Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 21, Issue 5, 1997, Pages 561-571

  Diamond, Shari Seidman ^a,b  

^a AMERICAN BAR FOUNDATION   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; SIMULATION;

EID: 0030731985     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1024831908377     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Arizona Supreme Court Committee on More Effective Use of Juries (1994). Jurors: The power of twelve. Phoenix: Arizona Supreme Court Committee.
2. Baumeister, R. F., & Darley, J. M. (1982). Reducing the biasing effect of perpetrator attractiveness in jury simulation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 286-292.
3. Brekke, N. J., Enko, P. J., Clavet, G., & Sellau, E. (1991). Of juries and court-appointed experts: The impact of nonadversarial versus adversarial expert testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 451-475.
4. Casper, J. D., Benedict, K., & Perry, J. L. (1989). Juror decision-making, attitudes, and the hindsight bias. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 291-310.
5. Connolly, T., & Bukszar, E. W. (1990). Hindsight bias: Self flattery or cognitive error? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 3, 205-211.
6. Cowan, C. L., Thompson, W. C., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1984). The effects of death qualification on jurors' predisposition to convict and on the quality of deliberation. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 53-79.
7. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993).
8. Diamond, S. S. (Ed.). (1979). Simulation research and the law. A special issue of Law and Human Behavior, 3.
9. Diamond, S. S., & Casper, J. D. (1992). Blindfolding the jury to verdict consequences: Damages, experts, and the civil jury. Law & Society Review, 26, 513-563.
10. Diamond, S. S., Casper, J. D., Heiert, C., & Marshall, A. M. (1996). Juror reactions to attorneys at trial. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 87, 17-47.
11. Diamond, S. S., & Levi, J. N. (1996). Improving decisions on death by revising and testing jury instructions. Judicature, 79, 224-232.
12. Ellsworth, P. C. (1988). Unpleasant facts: The Supreme Court's response to empirical research on capital punishment. In K. C. Haas & J. A. Inciardi (Eds.), Challenging capital punishment: Legal and social science approaches, (pp. 177-211). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
13. Ellsworth, P. C. (1989). Are twelve heads better than one? Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 205-224.
14. Elwork, A., Sales, B. D., & Alfini, J. (1982). Making jury instructions understandable. Charlottesville, VA: Michie.
15. Federal Judicial Center (1994). Reference manual on scientific evidence, Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.
16. Fischoff, B. (1975). Hindsight ≠ foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 288-299.
17. Free v. Peters, 806 F. Supp. 705 (N. D. Ill. 1992); rev'd, 12 F.3d 700 (7th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 513 US 967 (1994).
18. Goldberg, F. (1970). Toward expansion of Witherspoon: Capital scruples, jury bias, and the use of psychological data to raise presumptions in the law. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Review, 5, 53-69.
19. Hamilton, D., & Sherman, J. S. (1996). Stereotypes. In R. S. Wyer, Jr., & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (2nd ed.) (pp. 1-68). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Hans, V. P., & Lofquist, W. S. (1992). Jurors' judgments of business liability in tort cases: Implications for the litigation explosion debate. Law & Society Review, 26, 101-115.
21. Hastie, R., Penrod, S. D., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22. Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. (1994). Juror notetaking and question asking during trials: A national field experiment. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 121-150.
23. Kalven, H., Jr., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown.
24. Kaplan, M. F., & Krupa, S. (1986). Severe penalties under the control of others can reduce guilt verdicts. Law and Psychology Review, 10, 1-18.
25. Kaplan, M. F., & Miller, L. E. (1978). Reducing the effects of juror bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1443-1455.
26. Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1979). On the requirements of proof: The timing of judicial instruction and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1877-1887.
27. Kerwin, J., & Schaffer, D. R. (1994). Mock jurors versus juries: The role of deliberations in reactions to inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 153-162.
28. Kramer, G. P., & Kerr, N. L. (1989). Laboratory simulation and bias in the study of juror behavior: A methodological note. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 89-99.
29. Linz, D., & Penrod, S. (1982). A meta-analysis of the influence of research methodology on the outcomes of jury simulation studies. Paper presented at the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Louisville, Kentucky.
30. Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (1986).
31. MacCoun, R. J., & Kerr, N. L. (1988). Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: Jurors' bias for leniency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 21-33.
32. McGlynn, R. P., Megas, J. C., & Benson, D. H. (1976). Sex and race as factors affecting the attribution of insanity in a murder trial. Journal of Psychology, 93, 93-99.
33. Mitchell v. Gonzales, 819 P.2d 872 (Cal. 1991).
34. People v. Allen, 420 N.W.2d 499 (Mich. 1988).
35. Sandys, M., & Dillehay, R. C. (1995). First-ballot votes, predeliberation dispositions, and final verdicts in jury trials. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 175-195.
36. Sears, D. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 515-530.
37. Severance, L. J., Greene, E., & Loftus, E. F. (1984). Toward criminal jury instructions that jurors can understand. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 75, 198-233.
38. Stasser, G., Kerr, N., & Bray, R. M. (1982). The social psychology of jury deliberations: Structure, process, and product. In N. Kerr & R. M. Bray (Eds.), The Psychology of the courtroom (pp. 221-256). New York: Academic Press.
39. Ugwuegbu, D. C. E. (1979). Racial and evidential factors in juror attribution of legal responsibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 133-146.
40. Vidmar, N. (1979). The other issues in jury simulation research: A commentary with particular reference to defendant character studies. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 95-106.
41. Vidmar, N. (1994). Making inferences about jury behavior from jury verdict statistics: Cautions about Lorelei's Lied. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 599-617.
42. Walker, L., & Monahan, J. (1996). Daubert and the Reference Manual: An essay on the future of science in law. Virginia Law Review, 82, 837-857.
43. Weiten, W., & Diamond, S. S. (1979). A critical review of the jury simulation paradigm: The case of defendant characteristics. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 71-93.
44. Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968).
45. Zeisel, H. (1968). Some data on juror attitudes toward capital punishment, Chicago: Center for Studies in Criminal Justice, University of Chicago Law School.