Permitting jury discussions during trial: Impact of the Arizona reform

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 359-382

  Hannaford, Paula L ^a   Hans, Valerie P ^b,c   Munsterman, G Thomas ^a  

^a National Center for State Courts   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE   (United States)

^c Center for State Courts   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; JURISPRUDENCE; LAW; UNITED STATES;

ARIZONA; COMMUNICATION; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; JURISPRUDENCE; LOGISTIC MODELS; PREJUDICE; PUBLIC POLICY;

EID: 0034128595     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1005540305832     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 39(f), Rule 49(a).
2. Arizona Supreme Court Order No. R-92-0004 (1995).
3. Arizona Supreme Court Order No. R-94-0031 (1995).
4. Arizona Supreme Court Committee on More Effective Use of Juries. (1994, November). Jurors: The power of twelve. Phoenix, AZ: Author.
5. Commonwealth v. Kerpan, 498 A.2d 829 (Pa. 1985).
6. Dann, B. M. (1993). "Learning lessons" and "speaking rights:" Creating educated and democratic juries. Indiana Law Journal, 68, 1229-1279.
7. Diamond, S. S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561-572.
8. Diamond, S. S., & Casper, J. D. (1992). Blindfolding the jury to verdict consequences: Damages, experts, and the civil jury. Law and Society Review, 26, 513-563.
9. Ellsworth, P. C. (1989). Are twelve heads better than one? Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 205-224.
10. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: Random House.
11. Hans, V. P., Hannaford, P. L., & Munsterman, G. T. (1999). The Arizona jury reform permitting civil jury trial discussions: The views of trial participants, judges, and jurors. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 32, 349-377.
12. Hans, V. P., & Vidmar, N. (1986). Judging the jury. New York: Plenum, Press.
13. Hastie, R., & Park, B. (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review, 93, 258-268.
14. Hastie, R., Penrod, S. D., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15. Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. (1989). A field experiment with written and preliminary instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 409-430.
16. Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. (1996). Increasing juror participation in trials through note taking and question asking. Judicature, 79, 256-262.
17. Hunt v. Methodist Hosp., 485 N.W.2d 737, 743 (Neb. 1992).
18. Kalven, H., Jr., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown.
19. 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.
20. Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1988). The American jury on trial: Psychological perspectives. New York: Hemisphere.
21. Kerr, N. L., MacCoun, R. J., & Kramer, G. P. (1996). Bias in judgment: Comparing individuals and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 687-719.
22. Lakamp, N. K. (1998). Deliberating juror predeliberation discussions: Should California follow the Arizona model? U.C.L.A. Law Review, 45, 845-879.
23. Landsman, S. (1984). The adversary system: A description and defense. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
24. Lempert, R. O. (1975). Uncovering "non-discernible differences:" Empirical research and the jury size cases. Michigan Law Review, 73, 643-708.
25. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1998). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.
26. Loftus, E. F., & Leber, D. (1986). Do jurors talk? Trial, 1986, 59-60.
27. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and polarization: The effect of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098-2109.
28. MacCoun, R. (1995, July). Improving jury comprehension in criminal and civil trials. RAND Testimony Series No. CT-136.
29. Meggs v. Fair, 621 F.2d 460 (1st Cir. 1980).
30. Munsterman, G. T. (1996). A brief history of state jury reform efforts. Judicature, 79, 216-219.
31. Munsterman, G. T., Hannaford, P. L., & Whitehead, G. M. (eds.). (1997). Jury trial innovations. Williamsburg, Virginia: National Center for State Courts.
32. Myers, R. D., & Griller, G. M. (1997). Educating jurors means better trials: Jury reform in Arizona. Judges' Journal, 36, 13-17, 51.
33. Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of human judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
34. Pearson, R. W., Ross, M., & Dawes, R. M. (1992). Personal recall and the limits of retrospective questions in surveys, in J. M. Tanur (Ed.), Questions about questions: Inquiries in the cognitive bases of surveys (pp. 65-94). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
35. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 242-258.
36. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence: Tests of the story model for juror decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 189-206.
37. People v. Blondia, 245 N.W.2d 130 (Mich. App. 1976).
38. People v. Hunter, 121 N.W.2d 442 (Mich. 1963).
39. People v. Monroe, 270 N.W.2d 655 (Mich. 1978).
40. Saks, M. J. (1981). Small-group decision making and complex information tasks. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.
41. Shtabsky, J. E. (1996). Comment. A more active jury: Has Arizona set the standard for reform with its new jury rules? Arizona State Law Journal, 28, 1009-1033.
42. State v. Washington, 438 A.2d 1144 (Conn. 1980).
43. United States v. Meester, 762 F.2d 867 (11th Cir. 1985).
44. United States v. Wexler, 657 F.Supp. 966 (E.D. Pa. 1987), rev'd en banc 838 F.2d 88 (3rd Cir. 1988).
45. Visher, C. (1987). Juror decision making: the importance of evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 1987, 11, 1-17.
46. Weld, H. P., & Danzig, E. R. (1940). A study of the way in which a verdict is reached by a jury. American Journal of Psychology, 1940, 518-537.
47. Wilson v. State, 242 A.2d 194 (Md. 1968).
48. Winebrenner v. United States, 147 F.2d 322 (8th Cir. 1945).