The validity of jury decision-making research

Jury Psychology: Social Aspects of Trial Processes

Volumn 1, Issue , 2009, Pages 1-23

  DeMatteo, David ^a   Anumba, Natalie ^b  

^a DREXEL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84863666421     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (51)

1. 18 USC § 1508 (1956).
2. The B-PAD Group, Inc. (2001). Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved November 7, 2007, from http://www.bpad.com/pages/faqs.html.
3. Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978).
4. Bersoff, D.N. (1987). Social science data and the Supreme Court: Lockhart as a case in point. American Psychologist, 42, 52-8.
5. Bornstein, B.H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-91.
6. Campbell, D.T. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological Bulletin, 54, 297-312.
7. Colgrove v. Battin, 413 U.S. 149 (1973).
8. Criminal Code, R.S.C. c. C-46 § 649 (1985).
9. Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
10. Devine, J.D., Clayton, L.D., Dunford, B.B., Seying, R., and Pryce, J. (2001). Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 622-727.
11. Diamond, S.S. (ed.). (1979). Does the microscope lens distort? [Special issue]. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 1-4.
12. Diamond, S.S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561-71.
13. Dunn, K.F. (2003). Assessing the external validity of jury simulation research: A meta-analysis (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(12-B), 6141.
14. Egeth, H.E. (1993). What do we not know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 577-80.
15. Free V. Peters, 12 F.3d 700 (7th Cir. 1993).
16. Greene, E., Chopra, S.R., Kovera, M.B., Penrod, S.D., Rose, V.G., Schuller, R., et al. (2002). Jurors and juries: A review of the field. In J.R.P. Ogloff (ed.), Taking Psychology and Law into the Twenty-first Century. New York: Kluwer. pp. 225-284.
17. Hans, V.P., Hannaford, P.L., and 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, 349-77.
18. Kalven, H., Jr., and Zeisel, H. (1966). The American Jury. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co.
19. Kassin, S.M., Ellsworth, P.C., and Smith, V.L. (1989). The "general acceptance" of psychological research on eyewitness testimony: A survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 44, 1089-98.
20. Kassin, S.M., and Gudjonsson, G.H. (2004). The psychology of confessions: A review of the literature and issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 33-67.
21. Kazdin, A.E. (2003). Research Design in Clinical Psychology (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
22. Kerr, N.L., and Bray, R.M. (2005). Simulation, realism, and the study of the jury. In N. Brewer and K.D. Williams (eds), Psychology and Law: An Empirical Perspective. New York: Guilford. pp. 322-364.
23. Kerwin, J., and Shaffer, D.R. (1994). Mock jurors versus mock juries: The role of deliberations in reactions to inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 153-62.
24. Klein, C., Stagl, K.C., Salas, E., Parker, C., and Van Eynde, D.F. (2007). Returning to flight simulation-based training for the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Space Shuttle Mission Management Team. International Journal of Training and Development, 11, 132-8.
25. Köhnken, G. (1996). Social psychology and the law. In G.R. Semin and K. Fiedler (eds), Applied Social Psychology. London: Sage. pp. 257-281.
26. Levett, L.M., Danielsen, E.M., Kovera, M.B., and Cutler, B.L. (2005). The psychology of jury and juror decision making. In N. Brewer and K.D. Williams (eds), Psychology and Law: An Empirical Perspective. New York: Guilford. pp. 364-406.
27. Lieberman, J.D., and Sales, B.D. (1997). What social science teaches us about the jury instruction process. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 589-644.
28. Lieberman, J.D., and Sales, B.D. (2000). Introduction: Jury instructions: Past, present, and future. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 587-90.
29. Lieberman, J.D., and Sales, B.D. (2007). Scientific Jury Selection. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
30. Lloyd-Bostock, S. (1995). The jury in the United Kingdom: Juries and jury research in context. In E. Davies, S. Lloyd-Bostock, M. McMurran, and C. Wilson (eds), Psychology, Law, and Criminal Justice: International Developments in Research and Practice. Oxford: Walter de Gruyter. pp. 349-359.
31. Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (1986).
32. MacCoun, R.J. (1989). Experimental research on jury decision-making. Science, 244, 1046-50.
33. MacCoun, R.J. (1999). Epistemological dilemmas in the assessment of legal decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 723-30.
34. Marczyk, G., DeMatteo, D., and Festinger, D. (2005). Essentials of Research Design and Methodology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
35. Martin, A.M., Kaplan, M.F., and Alamo, J.M. (2003). Discussion content and perception of deliberation in Western European versus American juries. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 9, 247-63.
36. Mitchell, T.L., Haw, R.M., Pfeifer, J.E., and Meissner, C.A. (2005). Racial bias in mock juror decision-making: A meta-analytic review of defendant treatment. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 621-37.
37. Penrod, S.D., and Cutler, B.L. (1987). Assessing the competence of juries. In I.B. Weiner and A.K. Hess (eds), Handbook of Forensic Psychology. New York: Wiley. pp. 293-318.
38. Schuller, R.A., and Yarmey, M. (2001). The jury: Deciding guilt and innocence. In R.A. Schuller and J.R.P. Ogloff (eds), Introduction to Psychology and Law: Canadian Perspectives. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pp. 157-87.
39. Seltzer, R. (2006). Scientific jury selection: Does it work? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 2417-35.
40. Shukla, A., Kline, D., Cherian, A., Lescanec, A., Rochman, A., Plautz, C., et al. (2007). A simulation course on lifesaving techniques for third-year medical students. Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare, 2, 11-15.
41. Studebaker, C.A., Robbennolt, J.K., Penrod, S.D., Pathak-Sharma, M.K., Groscup, J.L., and Devenport, J.L. (2002). Studying pretrial publicity effects: New methods for improving ecological validity and testing external validity. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 19-41.
42. Suggs, D.L. (1979). The use of psychological research by the judiciary: Do the courts adequately assess the validity of the research? Law and Human Behavior, 3, 135-48.
43. Thompson, W.L. (1993). Research on jury decision making: The state of the science. In N.J. Castellan (ed.), Individual and Group Decision Making: Current Issues. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. pp. 203-218.
44. Wheatman, S.R., and Shaffer, D.R. (2001). On finding for defendants who plead insanity: The crucial impact of dispositional instructions and opportunity to deliberate. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 167-83.
45. Wiener, R.L. (1999). Point and counterpoint: A discussion of jury research in the civil arena. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 703-4.
46. Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970).
47. Wilson, D.W., and Donnerstein, E. (1977). Guilty or not guilty? A look at the "simulated" jury paradigm. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 175-90.
48. Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968).
49. Wrightsman, L.S. (2001). Forensic Psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
50. Zeisel, H., and Diamond, S.S. (1974). "Convincing empirical evidence" on the six member jury. University of Chicago Law Review, 41, 281-295.
51. Zeisel, H., Kalven, H., Jr., and Buckholz, B. (1959). Delay in the Court. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co.