Whither trial consulting? Issues and projections

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 93-115

  Strier, Franklin ^a  

^a CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONSULTATION; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COUNSELING; COURT; DECISION MAKING; ETHICS; FEE; HUMAN; LAW; LAW SUIT; LEGAL ASPECT; MARKETING; REVIEW;

EID: 0033059364     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1022378824280     Document Type: Review

References (91)

1. Abramson, J. (1994). We, the jury. New York: Basic Books.
2. Adler, S. (1989). Consultants dope out the mysteries of jurors for clients being sued. Wall Street Journal, 1989 (October 21), 1.
3. Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985).
4. American Society of Trial Consultants. (1997). Code of professional standards. Phoenix, AZ: Author.
5. Bader, C. (1996). Batson meets the First Amendment: Prohibiting peremptory challenges that violate a prospective juror's speech and association rights. Hofstra Law Review, 24, 569-621.
6. Barber, J. (1994). The jury is still out: The role of jury science in the modern American courtroom. American Criminal Law Review, 40, 1226-1252.
7. Bennett, C., & Hirschhorn, R. (1993). Bennett's guide to jury selection and trial dynamics in civil and criminal litigation. St. Paul, MN: West.
8. Berg, R., (1996). Scientific jury selection and the NGRI defense in a homicide prosecution. Paper presented at the American Psychology-Law Society Conference, Hilton Head, South Carolina.
9. Bonora, B., & Krauss, E. (1983). Jurywork - Systematic Techniques (2nd ed.). New York: Boardman.
10. Buser, L. (1994). Indigents' plea for experts stirs issues of cost and fairness. The Commercial Appeal, 1994(February 4), A1.
11. Caiola, R., & Berman, G. (1991). The need for extended voir dire in insurance fraud cases. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco.
12. Clifford, R. (1995). Mock trials offer virtual reality. National Law Journal, 1995(February 27), B8.
13. Council for Court Excellence. (1998). Juries for the year 2000 and beyond. Washington, DC: D.C. Jury Project.
14. Covington, M. (1985). Innovative approaches to both civil and criminal litigation. St. Mary's Law Journal, 16, 575-599.
15. Cox, G. (1993). King trial the real story. National Law Journal, 1993(May 3), 38.
16. Criminal Justice Act. (1964). 18 U.S.C. sec. 3006 (e).
17. Cutler, B. (1990). The status of scientific jury selection in psychology and law. Forensic Reports, 3, 227-232.
18. Cutler, B., (1992). Jury selection in insanity defense cases. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 165-182.
19. Dancoff, J. (1985). Hidden persuaders of the courtroom. Barrister, 1985, 2, 9, 16-19.
20. Dann, B., & Logan, G. (1996). Jury reform: The Arizona experience. Judicature, 79, 280-286.
21. Darrow, C. (1936). Attorney for the defense. Esquire, 1936, 36-37, 211-213.
22. Darrow, C. (1986). Voir dire. Quoted in Trial Diplomacy Journal, 1986.
23. Davis, S., & Beisecker, T. (1994). Discovering trial consultant work product: A new way to borrow an adversary's wits? American Journal of Trial Advocacy, 17, 581.
24. Diamond, S. (1990). Scientific jury selection: What social scientists know and do not know. Judicature, 73, 178-183.
25. Etzioni, A. (1974). Threatening the jury trial. Washington Post, 1974(May 26), C3.
26. Evans, C., & Van Natta, D. (1993). The verdict on juries: Only human. The Miami Herald, 1993(May 3), A1, A24.
27. Frederick, J. (1987). Psychology of the American jury. Charlottesville, VA: Mitchie.
28. Fulero, S., & Penrod, S. (1990). Attorney jury selection folklore: What do they think and how can psychologists help? Forensic Reports, 3, 233-259.
29. Galen, M. (1992). The best jurors money can buy. Business Week, 1992(June 15), 108.
30. Gallagher, F. (1995). Advising the lawyers. Roanoke Times, 1995(August 13), D1, D2.
31. Gidmark, D. (1988). The verdict on surrogate jury research. ABA Journal, 1988(March 1), 82-86.
32. Gobert, J., & Jordan, A. (1990). Jury selection: The law, art and science of selecting a jury (2nd ed.). Colorado Springs, CO: Shepard's/McGraw-Hill.
33. Gold, V. (1987). Covert advocacy: Reflections on the use of psychological persuasion in the courtroom. North Carolina Law Review, 65, 481-515.
34. Gollner, P. (1994). Consulting by peering into the minds of jurors. New York Times, 1994(January 7), A23.
35. Goodman, J., (1990). Matters of money: Voir dire in civil cases. Forensic Reports, 3, 303-329.
36. Gordon, R. (1995). Setting parameters for trial science. Legal Times, 1995(February 6), A34.
37. Hanna, J., & O'Brien, J. (1995). O.J. case leads Philip to make a case against consultants. Chicago Tribune, 1995(October 31), Section 3, p. 3.
38. Hans, V., & Vidmar, N. (1986). Judging the jury. New York: Plenum.
39. Hastie, R., (1991). Is attorney-conducted voir dire an effective procedure for the selection of impartial juries? American University Law Review, 40, 703-726.
40. Hastie, R., & Pennington, N. (1996). The O.J. Simpson stories: Behavioral scientists' reflections on the People of California v. Orenthal James Simpson. University of Colorado Law Review, 67, 957-976.
41. Herbert, D., & Barrett, R. (1980). Attorney's master guide to courtroom psychology - How to apply behavioral science techniques for new trial success. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Executive Reports.
42. Herbsleb, J., Sales, D., & Berman, J. (1979). When psychologists aid in the voir dire: Legal and ethical considerations. In L. A. Abt & I. R. Stuart (Eds.), Social psychology and discretionary law. (pp. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
43. Horowitz, I. (1980). Jury selection: A comparison of two methods in several criminal cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 10, 86-99.
44. Hunt, M. (1982). Putting juries on the couch. New York Times, 1982, 71-72, 82-87.
45. Jones, . (1987). Judge versus attorney-conducted voir dire: An empirical investigation of juror candor. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 131, 135-36.
46. Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
47. Kaplan, ., & Miller, (1978). Reducing the effects of bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1443-
48. Kassin, S., & Wrightsman, L. (1988). The American Jury on Trial: Psychological Perspectives. New York: Hemisphere.
49. Kramer, (1990). Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies and jury bias. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 409-439.
50. Lambert, W. (1994). Trial consultants lose mystique as firms tighten their belts. Wall Street Journal, 1994(February 4), B7.
51. Lassiter, C. (1996). TV or not TV - That is the question. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 928-1018.
52. Levine, J. (1992). Juries and politics. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cold.
53. Lisnek, P. (1995). Bill to ban trial consultants misses point. Chicago Daily Bulletin, 1995(November 6), 6.
54. MacCoun, R. (1993). Inside the black box: What empirical research tells us about decisionmaking by civil juries. Verdict: Assessing the Civil Jury System. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
55. Miller, R. (1992). Wide Range of Tools Available for Trial Lawyers to Effectively Manage Litigation. Inside Litigation, 6, 16-30.
56. Mills, C., & Bohanan, W. (1980). Character structure and jury behavior: Conceptual and applied implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 441-475.
57. Moran, G., & Berg, R. (1989). Polly Klaas venireperson questionnaires and the efficacy of scientific jury selection. Paper presented at the Biennial Conference of the American Psychology Law Society, Redondo Beach, California.
58. Moran, G., & Comfort, J. (1982). Scientific jury selection: Sex as a moderator of demographic and personality predictors of impaneled felony juror behavior. Journal of Psychology, 120, 205-217.
59. Moran, G., & Cutler, B. (1989). Dispositional factors of criminal case verdicts. In B. Cutler (Chair), Contemporary psychological and legal perspectives on jury selection. Symposium presentation at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans.
60. Moran, G., & Cutler, B. (1991). The projected impact of pretrial publicity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 345-367.
61. Moran, G. et al. (1994). Attitudes toward tort reform, scientific jury selection, and juror bias: Verdict inclination in criminal and civil trials. Law and Psychology Review, 18, 309-328.
62. Moskitis, R. (1976). The constitutional need for discovery of pre-voir dire juror studies. Southern California Law Review, 49, 597-634.
63. Nierenberg, G., & Colero, H. (1971). How to read a person like a book. New York: Hawthorn.
64. Nietzel, M., & Dillehay, R. (1983). Psychologists as consultants for change of venue: The use of public opinion surveys. Law and Human Behavior, 7, 309-335.
65. Osborn v. U.S., 385 U.S. 323 (1966).
66. Padawer, (1975). The impact of pretrial publicity on jurors' verdicts. In R. J. Simon (Ed.), The jury system in America: A critical overview. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
67. Patterson, A. (1986). Scientific jury selection: The need for a case specific approach. Social Action and the Law, 11, 105-109.
68. Penrod, S., & Cutler, B. (1985). Assessing the competence of juries. In I. Weiner and A. Hess (Eds.), Handbook of forensic psychology (pp. 293-318). New York: Wiley.
69. People v. Aldridge, 47 Mich. App. 639 (1973).
70. People v. Heard, 58 Mich. App. 312 (1975).
71. People ex rel Keller v. Superior Court, 175 Cal. App. 2d 830 (1959).
72. Pierce, J. (1990). Selecting the perfect jury: Use of jury consultants in voir dire. Law and Psychology Review, 14.
73. Roberts, M. (1987). Trial psychology: Communication and persuasion in the courtroom, Austin, TX: Butterworth.
74. Saks, M. (1987), Social scientists can't rig juries. In L. Wrightsman (Ed.). In the jury box: Controversies in the courtroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
75. Sears, D. O. (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.
76. Shartel, J. (1994). Litigators describe key factors in use of trial Consultants. Inside Litigation, 8, 1, 23-27, 29.
77. Shaw, M. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
78. Simon, R. (1980). The impact of pretrial publicity on the jury. In R. J. Simon (Ed.). The Jury: Its role in American society. Lexington, MA: Lexington.
79. Spivey v. State, 319 S.E.2d 420 (Ga. 1984).
80. Stolle, (1996). The perceived fairness of the psychologist trial consultant: An empirical investigation. Law and Psychology Review, 20, 139-173.
81. Strier, F. (1996). Reconstructing justice: An agenda for trial reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
82. Tanford, A., & Tanford, S. (1988). Better trials through science: A defense of psychologist-lawyer collaboration. North Carolina Law Review, 66, 741-780.
83. Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975).
84. Tindale, R., & Nagao, D. (1986). An assessment of the potential utility of "scientific jury selection": A "thought experiment" approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 409-425.
85. Torry, S. (1994). Their job is ensuring jury isn't twelve angry people. Washington Business, 1994(November 14), 34.
86. Treger, T. (1992). One jury indivisible: A group dynamics approach to voir dire. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 68, 549-580.
87. Vidmar, N., & Schuller, R. (1989). Juries and expert evidence: Social framework testimony. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 133-176.
88. Visher, G. (1987). Juror decision making: The importance of evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 1-14.
89. Walker, G. (1995). Lawyers must show restraint if our jury system is to survive. Boston Herald, 1995(October 22), 34.
90. Weinstein, D. (1997). Protecting a juror's right to privacy: Constitutional constraints and policy options. Temple Law Review, 70, 1-51.
91. Willging, T. (1986). Court appointed experts. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.