •^S- ® § "2 3 ^ -—' ;fl O. § | "S g 3 E o "S w "S ^2*2 *S -S "2 13 U=» >^co"§ U6S6 > ^ os >m^>

t- g U O\ V^ O <—t "E, ^~ "^ ^ 13 in ^Y -^ ri c-j ^ Q 1 +J £V) 1) e 11 c^- >• •^•inC i— i »-H > co n X3" u" ii •t-§" ii ii •[~§; ii ii •I-§H ii ii •§ ii ii ;§> t^ 1^ ^tf 1^ '^ h^ i^ ^5 1^ *^_ -^

u •^•^ --^

•CS a " °O^N °O°N S2 1 I I

1 fc.?,1 "^ 5 q^ 4) ON £ ^3 1OW -—' s o rj "Sj ON to JS ^_, -a fe . g g g ^ ^, (Q "3 ^* 3 >>.c y co isoss | § rt S « j CQ X 644 DEVINE, CLAYTON, DUNFORD, SEYING, AND PRYCE ag e o r p e

§ 1„ 1'i 1 -o 3 cd

i So S c _ tc •§ o-"!) oH^ca=2 4 o «^i testimon y o n judgmen t N o impac t f computer- a

(S >, W on ^ .OCal? 3

H ^* -Sj flj r^H ^3 '« II 0> O '35 -Sj

flolllilg^fS|&:3o.?33gu> °°^3 i•- (/J^sS-.^S'u'S'^^ ^"Q'U i-"«rts\;Ht-< ^l o ^ x DJ

lilllt,_^Jr;-3O|i| , S"j^-H-'V;-^ilii1;

ii !S • li^i!!^!*-

c S,

GO 1

1 1

£ 3 I «><£ I §.' 1 is—.„_.«£.go^E T3 c?-- o •= -a -ti e a-c - E£ &g,£-g

g

ffl £ S to 646 DEVINE, CLAYTON, DUNFORD, SEY1NG, AND PRYCE

. bM 03£ :S 1O ^D CS D«o •.5= SC •0 S B S 3 isfii'So«p a« --Q3 -o° §g i^g iga) isJi?^1111i Ii tf> tiO •3

E £

Co influence d charg e convictio n rate s bu t no i whe n charge s deliberate d i descendin g c Convictio n o previou s charg e increase d o n subsequen t charges , bu t no numbe r o f advocates . convictio n rat e fo r mos t seriou s charg ( Mor e conviction s o n "middle " charg (i.

rde r o f charg e consideratio n an d verdic t •eferenc e chang influence d b y numbe r o f •g <•> * o 0 fi 3

O «j fc'rf0. gg § §SS K§ 03 U Ht/3 t/3U UH >O vo f~ r~ tN CS ex) CN 3°3 xtsi aO.T a3 0o«3 >—o JOs • E-1 A<

£ ON *W3D ON "W5 oo . "g, vo vo B m « B ! I CL> U ^•^•a S CQ II II "O II II "O M M => T3 t/3 II II 2 II II ^ t ^J, ^4HJ t/J Cd _k e$ '> •*-* XI >^ Qc5 c+~ ^ S oo *ao Q oo Q oo "£J- i I . ON a C/3 KHM ^^^^ 1pj "o 53 C- E-i H-; 55 JURY DECISION MAKING 647

£> ,„ « _. -0 to ^ „ - U ? 3 -S 5 o \h

c« .S T3 C tC >. £

W5

3 2 2 I whol e generall y opte d fo r th deat h penalty . Globa l majority / spli t juries . Predictiv e validit y o f 1 s ballo weake r whe n (i.e. , participative) . Speakin g turn s an d duration ) ascendin g o r descendin sequenc e i n awar d preferences ; jurie s large r award s tha n jurie takin g pol l befor e an y discussion . distinguishabl e faction s withi n th jur y an d numbe r o f member s i n eac h faction , loca l majorit y favorin g lif e sentenc i n 1 subgrou p neve r opt fo r deat h penalt y an d generall hung ; jurie s tha t me onc e a . loca l minorit y juror s muc h mor e likel t o chang opinio n tha i othe r members . Replicate d i n 2n study , mi x o f th e two . Fina l verdict s consisten t wit h Ist-ballo majoritie s 89 % o f th e time . N evidenc lenienc y i n evenl ; discussio n ha d take place , influence d b y foreperson , implici t norms an nonverba l an d th e evidence . Defendan t viewe a s guilt y unti l prove n innocent . Verdict-drive n styl e eviden t i al l 3 deliberations ; focu s o n buildin g a coheren t "story. " mandate d pollin g too k longe r an hun mor e bu t als o gav large r award s tha n jurie t di d not . N o conformit y effec f takin g initia l pol afte r minima discussio n hun mor e bu t ga v cite d a s influencin g juro r verdict pertaine t o th e witnesse 00 urie s tha t initiall y discusse d cas e i n 3-perso subgroup wit h a urie s generall y gav e large r award tha n individuals . Jurie wit l er y fe w deliberation s verdict-driven ; mos t evidence-drive n o r i iror s forme d impression early . Th e 2 categorie mos t frequen :na l sentenc e a functio n o f distanc i year s betwee arl y part s o f bot h deliberation highl structure d an democrat : £ * PH -^ > W < H Z a S Q Q O Q H „ O . oU aH oo oo OHOOOOOU< f- VO t-- >O t— f- CN CS CS tN O) «S

"3 r •c RJ ^* C C ** - ir ^ ?^ . . . ia H IEH uojr|i c c -o ra£ 2 "f -11 1 "2 •S C "O CS O O -° ls| §1 -§>H .H {Jr i 'SG i^-'^ c^^i ts OJt*H S3 o3S(§^^s as ss > ^ ^ (N _u > ON C4 vi c«>nfr) «i<^>? — rq^-S^vo^^l £2.2 ^ rooc-^ °°~vcg I II II S3 " " II T3 I1I1 II •« " " " " ^ ii ii h n n 2 on " ^ „ N " 3 " 3_ _, „ „ 3 " H B " " -3 t^^S ^^S:io l^^;c«l!<|^;^S;55 ^^ ^ ^ E

QJ 'S >, O c !_ .Ss J?2? ca a> w) a> s~ « S ON i/l ^1_ 1=« _ 3§ ^ 12 O- JS0 c<—1> s> ^^ SC Vj l^i ^""^ tT3 =« ON T3 ON J« ON 0 3 «3> Q.O"N jj ON g ON -S1^ N 55 ii SC ^/ >rt* i "^ s^ §^ s^ § OH —, U X & S 648 DEVINE, CLAYTON, DUNFORD, SEYING, AND PRYCE

(C

£ DELB2 7

u "Si S ; eferenc e continue

•8 Stud y a H JURY DECISION MAKING 649

.go ea 3 ir^ S u 12

II 11 •A ii! a Primary findings i 1 Ill > «.£ •slg ' -U -O S^S > 'C Q^ |.i& '~£. "0.05 .0* til o cfl Z o CO~ 2 O - Q u< CO OO H< H< S PS H H H CO P iS UHU H H H W P3 OW u w C^co c^C^Cc^-Jcdco r*\ ps tf> o w O ba! «> S< Q, U 0- ft. ft, Q CU U ft. CU U Su O, OH U

60 _•Ss "S ,e b- " ° a " « -c > .S '11 .S 8 x. 3 E >< E £ uuS

P. S 00 1

>o

iu f

U w « O. _-

- cd * O O B *- ^j '.n "r" oj «j ca a >§§|a£l|I EcE'i.g'O I d3 | :->'5" 'a=3^2S=3 u j Ki S "O »> D.T J^S^ati'STdS

)i^l^l^Sl .ti ^4 4-H fc? n ^ !>_ae ,B060™Qo.OoO_'3.E«53bs<-S- ju r II - :ro n o i- o o ' w Z c/5 O

uf° t« :o: :o 80 o ss O 80

CS

B (U o II E «.g s 60 3 g"B a O O ^5 Ls-S S •« C « 60 < EQ

g °^s ;sb ;a>

s .e B

JD O & o Q, >, T3 BON cd ON •S ea "~" PQ JURY DECISION MAKING 651

a •§>

00 1

ffiS c ta §s ^llgSl^o.g- s^*c3 in •"SSasijlc^-S5c ! .-•£=* | S fell § || 28 ¥<£ . tlt-s i•32^. g 8 a a'« C O O Q s-,xi 003 —555#fi (L> t>5 O C el f5|•5,5 SS | E § e 3 E - iiii i o 5 S c a 5'C<2- ca « •a4J5^t- ™ " *Oj r t" uc/j CJ pi I!gsl^ o 8

tf. O .u » in GO" 00 5 OQ Q Q — tt. on o ZE- eio co co

0\

•a ;E

ex • —i oo vo -o cs \o CO "§

O 00

o 00 ON & gi

II s §2 M O I BfiC- pfa 652 DEVINE, CLAYTON, DUNFORD, SEYING, AND PRYCE Primar y finding s b b sentenc e tha n killer s o f Blacks . Reanalysi dat a usin g homogenou subgroups . Likelihoo d o f deat h primaril y a join t functio n victi m statu s (stranger) , crim e deliberateness an d heinousness . Defendant s wit h mor e likel y t o impos death . verdict s exhibite d lenienc y bia afte r exposur e t o proacquitta l inadmissibl e evidenc (bu t no proconviction) . significantl y t o jur sentencin g decisions . Wome n an d defendant s convicte d o f killin g a n Africa America les s likel y t receiv e deat h penalty , althoug h latte r effec t onl y marginall significan whe n cas e characteristic s controlled . factors ) an d defendant' s prio r recor associate wit h sentence usin g multipl e regressio n analysis . Controllin g fo r hundred s o f cas characteristics , killer s o f White 4. 3 X mor e likel y t receiv deat h prio r seriou s convictio n somewha t mor e likel y o receiv death , a wer killer s o f Whit e vicdm unde r certai n conditions . "Rural " jurie somewha t (especiall y i n secon d half) , towar acquittal an th e sam directio a s shif t bette r predicto tha n predeliberatio preferenc e distribution , postdeliberatio n preference s fo r guilt ; instructio t o ignor e recor d reduced . Juro r demographic , personality an d attitudina l characterisdc s weakl y relate d t o verdic preference s befor e an afte r deliberation . o f evidenc e admissibilit y r judicia l instructions . Juro postdeliberatio n preferenc e distributio n a functio o f majority , leniency an d momentu m effects . Jurie s tende d t o mov e towar verdic favore b y majorit th e previou s shift . Shift occurre d faste r a jurie neare consensus Firs t Wea k impac t o f standar d proo n juro r postdeliberatio verdicts . • impac t o f jur y se x r experienc e n preferenc shifts . Shift s i efendant' s admissibl e prio r recor d o n simila charge produce mor •on g lenienc y effec t o n jur verdict s produce d b deliberation ; impac fendan t gender , rac e o f victim an d severa l cas characteristic s relate 5gall y relevan t cas e characteristic s (particularl numbe r o f aggravatin g Z•7 aQ 51 a J

& wl: 0 &n Q D X ££o tj O O ai o m r~ o-^- & HHW UHE-HH WUW HE-W E-HHW &0iv> O&tZ&Qi v) oitzvi a6o£c£ <« &««

-£ 1

,-!2" ir\ SM uE«-"i-Ju^ uoC^-ruo

_ ^' 05 CO —- i (~O C3 ^™ m -t^ \O CN) o xO *-* ON —i 2 fT) \O C p1-)^-,> "^ ^_ , >[l in ii ii •§ ii ii ;§> II II 1 II II £ « II £ k fe; 55 kfe : 53 k^55 kS;< S<^^< xj ?3 c a C/3 t^ o £ ON m £ ^. ~n~* — OO 'So " c« _ £1^ ^^«;^ V)^ OO CT\ C C3 w O\ — O <^ S ^ riJ CN cn">?r O f>> « ^rj P- cxoo °« co & oo oo •&3 -—- >, o^ G ON >\^ 3 ON ON J$ t -ia^5C o O £ O 2 OC- a 55 S g* ^ ,13 *o '"53 H ^ oo H Pu 03 JURY DECISION MAKING 653 (Table 5 continues)

*1 1 2 12-perso n juries . Preferenc e shift s wer a functio o f relativ an d absolut focuse d o n testimon y an produce a severit shif t towar actua l verdict ; patter n instruction s fo r non-deliberatin g jurors ; modestl y bette score deliberatin g jurors , separat e trial . Mor intrusio n error s relate d t o testimon y recal l i joine preven t bia s ineffective . euthanasi a cas e bu t les s i n DU I homicid case ; o impac f instructio .0 8 fo r both) , bu t proportio n o f experience d juror s moderatel y relate time . Non-unanimou s jurie tende d t o deliberat e less , han g choos harshe r verdic t options , an d finis h wit holdou jurors . Deliberatio n participatio n varie d widel y an negativel relate t o factio size . Al l instructions , bu t jury-leve l memor y better . Foreperson s spok e 3 X mor tha n averag e juror . Wea k relationship s betwee juro r characteristics , predeliberatio n preferences , an d deliberatio behavior . tria l an d whe n charge s wer e similar . Judicia instruction intende t o o n verdict s i murde r case . Jurie receivin g stron nullificatio instructio spen t les s tim e discussin g evidenc an d mor o n defendan characteristic s an d persona l experiences , n o impac t f jur y siz e convictions . N effec pollin g secrec hung-jur y rat e whe n case s wer clear , bu t smalle r jurie hun g les i clos e case s wit h publi c pollin g wherea large r jurie hun more . SDS , socia l transitio n schemes , an d spee wer e simila r fo 6 - factio n size . proportio n o f coun t conviction s ( r = .24). Numbe defens e witnesses , (al l positivel y related) ; r = .11 . juror s displaye d relativel y poo r recal l o f evidenc e an judge' _j jur y size , an d severit o f primar charg e bes t predictor s acquitta l co•nai l effec t o f decisio n rul e verdict s an d larg deliberatio coimplifie d instruction s produce slightl y bette r comprehensio n score tha Uonvictio n rat e o foca l charg twic a s hig h i joine d tria compare wit irie s receivin g stron an d explici t nullificatio n reminde r acquitte mor e i j arge r jurie s ( 6 an d 12) mor e likel y t o han g too k longe deliberate ; Zumbe r an d proportio n o f experience juror s unrelate t jur y verdict ( = - „ „ .- _Pi H U O co'fe ^ I Oo < Q 2 § - * QKK S O W OH co co H W O O U O co co H O HO

•* CM ^£2 r^ CM ^f vo2 ^-CM en ON 2S CM CM CM (-88 '— ' CM CM UH O 03 UUH W uj O PJ U W « O H H WWW Of* O J O O 0^ co co o co J O 0^ £H oo co co 04 W « PA< < •^ OS "^ ° 2 P^

13 '"39 r j •° •§ H >•» C*- >-i *nwj is" •_- G W UT II ^ frx-b" •— i O M i— i ^ 53 £ W) 0> Ofl •p* 0 ^ | s J5|'§ 1 1 3^-§ 3 1 = 3 •CH > 8 S 13s So 1ill! OD

22 CM gcM o o o o ^ v> Sas § I -22 r)i| (*sj T^- > cd r on 11 II '5b II II 3 11 U '5b 11 II ib T7| 1! II *S kS; S ^^ <^s^:S !s

oo c 3 1 0 13 1aSi 1Sr^ 00 o1 £J M-( ^ u ^H 13 0) •a o +_t Q -*-*N SI ^ >^- V S '— * " io~ 5^ "H oo oo djjoo •5- « §°° '$ 3 •j^; ^ § "^^^ o 1) s~^ G ^^ X CO H K ^ 654 DEVINE, CLAYTON, DUNFORD, SEYING, AND PRYCE

g g.~ »> S.-J g •. »• ^3 (U H c £° 5 °-g « o g S. • [/) £ =fi*- OFi '-IC- "i S 1—='• O ^•t 60_o ^ -S 5 •> 3 T3 J3 -3 J C ' S S > SJ S3 3 c SB e£ .3: 03 of'^1 . , -S, feV 2 •= j- S •& B —'. 3 Sia§^3»S-ifi:s-|-si s<£ I 2s •f-i TO .2,11 S-"i b 1l|j^oj a" i »—i 13| S J3 CS rt >> "S u g " -O§ • rt " ^ ^ 113 C8 w Q^^. i o^i^Pl' 1?SBcro — tsl l ^3' SJ.£?I il,M«c 5 siijifi 2T35J5 g§*'5 H E °-So § § CO P

a Pa

O CN t >O OO O CM HH W W W HH H H S S Oi < Q-CL UUU (X Cu B, (X UO

, s«-§ " c 3 uu •§£

t~- u> ON

: E .£ s C '« C a 8 u u £ • oo Is •a? JURY DECISION MAKING 655

oo rt o C i-o 3 a^;? I n w i f o Table 5 ^

£> u o •§.'= •

t l

-r ta w o n 9-poin t Nationa l Associatio varianc e remaine d afte r controllin g a s strongl y an d positivel associat e findings. r y w a -.

fli •-* O •§ x g 00

c co — •n -is^occ sr_ c c ~ -r; 111|,£ E* b G verit y o f plaintif in j

II awards , bu t substantia l 80 I|IJ-3ll|MlHlllJ Commissioner s scal e severity . ' N o uniqu e I* o ° Pi .w o" O S-1 u U lo 8< 2^ u u U H W Ov — H oa H— (UN HU 8S o^o OQi&O 8£ «: "3 Qi < < « « g^ £S ££u £^ So So

u 3 ..-K

lgl 11 >S^S-5!>2fi5

oo

S^i T3 S TJ- \c -a 00 00 • S " " -8 I! II S

o 00 00 00 Ov *-> 00 "^

-a "

a o . U g «

,e O en K3 ill! OH

I >> O 'i- I

-a _Si S >, o_,

§«£.§ °l2* S t35 ^£* ais0 I 111 SBS" 'S S3iaS 5 b^g-S^ §5 -g~g3.2^'S§'~ ' "C bJD ^ O ^ S Ii CQ 'ii "•a c £ 3^2 M| «^l"i3°°0^o .-•O £ ^-raON-o-gi! I|SPJ^1| CCosoS^O^U 3 W (J O fli ^"^ O O O o > •§? g-s,!-?! .S.ScS-oSEa^S C g M 5 m 6

Z - OMQ j u< O o <

^" r~^ ct^ _ « ^H — ON — C-I — r-H t— O) 2 cs cs " H H W U H W HHW UU PJ H W u" PQ Oi o< on Oi oo oo cu a. 0,0 a. a, U t UU

3 ., O < 8 H UUQ>°< Sou

ON — vo O cs "« CM M en ^O Ov NO -O U~l C- .> II J5p

o O\ O\ I 13 • pi '•>« "S ^ "§ «! OV o Si c 1/3 O JURY DECISION MAKING 651

c >> U W5 q *^ S •5 c c 1 2 'C >,•« "° .v c T3 "I g c S O c "P jg -g o 2 g> •S ^ Q} QJ IC o c III || gl * S C 'slj|l 111 1 "Kb^eis 8 1 '§ 1 g *0 "Si Primar y finding s 2 absen t o r whe n cross-examinatio occurred . an d judg e invite inference , juror s mor likel y t o favo r convic (tim e serie s vs . benchmark) Impac t o f unsubstantiate d exper no t affecte d b y strengt h o f cross-examinatio n (juro r level) . o f a nullificatio n reminder ; verdict s fo r low-dogmati c jurie un validate d o r ful l model . Whit e defendant s somewha t mor like Blac k defendant s t o receiv e deat h sentence . mentio n mad e o f absenc b y prosecution ; whe prosecuto r not missin g witnes s wa periphera l (i.e. , coworker ) a oppose d t o c clos e friend) . explanation . N o impac t f exper testimon y (statistica l vs con e awards . Media n juro r predeliberatio valu e bes t predicto o f ju i (mea n als o good) . Stron g correlatio (.44) betwee foreperson ' predeliberatio n awar d an fina l jur y award . Sea t location , firs I case-relevan t knowledge , an d occupatio n wer e bes predictor s c foreperso n selection . Jur y award s 26 % highe r tha mea juro predeliberatio n awards . Juror s initiall y favorin g lowe r award l i t o speak . Attorney s mentione d n averag e 4 x durin g delibera l reference s t o substantiv e point an d no persona l attributes . Re ; exper t testimon y differe d a s functio n o f statistica l mode pre preferenc e befor deliberation ; wit h conjunctiv criteria , mor 1 verdict s resulte d whe n jur y discusse eac h criterio withou t ju r previou s judgments . Interactio n replicate d i 2n stud y wit h c constan t an d differen jur y size . Verdict s o f high-dogmati c jurie heavil y influence d b presenc e conten t o f judicia l instructions . o f victi m variable s di d no t improv e classificatio n accurac y i : highe r whe n exper t testimon y elicite d i direc examinatio th a mor e liabilit y verdict s resulte d whe n juror instructe t o reac h • 'Jurie s mor e likel y t o follo w judicia l instruction whe n accompa 'Deliberatio n styl e interacte d wit h verdic t criteria . Wit disjuncti v Use d classificatio n tre e algorith m t o cluste r cases ; rac f defend a Exper t testimon y o n rap e myth s affecte d jur verdicts . Convictio Juro r postdeliberatio n verdict s unaffecte d b y missin g witnes wh e Jurie s tende d t o acqui mor e ofte n whe reminde f nullificatio

C/D j H- H- " -N Q § O O O <-" CO OO co 0 O CJ FT i p i ^

CS Tf

3 ;a G ed 60 c_ cs 05 C O. ii .. • E •a _ i 'C • - i_ ..'S ... . o e^ o ^ s^ -« c..' ci • *• C 0.5 o ... c « - - c h T3 'G =3 —CQ3 O -a i O -G -rt 3 E •Q S "g 2 "3 .S r.r'8. ^3 £ X IO oN 3 2i >£E>£S

vo — QO u Tf CS Vi \O *J VO 1 r>« O OO CN (T) ^Q C ^2 > c r^ ^o * 24 g II II II II -^ II II "1 II II •§ 11 II 1II II |II 11 II li 3 CO SL _• 1 1 1 CO c C- 3 <=y . ^"O S _J5 s? cd °^ ^7 o J, JJ ^ •a^ g £- o •o •8 .s ^ ^£. o- S_ Os 3 G i"H XI ™ |glg co ra w * ' rt ^^ u "—• nj ^»-^U - — ' i fe^ t/5 on Q ^ 658 DEVINE, CLAYTON, DUNFORD, SHYING, AND PRYCE

ll^sil-sC O_?£ . "5 - c 2 ^

» § =3 g § s B S •a-gfi.ll •*•

iilfl' lll-

E

j Q a s < a O co M H O

) f-j o cs i/~i ^~ —i —i CN cs — < — c cs m cs HHM H W [2 f- HH IX H U W UCQ OS Pi 1/3 a! c« OS OS ft! V} O J <« < CUM a. ix a. O 0.00 Q. Q

..I c~:-a& -c 8" I:§ I i lloJ 'P^^ <

S

1•Ia in I

KJjSl

M-M •*££%£" *J •"". ^T

'S.H £I- Kp* j_.r SS ^ CO 08 C

°l|| O S ? ^•si-3 11 111

*^ ^rS (- o ELti *-! OH-s-rH-y1^ ma , .=. T? 'TrtO. c«HCi_ glass >< c c 2 £ O

Ptf O O

>n CN co 2 U id u pa u w J H E- U fc < cu OQ 0.0.

..•a •§ •8 § 11 :Jr rftir i

<> » 4S^ «i< •§

w> •a S 'S I/I S djj; C < 2« OsN o DQ <§ 660 DEVINE, CLAYTON, DUNFORD, SEYING, AND PRYCE

E

JW J < 2 « •* >o t-- PS O W H H W W HHW O! &o o w 06 at t« t» S«u

o ^ o-slsl b lll| 1 < 8"S

c. O cs u o

oo o\ ON

S o\ ^ o\ 3 i3 C-OJ C- •O O CQ JURY DECISION MAKING 661

>-\ c iri _. ^ e S-a ^? (Table 5 continu Primar y finding s b c d b sentence . Expecte d priso n sentenc e positivel y correlate wit h impositio r relate d t o deat h penalty . Remors e wa s a stronge r predicto f sentenc i case s wit h lo w viciousness . Juror fel t responsible , fre e o exercis discretion , an d di no t believ e defendant s woul b execute i f sentenc t o death . Hig h leve l f misunderstandin g regardin impositio n deat remorse . ope n court) , o r juro gender . Moderat e effec t f defendan behavior ; confederate s wh o enacte d guilt y behavio r convicte mor e ofte n bu t ma fals e acquittal s an d hig h rat o f hun g juries . Chil witnes testifyin b y closed-circui t perceive d a s leas credible . tende d t o convic mor e ofte n (15%) , especiall y whe evidenc wa s anonymou s jurie mor e ofte n impose d th harshes t punishment . punitiv e damages , bu t damag award s almos 4 X greate r i n o f lif e i n prison . Initiall y divide d jurie s tende t impos deat h penalty Perceive d characteristic s o f crim e relate t jurors ' perception overwhelming . Anonymit y no t relate d o sentenc e severity , bu hearin g al l evidenc e somewha t mor likel y o judg plaintif f liable , bu n o effec t juries . Moderat e f cas strengt h jur y verdict s (3 C convictio n rat e fo r stron g cas vs . 12 % weak) Deliberatio produc lenienc y effect . 92 % o f jurie s tha t judge d plaintif liabl e als awarde bifurcate d condition . Jur y awar variabilit muc h les s tha n juro r predeliberatio n variabilit y bu t stil l relativel hig h fo r pai an d sufferin g compare d wit h economi c damages . Plaintif f a damnu m appeare t o ac l a s anchor . "Perceive d viciousness , futur e dangerousnes s an lac k o f remors positivel N o impac t f victi m age , mediu testimon y (closed-circui vs . Ver y larg e effec t o f evidenc strengt h n jur verdicts . Anonymou s jurie "N o impac t f tria l bifurcatio n (liabilit y vs . punitive ) jur verdicts ;

t/5 > C_T/V Q PS VI O O < J

O cs •* •^t o --H •— < ~~ CO HHHHW HHWW UHW UHHW p^ 06 ^ ^ c/3 ££££u fc&nUU ft<0-,U CuCUft^U 'c 'g -3 c <*> •c .9 + e H is" J a 3 tu _gjw • - g * •c cj «" •fill 11! Ill

0 CN "E. —' u> O ^- Tj- {f\ ^- CS & OO 1 ^ O " CN ^O 1/3 ii ii ii ii 7 § II II 'Eb II II "1 II II 'M V^*<^ a •^ 3 .rH

u 'o • -"5-x oo" • ^ ^-s°O

O , „ LH . „ UH ,_< ^—' U p OJ _T3 1 I ^fe'S « G"'§ 'w' 5" So? Of googo? ^ •g 85 .8 § 8 .8 ^ § «H ON •—' 'C ^ ON ^ ON t o ^ '.rT") ^ ^•M ^ O O*J ^v H ' ON Pa *r{••t« Z-^ H ,Q'« ^H^ H 6 K j 662 DEVINE, CLAYTON, DUNFORD, SHYING, AND PRYCE

J5

-s|-i - -a-o ill ffi J U mti findings

Pr i ' gi&si u c3« '3o "2.P C> S rfc|s . <-» ** ^ "O^55 .S&ofa'uuJrin'e

3 ., c ~v^ O_o_ £>O 5= b ,. . fi«l|f3 l^t|

a> p. cs S G, «--«^« =,U^c,g

j J on < < O

H w ua H W HH £3 W fcfcfcS ^uo fcU 0.0,00 o. a. o< O

o.

1/5

3 C

§ 85

1'E& u !< aco aON - IS Q JURY DECISION MAKING 663

SSSlSl-JT^•ogsas c ^J S3 "l lT-J

•'" Cg t*-j(

lll0) lO 3 .25 o a,.g-r«> o ^-tl^f^

0 2>C?f>Ce 1=!2'S§'.32-j-n c-~c§^a> - „ u. « c -i 53*^T3t3c-aS.SS-Sg« - - •-— ^T1 *•« • i-H >s 4« sw 4« £T Is* K'?- 5«-5??*•^r 2-S'>2^- >fT r? 3 0°^^Sasafo.f5 b r o

o

in r- •* v~> O H S U E- H W H W W W O « <*"•> Oi &o c/3 0!«< <« cu eu o. U OnOO ^U

I

. u<

O o\

Ox OS Ov -85

03 C3 t O tij tj 664 DEVINE, CLAYTON, DUNFORD, SEYING, AND PRYCE

s- 2•§)£ Ills. o sg a- iS Hl^lli<" i CO = - u 2 |sc a.g2 : *'su t gg< u E eo B

!t1c . B & •

.a ea u tC C 'VS JJ w !!1^| •^«lH a ,4l) n > KJ ^M i. B 8 C-I" £ «; 18 S U 3 >> 1f? «"O ca •?3? §1| nullif i U (75 — Tende n PRO C PRO C PAR T PAR T «s c3

cW5 «l- ^5 "O °*^ Q 'S C"3tS^3 --C Q.f3 "> ° °-X n-, "^3 .2 JJ 3°" l^lSliSl^fiisSPI^-g (j ^^ « 1 |of|lp-^^^b-ii^^^^^ig^| "7i|.^|i;tiil fK 03 cs CM

•19j s .c -G C 1 v~> 1