Professor Dr. Leah Sprain of Colorado State University and Professor Dr. John Gastil of Penn State University have published What Does It Mean to Deliberate? An Interpretative Account of Jurors’ Expressed Deliberative Rules and Premises, Communication Quarterly, 61(2), 151-171 (2013).
Here is the abstract:
To advance deliberative theory and practice, this study considers the experiences of trial jurors who engaged in deliberation. Conceptualized as a speech event, this article inductively explores the deliberative rules and premises articulated by jurors. Jurors believe deliberation should be rigorous and democratic, including speaking opportunities for all, open-minded consideration of different views, and respectful listening. Jurors actively consider information, but face-to-face deliberation is essential for thoroughly processing evidence. Although emotions should not influence the final verdict, participants report that emotions often reinforce deliberative norms. These results inform theory and deliberative experiences in and beyond the jury.
Professor Gastil describes the research in his recent post at Jury and Democracy Blog: New article shows how jurors decribe their service experience.
Tags: Communication Quarterly, Deliberative aspect of jury intructions, Deliberative norms in jury instructions, Deliberative quality of jury deliberations, Deliberative rules in jury instructions, Emotion in jury deliberation, Emotion in legal deliberation, Empirical methods in legal communication, Evaluation of jury deliberation, Evaluation of legal communication, Evaluation of legal deliberation, John Gastil, Jurors' legal decisionmaking, Jury and Democracy Blog, Jury deliberation, Jury instructions, Leah Sprain, Legal communication, Legal decision making, Legal deliberation, Norms of jurors' legal decision making, Norms of jury decision making, Norms of jury deliberation, Norms of legal decision making, Norms of legal deliberation, Rules of legal deliberation