Determinants and consequences of jury racial diversity: Empirical findings, implications, and directions for future research

Social Issues and Policy Review

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 65-102

  Sommers, Samuel R ^a  

^a TUFTS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70449713739     PISSN: 17512395     EISSN: 17512409     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-2409.2008.00011.x     Document Type: Review

References (140)

1. Abramson J. We, the jury: The jury system and the ideal of democracy 2000, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press
2. Allmendinger J, Hackman J R. The more, the better? A four-nation study of the inclusion of women in symphony orchestras. Social Forces 1995, 74:423-460.
3. Alschuler A W. The Supreme Court and the jury: Voir dire, peremptory challenges, and the review of jury verdicts. University of Chicago Law Review 1989, 56:153-233.
4. Angeli D A. A " second look" at crack cocaine sentencing policies: One more try for equal protection. American Criminal Law Review 1997, 34:1211-1241.
5. Antonio A L, Chang M J, Hakuta K, Kenny D A, Levin S, Milem J F. Effects of racial diversity on complex thinking in college students. Psychological Science 2004, 15:507-510.
6. Antonio M E, Hans V P, Roesch R, Corrado R R, Dempster R. Race and the civil jury: How does a juror's race shape the jury experience. Psychology in the courts: International advances in knowledge 2001, 69-81. In, Eds, pp, London, UK, Routledge
7. Babcock B A. Voir dire: Preserving " its wonderful power. Stanford Law Review 1975, 27:545-565.
8. Baldus D C, Woodworth G G, Zuckerman D, Weiner N A, Broffitt B. The use of peremptory challenges in capital murder trials: A legal and empirical analysis. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 2001, 3:3-169.
9. 1986, , 476 U.S. 79
10. Bernard J L. Interaction between the race of the defendant and that of jurors in determining verdicts. Law and Psychology Review 1979, 5:103-111.
11. Boatright R G. Improving citizen response to jury summonses: A report with recommendations 1998, Chicago, American Judicature Society
12. Boatright R G. Generational and age-based differences in attitudes towards jury service. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 2001, 19:285-304.
13. Bowers W J, Sandys M, Brewer T W. Crossing racial boundaries: A closer look at the roots of racial bias in capital sentencing when the defendant is black and the victim is white. DePaul Law Review 2004, 53:1497-1537.
14. Bowers W J, Steiner B D, Sandys M. Death sentencing in black and white: An empirical analysis of the role of jurors' race and jury racial composition. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 2001, 3:171-274.
15. Bragger JD, Kutcher E, Morgan J, Firth P. The effects of the structured interview on reducing biases against pregnant job applicants. Sex Roles 2002, 46:215-226.
16. Broderick R J. Why the peremptory challenge should be abolished. Temple Law Review 1992, 65:369-423.
17. Butler P. Racially based jury nullification: Black power in the criminal justice system. Yale Law Journal 1995, 105:677-725.
18. Chadee D. Race, trial evidence, and jury decision making. Caribbean Journal of Criminology and Social Psychology 1996, 1:59-86.
19. Cohn A, Sherwood D. The rise and fall of affirmative action in jury selection. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 1999, 32:323-333.
20. Juries for the year 2000 and beyond: Proposals to improve the jury systems in Washington, D.C 1998, Council for Court Excellence, District of Columbia Jury Project, Washington, DC, Council for Court Excellence
21. Cowan C L, Thompson W C, Ellsworth P C. The effects of death Qualification on jurors' predisposition to convict and on the quality of deliberation. Law and Human Behavior 1984, 8:53-79.
22. Daudistel H C, Hosch H M, Holmes M D, Graves J B. Effects of defendant ethnicity on juries' dispositions of felony cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1999, 29:317-336.
23. Davis J H. Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review 1973, 80:97-125.
24. De Dreu C K W, Weingart L R. Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 2003, 88:741-749.
25. Deutsch M, Girard H B. A study of normative and influential social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 1955, 51:629-636.
26. Diamond S S, Ellis L, Schmidt E. Realistic responses to the limitations of Batson v. Kentucky. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 1997, 7:77-95.
27. Diamond S S, Rose M R. Real juries. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 2005, 1:255-284.
28. Diamond S S, Vidmar N, Rose M, Ellis L, Murphy B. Juror discussions during trials: Studying an Arizona innovation. Arizona Law Review 2003, 45:1-81.
29. Dovidio J F, Gaertner S L. Aversive racism and selection decisions: 1989 and 1999. Psychological Science 2000, 11:315-319.
30. Dovidio J F, Kawakami K, Gaertner S L. Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2002, 82:62-68.
31. Eberhardt J L. Imaging race. American Psychologist 2005, 60:181-190.
32. Eberhardt J L, Goff P A, Purdie V J, Davies PG. Seeing black: Race, crime, and visual processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2004, 87:876-963.
33. Eisenberg T, Garvey S P, Wells M T. Forecasting life and death: Juror race, religion, and attitude toward the death penalty. Journal of Legal Studies 2001, 30:277-311.
34. Ellis L, Diamond S S. Race, diversity, and jury composition: Battering and bolstering legitimacy. Chicago-Kent Law Review 2003, 78:1033-1060.
35. Ellsworth P C. Are twelve heads better than one. Law and Contemporary Problems 1989, 52:205-224.
36. Ellsworth P C, Mauro R, Gilbert D T, Fiske S T, Lindzey G. Psychology and law. The handbook of social psychology 1998, 684-732. In, Eds, 4th ed., pp, New York, McGraw-Hill
37. Fiske S T, Gilbert D T, Fiske S T, Lindzey G. Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. The handbook of social psychology 1998, 357-414. In, Eds, 4th ed., pp, New York, McGraw-Hill
38. Fukurai H, Butler EW, Krooth R. Race and the jury: Racial disenfranchisement and the search for justice 1993, New York, Plenum Press
39. Fukurai H, Davies D. Affirmative action in jury selection: Racially representative juries, racial quotas, and affirmative juries of the Hennepin Model and the Jury de Medietate Linguae. Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law 1997, 4:645-681.
40. Fulero S M, Penrod S D. The myths and realities of attorney jury selection folklore and scientific jury selection: What works. Ohio Northern University Law Review 1990, 17:229-253.
41. Golash D. Race, fairness, and jury selection. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 1992, 10:155-177.
42. Goodnough A. Jurors in a Cape Cod murder trial testify about racial remarks. New York Times 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/us/11cape.html, Retrieved February 15, 2008, from
43. Granger C, Charron L, Chumak P. Canadian criminal jury trials 1989, Toronto, Carswell
44. Greenwald A G, Banaji M R. Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review 1995, 102:4-27.
45. Hans V P, Vidmar N, Kerr N L, Bray R M. Jury selection. The Psychology of the courtroom 1982, 39-82. In, Eds, pp, New York, Academic Press
46. Hans V P, Vidmar N. Judging the jury 1986, Reading, MA, Perseus Books
47. Hastie R. Is attorney-conducted voir dire an effective procedure for the selection of impartial juries. American University Law Review 1991, 40:703-726.
48. Hodson G, Dovidio J F, Gaertner S L. Processes in racial discrimination: Differential weighting of conflicting information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2002, 28:460-471.
49. Hoffman L R, Maier N R F. Quality and acceptance of problem solutions by members of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 1961, 62:401-407.
50. Israel M. Ethnic bias in jury selection in Australia and New Zealand. International Journal of the Sociology of Law 1998, 26:35-54.
51. Israel M. Underrepresentation of indigenous peoples on Canadian jury panels. Law and Policy 2003, 25:37-62.
52. Jackson S E, Worchel S, Wood W, Simpson J A. Team composition in organizational settings: Issues in managing an increasingly diverse work force. Group process an productivity 1992, 138-173. In, Eds, pp, Newbury Park, CA, Sage
53. 1994, 511 U.S. 127
54. Jehn K A, Northcraft G B, Neale M A. Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly 1999, 44:741-763.
55. 1972, 406 U.S. 356
56. Johnson C, Haney C. Felony voir dire: An exploratory study of its content and effect. Law and Human Behavior 1994, 18:487-506.
57. Kairys D, Kadane J B, Lehoczky J. Jury representativeness: A mandate for multiple source lists. California Law Review 1977, 65:776-827.
58. Kalven H, Zeisel H. The American jury 1966, Boston, MA, Little, Brown
59. Kang J, Banaji M R. Fair measures: A behavioral realist revision of " affirmative action. California Law Review 2006, 94:1063-1118.
60. Kassin S M. The psychology of confession evidence. American Psychologist 1997, 52:221-233.
61. Kerr N L, Hymes R W, Anderson A B, Weathers J E. Defendant-juror similarity and mock juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior 1995, 19:545-567.
62. Kovera M B, Dickinson J J, Cutler B L, Goldstein A M. Voir dire and jury selection. Comprehensive handbook of psychology, Volume 11: Forensic psychology 2002, 161-175. In, Ed, pp, New York, John Wiley and Sons
63. King N J. Postconviction review of jury discrimination: Measuring the effects of juror race on jury decisions. Michigan Law Review 1993a, 92:63-130.
64. King N J. Racial jurymandering: cancer or cure? A contemporary review of affirmative action in jury selection. New York University Law Review 1993b, 68:707-776.
65. Kruglanski A W, Freund T. The freezing and unfreezing of lay-inferences: Effects on impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1983, 19:448-468.
66. Kunda Z, Davies P G, Adams B D, Spencer S J. The dynamic time course of stereotype activation: Activation, dissipation, and resurrection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2002, 82:283-299.
67. Levine J M, Moreland R L, Gilbert D T, Fiske S T, Lindzey G. Small groups. Handbook of social psychology 1998, Vol. 2:415-469. In, Eds, 4th ed., pp, New York, McGraw-Hill
68. Liptak A. Oddity in picking jurors opens door to racial bias. New York Times 2007, http://select.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/us/04bar.html?_r=1&fta=y&or ef=slogin, Retrieved February 15, 2008, from
69. Lipton J P. Racism in the jury box: The Hispanic defendant. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Science 1983, 5:275-290.
70. Lloyd-Bostock S, Thomas C. Law and Contemporary Problems 1999, 62:7-40.
71. 1986, 476 U.S. 162
72. Lord C G, Saenz G S. Memory deficits and memory surfeits: Differential cognitive consequences of tokenism for tokens and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1985, 49:918-926.
73. Mannix E, Neale M A. What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 2005, 6:31-55.
74. Marder N S. Juries, justice & multiculturalism. University of Southern California Law Review 2002, 75:659-726.
75. Maznevski M L. Understanding our differences: Performance in decision-making groups with diverse members. Human Relations 1994, 47:531-552.
76. McCain B R, O'Reilly C A, Pfeifer J. The effects of departmental demography on turnover. Academy of Management Journal 1983, 26:626-641.
77. 1987, 481 U.S. 279
78. McGonigle S, Becka H, LaFleur R, Wyatt T. Striking differences. Dallas morning news 2005, http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/spe/2005/jury/index_jury.html, Retrieved February 15, 2008, from
79. Melilli K J. Batson in practice: What we have learned about Batson and peremptory challenges. Notre Dame Law Review 1996, 71:447-503.
80. 2005, , 545 U.S. 231
81. Mitchell T L, Haw R M, Pfeifer J E, Meissner C A. Racial bias in mock juror decision-making: A meta-analytic review of defendant treatment. Law and Human Behavior 2005, 29:621-637.
82. Monteith M J, Spicer C V. Contents and correlates of Whites' and Blacks' racial attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2000, 36:125-154.
83. Moreland R L, Levine J M, Wingert M L, Witte E H, Davis J H. Creating the ideal group: Composition effects at work. Understanding group behavior, Vol. 2: Small group processes and interpersonal relations 1996, 11-35. In, Eds, pp, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum
84. 1880, , 103 U.S. 370
85. Nemeth C J. Dissent as driving cognition, attitudes, and judgments. Social Cognition 1995, 13:273-291.
86. Norton M I, Sommers S R, Brauner S. Bias in jury selection: Justifying prohibited peremptory challenges. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 2007, 20:467-479.
87. Norton M I, Sommers S R, Vandello J A, Darley J M. Mixed motives and racial bias: The impact of legitimate and illegitimate criteria on decision-making. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2006, 12:36-55.
88. Norton M I, Vandello J A, Darley J M. Casuistry and social category bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2004, 87:817-831.
89. Nosek B A, Greenwald A G, Banaji M R, Bargh J A. The Implicit Association Test at age 7: A methodological and conceptual review. Automatic processes in social thinking and behavior 2007, 265-292. In, Ed, pp, New York, Psychology Press
90. Olczak P V, Kaplan M F, Penrod S. Attorneys' lay psychology and its effectiveness in selecting jurors: Three empirical studies. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 1991, 6:431-452.
91. O'Reilly C, Caldwell D F, Barnett W P. Work group demography, social integration, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly 1989, 34:21-37.
92. Page A. Batson's blind-spot: Unconscious stereotyping and the peremptory challenge. Boston University Law Review 2005, 85:155-262.
93. Perez D A, Hosch H M, Ponder B, Trejo G C. Ethnicity of defendants and jurors as influences on jury decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1993, 23:1249-1262.
94. 1972, 407 U.S. 493
95. Pettit B, Western B. Mass imprisonment and the life course: Race and class inequality in U. S. incarceration. American Sociology Review 2004, 69:151-169.
96. Petty R E, Fleming M A, White P H. Stigmatized sources and persuasion: Prejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1999, 76:19-34.
97. Phillips K W, Loyd D L. When surface and deep-level diversity collide: The effects on dissenting group members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99 2006, 143-160.
98. Phillips K W, Mannix E A, Neale M A, Gruenfeld D H. Diverse groups and information sharing: The effects of congruent ties. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2004, 40:495-510.
99. Phillips K W, Northcraft G B, Neale M A. Surface-level diversity and decision-making in groups: When does deep-level similarity help. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 2006, 9:467-482.
100. Putnam R D. E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century: The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies 2007, 30:137-174.
101. Ramirez D. A brief historical overview of the use of the mixed jury. American Criminal Law Review 1994, 31:1213-1224.
102. Raphael M J, Ungvarsky E J. Excuses, excuses: Neutral explanations under Batson v. Kentucky. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 1993, 27:229-275.
103. Rose M R. The peremptory challenge accused of race or gender discrimination? Some data from one county. Law and Human Behavior 1999, 23:695-702.
104. Rose M R. A voir dire of voir dire: Listening to jurors' views regarding the peremptory challenge. Chicago-Kent Law Review 2003, 78:1061-1098.
105. Russ H. McCowen jurors face bias complaints. Cape Cod Times 2008, http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080110/NEWS/80 1100336/-1/SPECIAL02, Retrieved February 15, 2008, from
106. Saltzman J. Great aunt says Worthington juror is racially biased. Boston Globe 2008, http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/02/02/great_aunt_says_wor thington_juror_is_racially_biased/, Retrieved February 15, 2008 from
107. Sandys M, Dillehay RC. First-ballot votes, predeliberation dispositions, and final verdicts in jury trials. Law and Human Behavior 1995, 19:175-195.
108. Sargent M J, Bradfield A L. Race and information processing in criminal trials: Does the defendant's race affect how the facts are evaluated. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2004, 30:995-1008.
109. Sekaquaptewa D, Thompson M. The differential effects of solo status on members of high- and low-status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2002, 28:694-707.
110. Sherman J W, Stroessner S J, Conrey F R, Azam O A. Prejudice and stereotype maintenance processes: Attention, attribution, and individuation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2005, 89:607-622.
111. 2008, 552 U.S.
112. Sommers S R, Mannix E A, Neale M A, Phillips K W. Beyond information exchange: New perspectives on the benefits of racial diversity for group performance. Research on Managing Groups and Teams 2008, Vol. 11:195-220. In, Eds, pp, Oxford, Elsevier Science Press
113. Sommers S R. On racial diversity and group decision-making: Identifying multiple effects of racial composition on jury deliberations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2006, 90:597-612.
114. Sommers S R. Race and the decision-making of juries. Legal and Criminological Psychology 2007, 12:171-187.
115. Sommers S R, Ellsworth P C. Race in the courtroom: Perceptions of guilt and dispositional attributions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2000, 26:1367-1379.
116. Sommers S R, Ellsworth P C. White juror bias: An investigation of racial prejudice against Black defendants in the American courtroom. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2001, 7:201-229.
117. Sommers S R, Ellsworth P C. How much do we really know about race and juries? A review of social science theory and research. Chicago-Kent Law Review 2003, 78:997-1031.
118. Sommers S R, Norton M I. Race-based judgments, race-neutral justifications: Experimental examination of peremptory use and the Batson challenge procedure. Law and Human Behavior 2007, 31:261-273.
119. Sommers S R, Norton M I. Race and jury selection: Psychological perspectives on the peremptory challenge debate. American Psychologist 2008, 63:527-539.
120. Sommers S R, Warp L S, Mahoney C C. Cognitive effects of racial diversity: White individuals' information processing in heterogeneous groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2008, 44:1129-1136.
121. 1879, 100 U.S. 303
122. 1965, 380 U.S. 202
123. Tanford S, Penrod S. Jury deliberations: Discussion content and influence processes in jury decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1986, 16:322-347.
124. Tanovich D M, Paciocco D M, Skurka S. Jury selection in criminal trials: Skills, science, and the law 1997, Toronto, Irwin Law
125. 1975, , 419 U.S. 522
126. Thibault J, Walker L. Procedural justice 1975, Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum
127. Triandis H C, Hall E R, Ewen R B. Member heterogeneity and dyadic creativity. Human Relations 1965, 18:33-35.
128. Tonry M. Racial disproportion in U.S. prisons. British Journal of Criminology 1994, 34:97-115.
129. Turner B M, Lovell R D, Young J D, Denny W F. Race and peremptory challenges during voir dire: Do prosecution and defense agree. Journal of Criminal Justice 1986, 14:61-69.
130. Tyler T R. Why people obey the law 2006, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press
131. Tyler T R, Smith S J, Gilbert D T, Fiske S T, Lindzey G. Social justice and social movements. The handbook of social psychology 1998, 595-629. In, Eds, 4th ed., pp, New York, McGraw-Hill
132. Uhlmann EL, Cohen GL. Constructed criteria: Redefining merit to justify discrimination. Psychological Science 2005, 16:474-480.
133. van Knippenberg D, Schippers M C. Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology 2007, 58:515-541.
134. Vidmar N. The Canadian criminal jury: Searching for a middle ground. Law and Contemporary Problems 1999, 62:141-172.
135. Vidmar N, Hans V P. American juries: The verdict 2007, Amherst, NY, Prometheus Books
136. Watson W E, Kumar K, Michaelsen L K. Cultural diversity's impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal 1993, 36:590-602.
137. Weisselberg C D. Good film, bad jury. Chicago-Kent Law Review 2007, 82:717-731.
138. Wilkenfeld J. Newly compelling: Reexamining judicial construction of juries in the aftermath of Grutter v. Bollinger. Columbia Law Review 2004, 104:2291-2327.
139. Wilson T D, Lindsey S, Schooler Y. A model of dual attitudes. Psychological Review 2000, 107:101-126.
140. Zenger T R, Lawrence B S. Organizational demography: The differential effects of age and tenure distributions on technical communication. Academy of Management Journal 1989, 32:353-376.