Civil juries in ecological context: Methodological implications for research

Civil Juries and Civil Justice: Psychological and Legal Perspectives

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 35-65

  Vidmar, Neil ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79960447678     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-74490-2_3     Document Type: Chapter

References (74)

1. Brian Bornstein, The Ecological Validity of Jury Simulation Research, 23 LAW AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR 75 (1999); see also Shari Diamond, Illuminations and Shadows from Jury Simulations
2. LAW AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR 561 (1997).
3. Dennis Devine, Jury Decision Making: 45 Years of Empirical Research on Deliberating Groups, 7 PSYCHOLOGY, PUBLIC POLICY AND LAW 622 (2001).
4. DONALDCAMPBELL&JULIAN STANLEY, EXPERIMENTAL ANDQUASI- EXPERIMENTALDESIGNS FOR RESEARCH (1966). The most recent version of that work isWILLIAM SHADISH, THOMAS COOK, & DONALD CAMPBELL, EXPERIMENTAL AND QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS FOR GENERALIZED CAUSAL INFERENCE (2002).
5. Kalven and Zeisel's classic study of the American jury which began in 1952 and published in 1967 was the major exception, seeHARRYKALVEN&HANS ZEISEL, THEAMERICAN JURY (1967).
6. Gordon Bermant ET AL., The Logic of Simulation in Jury Research, 1 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR 224 (1974).
7. Neil Vidmar, Experimental Simulations and Tort Reform: Avoidance, Error and Overreaching in Sunstein et al.'s Punitive Damages, 53 EMORY LAW JOURNAL 1359, 1375-77 (2004).
8. Marilyn Brewer, Research Design and Issues of Validity, in HANDBOOK OF RESEARCH METHODS IN SOCIAL AND PERSONALITY PSYCHOLOGY 3, 12 (Harry T. Reiss & Charles M. Judd, eds., 2000).
9. Barker R. The basic principles of this concept were discussed many years earlier by egon brunswick, perception and the representative design of psychological experiments,explorations in ecological validity American Psychologist 1956 1965 20 1.
10. See NEIL VIDMAR & VALERIE P. HANS, AMERICAN JURIES: THE VERDICT (2007) Shari Diamond & Neil Vidmar, Jury Room Ruminations on Forbidden Topics, 87 VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW 1857 (2001)
11. Shari Diamond et al.Juror Discussions During Civil Trials: Studying an Arizona Innovation, 45ARIZONA LAW REVIEW 1-81 (2003)
12. NEIL VIDMAR, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND THE AMERICAN JURY: CONFRONTING THE MYTHS ABOUT JURY INCOMPETENCE, DEEP POCKETS AND OUTRAGEOUS DAMAGE AWARDS (1995).
13. These concepts and related matters are discussed in detail in NEIL VIDMAR & VALERIE P. HANS, AMERICAN JURIES: THE VERDICT (2007)
14. Samuel Gross, Expert Evidence, 1991 WISCONSIN LAW REVIEW 1113 (1991)
15. Carol Krafka et al., Judge and Attorney Experiences, Practices, and Concerns Regarding Expert Testimony in Federal Civil Trials, 8 PSYCHOLOGY, PUBLIC POLICY AND LAW 309-32 (2002)
16. L. Dixon & B. Gill, Changes in the Standards for Admitting Expert Evidence in Federal Civil Cases Since the Daubert Decision, 8 PSYCHOLOGY, PUBLIC POLICY AND LAW 251(2002).
17. EDIE GREENE & BRIAN BORNSTEIN, DETERMINING DAMAGES (2003) at 151-53.
18. West's Smith-Hurd, Illinois Compiled Statutes Annotated (2005).
19. West's Smith-Hurd, Illinois Compiled Statutes Annotated (2005)
20. Nancy Pennington & Reid Hastie, A Cognitive Theory of Juror Decision Making: The Story Model 13 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW 519-56 (1991); see also Hastie, this volume.
21. EDITH GREENE, On Juries and Damage Awards: The Process of Decision making, 52 LAW & CONT. PROBL. 225 (1989).
22. See Greene, note 21 at 232. Incidentally the fusion hypothesis was discussed by Harry Kalven, The Dignity of the Civil Jury 50 VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW 1055-57 (1964) but in Kalven's day most juries operated under contributory fault as opposed to comparative fault. This difference may have colored the relevance of Kalven's comments for most of today's juries.
23. David Breau, Brian Brook & Andrea Alencar, "Mock" Mock Juries: A Field Experiment on the Ecological Validity of Jury Simulations, 31 LAW & PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW 75 (2007).
24. Dennis Devine et al., Jury Decision Making: 45 Years of Empirical Research on Deliberating Groups, 7 PSYCHOLOGY, PUBLIC POLICY AND LAW 622-727 (2001).
25. Stephan Landsman & Richard Rakos, A Preliminary Inquiry into the Effect of Potentially Biasing Information on Judges and Jurors in Civil Litigation, 12 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES AND LAW 113 (1994).
26. Chris Guthrie, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, & Andrew J. Wistrich, Inside the Judicial Mind, 86 CORNELL L. REV. 777 (2001).
27. Guthrie C. Rachlinski J.J. Wistrich A.J. Judging by heuristic: Cognitive illusions in judicial decision making Judicature 2002 86 44 A brief overview of this research may be found in (July-August
28. Jennifer Robbennolt, Punitive Damage Decision Making: The Decisions of Citizens and Trial Court Judges, 26 LAW AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR 315 (2002).
29. Roselle Wissler et al., Decision making about General Damages: A Comparison of Jurors, Judges and Lawyers, 98MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW 751-826 (1999).
30. Nancy Pennington & Reid Hastie, A Cognitive Theory of Juror Decision Making: The Story Model 13 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW 519-56 (1991).
31. James A. Holstein, Jurors' Interpretations and Jury Decision Making, 9 LAW AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR 83-100 (1985).
32. E.g. see Kenneth Bordens & Irwin Horowitz, Mass Tort Civil Litigation: The Impact of Procedural Changes on Jury decisions, 73 JUDICATURE 22-7 (2003); Lynne FosterLee, & Irwin Horowitz, The Effects of Jury-aid Innovations on Juror Performance in Complex Civil Trials
33. JUDICATURE 184-90 (2003).
34. NEAL FEIGENSON, LEGAL BLAME: HOW JURORS THINK AND TALK ABOUT ACCIDENTS (2000).
35. Stephan Landsman et al., Be Careful What You Wish For: The Paradoxical Effects of Bifurcating Claims for Punitive Damages, 1998 WISCONSIN LAW REVIEW 297-342 (1998).
36. Shari Diamond & Jonathan Casper, Blindfolding the Jury to Verdict Consequences: Damages, Experts and the Civil Jury, 26 LAW AND SOCIETY REVIEW 513 (1992).
37. Terry Honess, Michael Levi, &E. Charman, Juror Competence in Processing Complex Trial Information: Implications from a Simulation of the Maxwell Trial, CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 763-73 (1998).
38. Stanley Schachter, Recidivism and Self-cure of Smoking and Obesity, 37 AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST 436 (1982).
39. STANLEY SCHACHTER, EMOTION , OBESITY AND CRIME, 1971
40. Richard Nisbett, Stanley Schachter, Biographical Memoirs, National Academy of Sciences (undated) at books. nap.edu/html/biomems/sschachter.html
41. ALFRED KINSEY, POMEROY, & MARTIN, SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN THE HUMAN MALE (1948).
42. See ALFRED MORROW, THE PRACTICAL THEORIST: THE LIFE AND WORK OF KURT LEWIN (1969).
43. See Paul Rozin, Social Psychology and Science: Some Lessons from Solomon Asch.
44. PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW 2-14 (2001)
45. See also SOLOMON ASCH SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY (1952).
46. VALERIE HANS, BUSINESS ON TRIAL (2000).
47. For discussion of such an approach see, Neil Vidmar, When Juror Talk About their Verdict, Jury Ethics: Juror Conduct and Juror Dynamics (in John Kleinig and James Levine, ed.,) (2006) at 237.
48. See, e.g., See William Bowers, The Capital Jury: Is It Tilted Toward Death? 79 JUDICATURE
49. Theodore Eisenberg, Stephen Garvey, & Martin Wells, Forecasting Life and Death: Juror Race Religion, and Attitudes Toward the Death Penalty, 30 JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES 277 (2001);
50. William Bowers, Marla Sandy's, & Benjamin Steiner, Foreclosing Impartiality in Capital Sentencing: Jurors' Predispositions, Attitudes and Premature Decision-Making 83 CORNELL LAW REVIEW 1476 (1998)
51. Scott Sundby, The Jury as Critic: An Empirical Look at How Capital Juries Perceive Expert and Lay Testimony, 83VIRGINIA LAWREVIEW 1109 (1997)
52. SCOTT SUNDBY, A LIFE DEATH DESCISION: A JURY WEIGHS THE DEATH PENALTY.
53. ARTHUR AUSTIN, COMPLEX LITIGATION CONFRONTS THE JURY SYSTEM: A CASE STUDY (1984).
54. Joseph Sanders, The Jury Deliberation in a "Complex Case": Havener v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals, 16 JUSTICE SYSTEM JOURNAL 45-67 (1993).
55. For a preliminary report of this research, see Judith Fordham, Illuminating or Blurring the Truth: Jurors, Juries and Expert, EVIDENCE LAW AND PSYCHOLOGY (Belinda Brooks-Gordon, eds.).
56. Richard Lempert, Civil Juries and Complex Cases: Taking Stock After Twelve Years, in VERDICT: ASSESSING THE CIVIL JURY SYSTEM (Robert Litan, ed.) (1993).
57. HARRY KALVEN& HANS ZEISEL, THE AMERICAN JURY (1967)
58. Heuer L. & Penrod S., Trial Complexity: A Field Investigation of Its Meaning and Effects, LAW AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR 18: 29-51 (1994).
59. Theodore Eisenberg et al., Judge-Jury Agreement in Criminal Cases: A Partial Replication of Kalven and Zeisel's, The American Jury, 2 JOURNAL OF EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUDIES 171 (2005).
60. Hannaford P., Hans V. & Munsterman, G. Permitting Jury Discussions During Trial: Impact of the Arizona Jury Reform. 24 LAW AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR 359 (2000).
61. G. THOMAS MUNSTERMAN ET AL., A COMPARISON OF THE PERFORMANCE OF EIGHT-AND TWELVE-PERSON JURIES (1990).
62. Theodore Eisenberg et al., Juries, Judges and Punitive Damages: Empirical Analyses Using the Civil Justice Survey of State Courts 1992, 1996 and 2001 Data, 3 J. EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUD.
63. Jennifer Robbennolt, Punitive Damage Decision Making: The Decisions of Citizens and Trial Court Judges, 26 LAW AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR 315 (2002).
64. Moore K. Judges, Juries, and Patent Cases-An Empirical Peek Inside the Black Box, 99. MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW 365 (2000).
65. Vidmar N., Pap and Circumstance: What Jury Verdict Statistics Can Tell Us About Jury Behavior and the Tort System, 28 SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW1205 (1994).
66. Mark Taragin, Mark et al., The Influence of Standard of Care and Severity of Injury on the Resolution of Medical Malpractice Claims. 117 ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE 780 (1992).
67. Frank Sloan et al., Liability in SUING FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (in Frank Sloan et al., eds.)., (1993); see also the chapter by Landsman, this volume.
68. David Studdert et al., Claims, Errors, and Compensation Payments in Medical Malpractice Litigation, 354 NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE 2024 (2006).
69. Neil Vidmar & Kara McKillop, Judicial Hellholes: Medical Malpractice Claims, Verdicts and the "Doctor Exodus" in Illinois, 59 VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW 2006.
70. Vidmar, MacKillop, & Lee, Million Dollar Medical Malpractice Cases in Florida: Post-Verdict and Pre-suit Settlements, 59 VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW 2006.
71. EDIE GREENE & BRIAN BORNSTEIN, DETERMINING DAMAGES: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF JURY DAMAGE AWARDS (2003) at 24.
72. Michael Saks et al., Reducing Variability in Civil Jury Awards, 21 LAW AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR 243-56 (1997).
73. Randall R. Bovbjerg et al., Valuing Life and Limb in Tort: Scheduling "Pain and Suffering" NW UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 908 (1989).
74. Frank A. Sloan & Stephen S. van Wert, Cost of Injuries, in SUING FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (Frank A. Sloan et al., eds.) 123, 139-40 (1993).