Psychological issues in civil trials

Jury Psychology: Social Aspects of Trial Processes

Volumn 1, Issue , 2009, Pages 183-205

  Greene, Edith ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952082665     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (82)

1. Bailis, D. (1996). Estimating liability risks with the media as your guide: A content analysis of media coverage of tort litigation. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 419-429.
2. BMW v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996).
3. Bogart, W. (2000). 'Guardian of civil rights ... Medieval relic': The civil jury in Canada. In N. Vidmar (ed.), World Jury Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 405-420.
4. Bornstein, B. (2004). The impact of different types of expert scientific testimony on mock jurors' liability verdicts. Psychology, Crime and Law, 10, 429-46.
5. Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257 (1989).
6. Cameron, N., Potter, S., and Young, W. (2000). The New Zealand jury: Towards reform. In N. Vidmar (ed.), World Jury Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 167-210.
7. Charrow, R., and Charrow, V. (1979). Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review, 79, 1306-1374.
8. Chin, A., and Peterson, M. (1985). Deep Pockets, Empty Pockets: Who Wins in Cook County Jury Trials. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
9. Cohen, T. (2004). Civil Trial Cases and Verdicts in Large Counties, 2001. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
10. Cohen, T. (2005). Punitive Damage Awards in Large Counties, 2001. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
11. Cooper, J., Bennett, E., and Sukel, H. (1996). Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions? Law and Human Behavior, 20, 379-94.
12. Cooper, J., and Neuhaus, I. (2000). The "hired gun" effect: Assessing the effect of pay, frequency of testimony and credentials on the perception of expert testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 149-71.
13. Dann, B., and Hans, V. (2004). Recent evaluative research on jury trial innovations. Court Review, 41, 12-19.
14. Diamond, S. (2003). Truth, justice, and the jury. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 26, 143-55.
15. Diamond, S.S., and Casper, J.D. (1992). Blindfolding the jury to verdict consequences: Damages, experts, and the civil jury. Law and Society Review, 26, 513-63.
16. Eisenberg, T., LaFountain, N., Ostrom, B., Rottman, D., and Wells, M.T. (2002). Juries, judges, and punitive damages: An empirical study. Cornell Law Review, 87, 743-82.
17. Ellis, D. (1989). Punitive damages, due process, and the jury. Alabama Law Review, 40, 975-1002.
18. English, P., and Sales, B. (1997). A ceiling or consistency effect for the comprehension of jury instructions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 381-401.
19. Feigenson, N. (2000). Legal Blame: How Jurors Think and Talk about Accidents. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
20. Feigenson, N., Park, J., and Salovey, P. (1997). Effects of blameworthiness and outcome severity on attributions of responsibility and damage awards in comparative negligence cases. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 597-617.
21. Feigenson, N., Park, J., and Salovey, P. (2001). The role of emotions in comparative negligence judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 576-603.
22. ForsterLee, L., and Horowitz, I. (1997). Enhancing juror competence in a complex trial. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 305-19.
23. ForsterLee, L., Horowitz, I., and Bourgeois, M. (1993). Juror competence in civil trials: The effects of preinstruction and evidence technicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 14-21.
24. ForsterLee, L., Horowitz, I., and Bourgeois, M. (1994). Effects of notetaking on verdicts and evidence processing in a civil trial. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 567-78.
25. ForsterLee, L., Kent, L., and Horowitz, I. (2005). The cognitive effects of jury aids on decision-making in complex civil litigation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 867-84.
26. Galanter, M. (2004). The vanishing trial: An examination of trials and related matters in federal and state courts. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 1, 459-570.
27. Goodman, J., Greene, E., and Loftus, E. (1985). What confuses jurors in complex cases. Trial, November, 65-8.
28. Goodman, J., Loftus, E.F., and Greene, E. (1990). Matters of money: Voir dire in civil cases. Forensic Reports, 3, 303-29.
29. Goodman-Delahunty, J., and Foote, W.E. (1995). Compensation for pain, suffering, and other psychological injuries: The impact of Daubert on employment discrimination claims. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 13, 183-206.
30. Greene, E., and Bornstein, B. (2000). Precious little guidance: Jury instructions on damage awards. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 743-68.
31. Greene, E., and Bornstein, B. (2003). Determining Damages: The Psychology of Jury Damage Awards. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
32. Greene, E., Goodman, J., and Loftus, E. (1991). Jurors' attitudes about civil litigation and the size of damage awards. American University Law Review, 40, 805-20.
33. Greene, E., and Johns, M. (2001). Jurors' use of instructions on negligence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 840-59.
34. Greene, E., Johns, M., and Bowman, J. (1999). The effects of injury severity on jury negligence decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 675-93.
35. Greene, E., Johns, M., and Smith, A. (2001). The effects of defendant conduct on jury damage awards. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 228-37.
36. Gross, S. (1991). Expert evidence. Wisconsin Law Review, 1991, 1113-232.
37. Gross, S.R., and Syverud, K.D. (1991). Getting to no: A study of settlement negotiations and the selection of cases for trial. Michigan Law Review, 90, 319-393.
38. Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J., and Wistrich, A. (2001). Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Review, 86, 777-830.
39. Hannaford, P., Hans, V., and Munsterman, G. (2000). Permitting jury discussions during trial: Impact of the Arizona reform. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 359-382.
40. Hans, V. (2000). Business on Trial: The Civil Jury and Corporate Responsibility. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
41. Hans, V., and Albertson, S. (2003). Empirical research and civil jury reform. Notre Dame Law Review, 78, 1497-523.
42. Hans, V., and Ermann, M. (1989). Responses to corporate versus individual wrongdoing. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 151-66.
43. Hans, V., and Lofquist, W. (1992). Jurors' judgments of business liability in tort cases: Implications for the litigation explosion debate. Law and Society Review, 26, 85-115.
44. Hans, V., and Lofquist, W. (1994). Perceptions of civil justice: The litigation crisis attitudes of civil jurors. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 12, 181-96.
45. Hastie, R., Schkade, D., and Payne, J. (1998). A study of juror and jury judgments in civil cases: Deciding liability for punitive damages. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 287-314.
46. Hastie, R., Schkade, D., and Payne, J. (1999). Juror judgments in civil cases: Effects of plaintiff's request and plaintiff's identity on punitive damage awards. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 445-70.
47. Horowitz, I., and Bordens, K. (2002). The effects of jury size, evidence complexity, and note taking on jury process and performance in a civil trial. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 121-30.
48. Horowitz, I., and ForsterLee, L. (2001). The effects of note-taking and trial transcript access on mock jury decisions in a complex civil trial. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 373-91.
49. Huber, P. (1988). Liability: The Legal Revolution and Its Consequences. New York: Basic Books.
50. Ivkovic, S., and Hans, V. (2003). Jurors' evaluations of expert testimony: Judging the message and the messenger. Law and Social Inquiry, 28, 441-82.
51. John v. MGN Ltd., 2 A11 E.R. 35 (1996).
52. Kamin, K., and Rachlinski, J. (1995). Ex post ≠ ex ante: Determining liability in hindsight. Law and Human Behavior, 19 89-104.
53. Kovera, M., McAuliff, B., and Hebert, K. (1999). Reasoning about scientific evidence. Effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 362-75.
54. Krafka, C., Dunn, M., Johnson, M., Cecil, J., and Miletich, D. (2002). Judge and attorney experiences, practices, and concerns regarding expert testimony in federal civil trials. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 309-32.
55. Landsman, S., Diamond, S., Dimitropoulos, L., and Saks, M. (1998). Be careful what you wish for: The paradoxical effects of bifurcating claims for punitive damages. Wisconsin Law Review, 1998, 297-342.
56. Lempert, R. (1993). Civil juries and complex cases: Taking stock after twelve years. In R. Litan (ed.), Verdict: Assess the Civil Jury System. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. pp. 181-247.
57. Lloyd-Bostock, S., and Thomas, C. (2000). The continuing decline of the English jury. In N. Vidmar (ed.), World Jury Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 53-91.
58. MacCoun, R. (1996). Differential treatment of corporate defendants by juries: An examination of the "deep-pockets" hypothesis. Law and Society Review, 30, 121-61.
59. Melsheimer, T., and Stodghill, S. (1994). Due process and punitive damages: Providing meaningful guidance to the jury. Southern Methodist University Law Review, 47, 329-50.
60. Mott, N. (2003). The current debate on juror questions: "To ask or not to ask, that is the question". Chicago-Kent Law Review, 78, 1099-125.
61. Olson, W. (1991). The Litigation Explosion: What Happened When America Unleashed the Lawsuit. New York: Penguin Books.
62. Peterson, M., Sarna, S., and Shanley, M. (1987). Punitive Damages: Empirical Findings. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation Institute for Civil Justice.
63. Petty, R.E., and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
64. Philip Morris v. Williams, United States Supreme Court, 05-1256, argued 10/31/06.
65. Robbennolt, J. (2000). Outcome severity and judgments of "responsibility": A metaanalytic review. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 2575-609.
66. Robbennolt, J. (2002). Punitive damage decision making: The decisions of citizens and trial court judges. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 315-41.
67. Rustad, M. (1998) Unraveling punitive damages: Current data and further inquiry. Wisconsin Law Review, 15, 15-69.
68. Sentell, P. (1991). The Georgia jury and negligence: The view from the bench. Georgia Law Review, 26, 85-178.
69. Sentell, P. (1992). The Georgia jury and negligence: The view from the (federal) bench. Georgia Law Review, 27, 59-120.
70. Shuman, D., Champagne, A., and Whitaker, E. (1996). Assessing the believability of expert witnesses: Science in the jury box. Jurimetrics Journal, 37, 23-33.
71. Sloan, F.A., and Hsieh, C.R. (1990). Variability in medical malpractice payments: Is the compensation fair? Law and Society Review, 24, 997-1039.
72. Sunstein, C., Hastie, R., Payne, J., Schkade, D., and Viscusi, W. (2003). Punitive Damages: How Juries Decide. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
73. Sunstein, C., Kahneman, D., and Schkade, D. (1998). Assessing punitive damages. Yale Law Journal, 107, 2071-153.
74. Sunstein, C., Kahneman, D., Schkade, D., and Ritove, I. (2002). Predictably incoherent judgments. Stanford Law Review, 54, 1153-215.
75. Vidmar, N. (1995). Medical Malpractice and the American Jury. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
76. Vidmar, N. (ed.) (2000). World Jury Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
77. Vidmar, N., Diamond, S., Rose, M., and Ellis, L. (2003). Juror discussions during civil trials: Studying an Arizona innovation. Arizona Law Review, 45, 1-83.
78. Vidmar, N. et al. (2000). Amicus brief: Kumho Tire v. Carmichael. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 387-400.
79. Vidmar, N., and Rose, M. (2001). Punitive damages by juries in Florida: In terrorem and in reality. Harvard Journal of Legislation, 38, 487-513.
80. Viscusi, W.K. (1988). Pain and suffering in product liability cases: Systematic compensation or capricious awards? International Review of Law and Economics, 8, 203-220.
81. Wissler, R.L., Evans, D.L., Hart, A.J., Morry, M.M., and Saks, M.J. (1997). Explaining "pain and suffering" awards: The role of injury characteristics and fault attributions. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 181-207.
82. Zickafoose, D.J., and Bornstein, B.H (1999). Double discounting: The effects of comparative negligence on mock juror decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 577-96.