Decision Making by Juries and Judges: International Perspectives

Handbook of Psychology in Legal Contexts: Second Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 401-422

  Greene, Edith ^a   Wrightsman, Lawrence ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84921051846     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/0470013397.ch17     Document Type: Chapter

References (66)

1. Austin, W. and Williams, T. (1977). A survey of judges' responses to simulated legal cases: A research note on sentencing disparity. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 68, 306-310.
2. Baldy, A.C. and Manetti, L. (1999). Mixed jury decision making. Paper presented at the International Conference of the American Psychology-Law Society and European Association of Psychology and Law, Dublin.
3. Baum, L. (1997). The puzzle of judicial behavior. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
4. Bennett, W.L. (1979). Rhetorical transformation of evidence in criminal trials: Creating grounds for legal judgment. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 65, 311-323.
5. Bennett,W.L. and Feldman, M.S. (1981). Reconstructing reality in the courtroom: Justice and judgment in American culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
6. Brenner, S. (1982). Fluidity on the United States Supreme Court: 1956-1967. American Journal of Political Science, 26, 388-390.
7. Cameron, N., Potter, S. and Young,W. (1999). The New Zealand jury. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62, 103-139.
8. Chesterman, M. (1999). Criminal trial juries in Australia: From penal colonies to a federal democracy. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62, 69-102.
9. Chi, M.T.H., Glaser, R. and Farr, M.J. (eds) (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Corker, D. and Levi, M. (1996). Pretrial publicity and its treatment in the English courts. Criminal Law Review, 622-632.
11. Cutler, B.L., Penrod, S.D. and Dexter, H.R. (1989). The eyewitness, the expert psychologist, and the jury. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 311-322.
12. Dorff, R.H. and Brenner, S. (1992). Conformity voting on the United States Supreme Court. Journal of Politics, 54, 762-775.
13. Duff, P. (1999). The Scottish criminal jury: A very peculiar institution. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62, 173-201.
14. Ellsworth, P.C. and Mauro, R. (1998). Psychology and law. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske and G. Lindzey (eds), The handbook of social psychology (4th edn; pp. 684-732). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
15. Epstein, L. and Knight, J. (1998). The choices justices make. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
16. Frank, J. (1949). Courts on trial. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
17. Greene, E., Chopra, S., Kovera, M.B., Penrod, S., Rose, V.G., Schuller, R. and Studebaker, C. (2002). Jurors and juries: A review of the field. In J. Ogloff (ed.), Taking psychology and law into the 21st century. New York: Kluwer/Plenum.
18. Greene, E. and Dodge, M. (1995). The influence of prior record evidence on juror decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 67-78.
19. Greene, E. and Loftus, E.F. (1985). When crimes are joined at trial. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 193-207.
20. Gudjonsson, G. (1996). Psychological evidence in court. Psychologist, 9, 213-217.
21. Hans, V.P. and Vidmar, N. (1991). The American jury at twenty-five years. Law and Social Inquiry, 16, 323-351.
22. Hastie, R., Penrod, S.D. and Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23. Hoffman, M.B. (1997). Peremptory challenges should be abolished: A trial judge's perspective. University of Chicago Law Review, 64, 809-871.
24. Howard, J.W., Jr (1968). On the fluidity of judicial choice. American Political Science Review, 62, 43-56.
25. Jackson, J. (1995). Juror decision-making and the trial process. In G. Davies, S. Lloyd-Bostock, M. McMurran and C. Wilson (eds), Psychology, law and criminal justice: International developments in research and practice (pp. 327-336). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
26. Jackson, J. and Doran, S. (1997). Juries and judges: A view from across the Atlantic. Criminal Justice, 15, 15-18.
27. Jackson, J.D., Quinn, K. and O'Malley, T. (1999). The jury system in contemporary Ireland: In the shadow of a troubled past. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62, 203-232.
28. Johnson, C. and Haney, C. (1994). Felony voir dire: An exploratory study of its content and effect. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 487-506.
29. Kalven, H., Jr and Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown.
30. King, N.J. (1994). The effects of race-conscious jury selection on public confidence in the fairness of jury proceedings: An empirical puzzle. American Criminal Law Review, 31, 1177-1201.
31. King, N.J. (1999). The American criminal jury. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62, 41-67.
32. Kluger, R. (1975). Simple justice: The history of Brown v. Board of Education and black America's struggle for equality. New York: Knopf.
33. Lane, B. (1999). Juries untainted by media reports. The Australian, retrieved from the World Wide Web, 12/6/99. (http://www.news.com.au/news content/national content/4109736.htm)
34. Law Commission (1995). Evidence in criminal proceedings: Previous misconduct of a defendant. Consultation Paper No. 141.
35. Lloyd-Bostock, S. (1995). The jury in the United Kingdom: Juries and jury research in context. In G. Davies, S. Lloyd-Bostock, M. McMurran and C. Wilson (eds), Psychology, law and criminal justice: International developments in research and practice (pp. 349-359). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
36. Lloyd-Bostock, S. and Thomas, C. (1999). Decline of the 'little parliament': Juries and jury reform in England and Wales. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62, 7-40.
37. Maltzman, F. and Wahlbeck, P.J. (1996). Strategic policy considerations and voting fluidity on the Burger Court. American Political Science Review, 90, 581-592.
38. Moran, G. and Cutler, B.L. (1991). The prejudicial impact of pretrial publicity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 345-367.
39. Murphy, W.F. (1964). Elements of judicial strategy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
40. Myers, J., Redlich, A., Goodman, G., Prizmich, L. and Imwinkelried, E. (1999). Jurors' perceptions of hearsay in child sexual abuse cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4, 1025-1051.
41. Nagel, S.S. (1962). Judicial background and criminal cases. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 53, 333-339.
42. Nietzel, M.T., McCarthy, D.M. and Kerr, M.J. (1999). Juries: The current state of the empirical literature. In R. Roesch, S.D. Hart and J.R.P. Ogloff (eds), Psychology and law: The state of the discipline (pp. 23-52). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
43. Ogletree, C.J. (1994). Just say no! A proposal to eliminate racially discriminatory uses of peremptory challenges. American Criminal Law Review, 31, 1099-1051.
44. Olczak, P.V., Kaplan, M.F. and Penrod, S. (1991). Attorneys lay psychology and its effectiveness in selecting jurors: Three empirical studies. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 431-452.
45. Pennington, N. (1981). Causal reasoning and decision making: The case for juror decisions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
46. Pennington,N. and Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 242-258.
47. Pennington, N. and Hastie, R. (1988). Explanation-based decision making: Effects of memory structure on judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 521-533.
48. Pritchett, C.H. (1948). The Roosevelt Court: A study in judicial politics and values, 1937-1947. New York: Macmillan.
49. Rowland, C.K. and Carp. R.A. (1996). Politics and judgment in federal district courts. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
50. Scalia, A. (1997). A matter of interpretation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
51. Scottish Office (1994). Juries and verdicts. Edinburgh: HMSO.
52. Segal, J.A. (1984). Predicting Supreme Court cases probabilistically: The search and seizure cases, 1962-1981. American Political Science Review, 78, 891-900.
53. Segal, J.A. and Cover, A.D. (1989). Ideological values and the votes of US Supreme Court justices. American Political Science Review, 83, 557-565.
54. Segal, J.A. and Spaeth, H.J. (1993). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model. New York: Cambridge University Press.
55. Shuman, D. and Champagne, A. (1997). Removing the people from the legal process: The rhetoric and research on judicial selection and juries. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 242-258.
56. Steblay,N.M., Besirevic, J., Fulero, S.M. and Jimenez-Lorente,B. (1999). The effects of pretrial publicity on juror verdicts: A meta-analytic review. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 219-235.
57. Studebaker, C.A. and Penrod, S.D. (1997). Pretrial publicity: The media, the law, and common sense. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 428-460.
58. Thaman, S.C. (1999). Europe's new jury systems: The cases of Spain and Russia. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62, 233-259.
59. Thomas, C. (1996, April 8). Judging. Invited address, School of Law, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.
60. Velasco, P. (1995). The influence of the size and decision rule in jury decision-making. In G. Davies, S. Lloyd-Bostock, M. McMurran and C. Wilson (eds), Psychology, law and criminal justice: International developments in research and practice (pp. 344-348). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
61. Vidmar, N. (1999a). Foreword. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62, 1-15.
62. Vidmar, N. (1999b). The Canadian criminal jury: Searching for a middle ground. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62, 141-172.
63. Wissler, R. and Saks, M. (1985). On the inefficacy of limiting instruction: When jurors use prior conviction evidence to decide on guilt. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 37-48.
64. Wood, S.L. (1996, August). Bargaining and negotiation on the Burger Court. Paper presented at the meetings of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco.
65. Wrightsman, L.S. (1999). Judicial decision making: Is psychology relevant? NewYork: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
66. Zander,M. and Henderson, P. (1993). Crown Court study. Research Study No. 19 for the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice. London: HMSO.