Joshua Miller of Morgan State University recently recorded a discussion he orchestrated via GoogleHangout with political scientist Albert Dzur and me (John Gastil).
The interview… runs about 23 minutes and gives you some insight into what Albert and I have been studying, vis-à-vis juries. Tune in for our thoughts on the decline of juries, the structure of American jurisprudence, and the civic role of the jury. My favorite part is where Albert shows I’ve strayed (usefully) away from Tocqueville’s conception of the jury.[...]
Posts Tagged ‘Jurors’ legal decisionmaking’
Here is a selected list of papers on legal informatics or legal communication presented at LSA 2013: Law and Society Association Annual Meeting, held 31 May-2 June 2013, in Boston, Massachusetts, USA. (Click here for the conference program.) (Click here for abstracts of the papers on deliberation.) (If you know of other legal informatics or legal communication papers presented at the conference but not listed here, please feel free to mention them in the comments):
- Janet Ainsworth (Seattle University): Contestation over Knowledge in Courtroom Discourse: The Expert Witness on the Stand
- Stephanie L. Albertson (Indiana University Southeast): The Influence of Jurors’ Race on Perceptions of Complex Scientific Evidence
- Benoit Aubert, Gilbert Babin, and Hamza Aqallal (HEC Montreal): Providing an Architecture Framework for Cyberjustice
- Susan A. Bandes (DePaul University): Victim Impact Evidence and Gruesome Photos: Reconsidering the Probative, the Prejudicial, and the Emotional
- Vanessa Beaton (University of Ottawa): A Missing Link in the Literature: Towards an Interdisciplinary Analysis of Justice Sector Technology
- Rubens Becak, and Joao Victor R Longhi (University of Sao Paulo): The Collaborative Legislative Procedure: Participativity Through the Internet during the Draft Bill Number 2.126/2011, Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet
- Alyse Bertenthal (University of California – Irvine): Law in Translation: The Construction of Legal Narratives
- Josh Blackman (South Texas College of Law, Houston): Robot, Esq.
- Jenny Temechko Braun (University of Virginia): Writing the Terms of Indian Country: Sherrill v. Oneida and Colonial Copyright Narratives
- Clara de Brauw (Athena Insitute, VU University): How Have Recent Changes in Dutch Public Law Affected Opposition Movements Against Policy Decisions? The Case of Public Participation in Land-Use Decision-Making
- Jacquelyn Burkell (University of Western Ontario) and Jane Bailey (University of Ottawa): Implementing Courtroom Technology: The Canadian Perspective
- Ellen S. Cohn, Rick J. Trinkner, and Lindsey Marie Cole (University of New Hampshire): Legitimacy and Normative Status as Mediators between Legal Reasoning and Adolescent Rule-Violating Behavior
- Lindsey Marie Cole and Ellen S. Cohn (University of New Hampshire): Jury Room Reasoning: The Use of Evidence, Counterfactual Thinking, and Emotion in Jury Deliberations
- Marie Comiskey (University of Michigan): A Transnational Approach to Juror Comprehension: Comparing Canadian and American Jury Instructions and Jury Aids
- Robin Conley (Marshall University): Agents of the State: Jurors’ Negotiations of Accountability in Death Penalty Decisions
- Richard Cornes (School of Law, Essex University): Darkness upon the Face of the Earth: The Communications Challenge Facing the United Kingdom’s New Supreme Court
- Yasmin Dawood (University of Toronto): Democracy, Deliberation, and Participation
- Anya Degenshein (Northwestern University): Shared Meaning, Shrouded Legitimacy, and Ruptured Alliances: The Creation of Prosecutorial Power in the Legislative Arena
- Clarissa Diniz Guedes (Law School Federal University of Juiz de Fora): Brazilian Civil Procedure in the Age of Visual Media: A Case-Law Review on Video Evidence
- Gregory Dolin (University of Baltimore): Speaking of Science: Introducing Notice-and-Comment into the Legislative Process
- Laurence Dumoulin (CNRS – ISP): What is “Justice at a Distance”? Spaces, Symbols and Routines in Remote Court Hearing
- Dana D. Dyson, and Kathryn Schellenberg, University of Michigan-Flint: Access to Justice: The Readability of Legal Aid Internet Services
- Neal Feigenson (Quinnipiac University): Opinions Gone Wild: Multimedia Links in Judicial Opinions
- Roberto Freitas Filho (Centro de Ensino Unificado de Brasilia), and Luciana Barbosa Musse (Centro Universitario de Brasilia – UniCEUB): Methodology of Analysis of Decision – MAD
- Masahiro Fujita (Kansai University), and Syugo Hotta (Meiji University): Trust in Legal System in Japan: An Internet Survey
- Nancy Gertner (Harvard law School): The Jury and Social Networking
- Julie Globokar (Kent State University): Narratives and Counter-Narratives Surrounding the Passage of the Federal Probation Act of 1925
- Catherine M. Grosso (Michigan State University): Information Seeking in Voir Dire: Could Modifying Juror Questioning Reduce Jury Selection Racial Disparities
- Branislav Hazucha, Hsiao-Chien Liu, and Toshihide Watabe (Hokkaido University): Copyright, Protection Measures and Their Acceptance by Consumers in Japan
- Syugo Hotta (Meiji University): A Neuroscientific Analysis of Language Used in Japanese Mixed-Jury Trials: Preliminary Study
- Kathleen E. Hull and Penny Edgell (University of Minnesota): Cultural Schemas of Law in Talk about Social Controversies
- Scott Ingram (High Point University), and Jennifer Banks (UTS: Insearch): The Power of the Common Law: Judicial Language in Australia, the UK and the US
- Rafael M. Iorio Filho (Universidade Estcio de S), Fernanda Duarte (Universidade Federal Fluminense): Constitutional Law and Discourse: Representations of Brazilian Legal Culture
- Ross Kleinstuber (University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown), Heather V Zaykowski (University of Massachusetts Boston), and Caitlin McDonough (Umass Boston): Judicial Narratives of Ideal and Deviant Victims in Judges’ Capital Sentencing Decisions
- Janny Leung (University of Hong Kong): Justice According to the Powerless: The Case of Unrepresented Litigation in Hong Kong
- Karen Levy (Princeton University): The Automation of Compliance: Techno-Legal Regulation in the U.S. Trucking Industry
- Wenjie Liao (University of Minnesota): Why Chinese People Obey the Law: A Survey of Legal Compliance
- Mona Lynch (University of California, Irvine): Empathy, Anger and Death: Racialized Emotional Expressions in Mock Capital Jury Deliberations
- Giampiero Lupo (Research Institute on Judicial Systems (IRSIG-CNR) – National Research Council of Italy): Explaining Successes and Failures of E-Justice Services in Europe: The Cases of Money Claim on-Line, Trial Online, e-Barreaux and e-Codex
- David Marrani (University of Essex): Cameras in Courts: Between Voyeurism and Transparency
- Shelby A. McKinzey and Sara Steen (University of Colorado, Boulder): Understanding the Meaning of Evidence in the Use of “Evidence-Based Practices”: Drug Policy Reform in Colorado
- Jesse Merriam (Johns Hopkins University): The Rule of Law as a Language Game: A Wittgensteinian Look at Stare Decisis and Legal Consistency
- Susan Moffitt (Brown University): Making Policy Public: Developing Bureaucratic Administration through Advisory Committee Public Deliberation
- Mami Hiraike Okawara (Takasaki City University of Economics), and Kazuhiko Higuchi (Cosmos Law Firm): A Discourse Analysis of Sakurai’s Confession Statement of the Fukawa Case
- Gregory S. Parks (Wake Forest University): Predicting Racial Bias in Tort Jury Decision Making
- Liana Jean Pennington (Northeastern University): Legal Mobilization, Voice, and the Invocation of Justice Frames within the Juvenile Delinquency Court Process
- Usha Rao (Independent Scholar): Speaking from Somewhere: Locating the Judicial Voice in the Judgment
- Alexander E Reger (University of Connecticut): Discourse and the Law: The Case of Gerald Ford and the Vietnam Amnesty Debates
- Vicente Riccio (Law School Federal University of Juiz de Fora): Brazilian Criminal Procedure in the Age of Visual Media: A Case-Law Review on Video Evidence
- Tanina Rostain (Georgetown Law Center): What are Lawyers Good for?
- Jessica M. Salerno (Arizona State University): How Race, Gender, and Emotion Expression Affect Holdout Jurors’ Influence during Jury Deliberation
- Damien Scalia (University of Geneva): International Criminal Justice: Perception of Legitimacy by the Accused
- Samuel R. Sommers (Tufts University): On Juries, Deliberations, and Racial Diversity
- Simon Stern (University of Toronto): Fictional Origins of the Reasonable Person
- Lupita Svensson (Ersta Skndal University): Welfare and Law Interacting: Utilising a Socio-Legal Text Analysis Model
- Stella Szantova Giordano (Quinnipiac University School of Law): We Have to Get By: Court Interpreting and Its Impact on Access to Justice for Non-Native English Speakers
- Justine Tinkler (University of Georgia) and Sarah Becker (Louisiana State University): “It is Just a Part of Going to Bars”: College Students’ Attitudes about the Legal Regulation of Unwanted Sexual Contact in Public Drinking Settings
- Tom Tyler (Yale University): Values and Law-Related Behavior
- Margaret van Naerssen (Immaculata University): Convincing Judges of Validity Socio-Cultural Issues in Linguistic Analyses
- Elizabeth S. Vartkessian, and Christopher E. Kelly (University at Albany): Capital Improvements? Juror Decision-Making in Texas Death Penalty Trials before and after Penry v. Lynaugh
- Neil Vidmar (Duke University): The Growing Use of Biological Predisposition Evidence and Its Implications for the Jury System
- Richard Weisman (York University): Being and Doing: An Approach to the Social and Legal Regulation of Remorse
- John Zeleznikow (Victoria University), and Pompeu Casanovas (Autonomous University of Barcelona): Online Dispute Resolution and Models of Relational Law and Justice
For abstracts of papers, please search the conference program. For full text of papers, please contact the authors.
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.
Many papers on legal communication were presented at NCA 2012: The 98th Annual Convention of the National Communication Association, held November 15-18, 2012 in Orlando, Florida, USA. Here is a list of those I could identify. For abstracts and full text, please contact the authors. (If you know of other papers on legal communication presented at NCA 2012, please feel free to identify them in the comments to this post. Click here for the complete NCA 2012 program.)
- Daniel Bergan and Richard T. Cole, Michigan State University: Call Your Legislator: The Impact of Citizen Contacts on Legislative Voting
- Mike Bergmaier, Penn State University: From Miscegenation to Contemporary Marriage Equality: Marriage as a Function of Ideological State Apparatuses
- Lacey Brown, University of West Florida, Chair: Panel: Trayvon Martin and COMMunity: Exploring the Interpretive Frames of the “Stand Your Ground” Law in Shaping 21st Century American Communities
- Kathryn A. Cady and Kerith M. Woodyard, Northern Illinois University: All the Working Woman’s Friends: Protective Labor Legislation and the Early ERA Controversy
- Peter Odell Campbell, Univ of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: The Abject of Community: The Majoritarian ‘Fourth Persona’ in U.S. Equality Rhetoric
- Kelly Carr, University of Baltimore: Inventing Continuity While Enacting Change: The Supreme Court Opinion Writing Process
- Michael S. Chouinard, Florida State University: Judge or Activist? Vaughn Walker and the Overturning of Proposition 8
- Hayley Jeanne Cole, Univ of Missouri, Columbia: Same Sex Marriage Ads: Don’t Mention It: A Content Analysis of the No on Prop 8 Ads
- Josh Compton and Paul Klaas, Dartmouth College: Oh, the Places Legal Rhetoric can Go: Prosecuting and Defending Characters of Dr. Seuss’s Bartholomew and the Oobleck
- Christopher R. Darr, Indiana Univ, Kokomo, and Harry C. Strine IV, Bloomsburg University: Partisanship, Ideology and Advice and Consent: A Content Analysis of Incivility in Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings
- Daniel Emery, University of Oklahoma: Property Crimes: Castle Laws, the 2008 Mortgage Crisis, and Privatization of Public Space
- Jerri Faris, Purdue University: Celebrating COMMunity with Ex-prisoners: Engaged Communication Scholarship in a Reentry Court
- Ryan P. Fuller, Univ of California, Santa Barbara: Agenda Denial Strategies in Regulating Vertical Integration: The Case of California SB 1765
- Joshua Gonzalez, University of Iowa: Undignified: Poverty and Personhood in the 1996 Welfare Reform Debates
- Nichola Gutgold, Penn State Univ, Lehigh Valley: The Enactment Rhetoric of Ruth Bader Ginsburg
- Leslie J. Harris, Univ of Wisconsin, Milwaukee: Spousal Correction or Spousal Cruelty? The Rhetoric of Nineteenth-Century Domestic Violence
- Amy Hasinoff, McGill University: Social Media and Sexuality: The Missing Discourse of Consent in New Sexting Legislation
- Erik Jimenez, California State University, Los Angeles: Are You a Mexican? Investigating the Devastating Implications of Alabama’s Hammon-Beason (HB) 56
- Katherine R. Knobloch, University of Washington, and John W. Gastil, Penn State University: Civic (Re)Socialization: The Educative Effects of Deliberative Participation
- Jeff Kurr, Baylor University: President Obama’s Rhetorical Pivot in Avoiding the Detainment of Deliberation over Closing the Detention Facilities at Guantanamo Bay
- Derek Lackaff, Elon University: Open Governance Experiments in the Icelandic Context
- Owen H. Lynch, Southern Methodist University: Lowering the Bar or the Important Role of Humor in The Legal Community
- Carol L. Mammel, University of the Fraser Valley: The Osoyoos Indian Band, Canadian Wildlife Service, and the Species at Risk Act: Lack of consultation, and perpetuation of underdevelopment on reserves
- Bryan J. McCann, Wayne State Univ: Between Thugs and Innocents: Racialized Violence and the Perogative of ‘Self Defense’ in the Trayvon Martin Case
- Robert Mills, Northwestern University: The Harmonious Vocalics of Judicial Unanimity: Authorship and Legitimacy in Cooper v. Aaron
- Jay Reynolds Patterson, Georgia State University: Contemporary Legal Discourse and the Graeco-Roman Tradition: The 2009 OJ Simpson Kidnapping Trial
- Carlo A. Pedrioli, Barry University: Constructing Modern-day U.S. Legal Education through Rhetoric: Langdell, Ames, and the Scholar Model of the Law Professor Persona
- Preconference: Reading the Rhetoric of Civil Rights Sit-Ins
- Alessandra Renzi, Ryerson University: Get Out of My Park: Occupying Discourse on Public Use
- Robert Richards, Penn State University: Legal Narrative in the Citizens’ Panel: Identifying Theories to Explain Storytelling in a Small Group Deliberation about Ballot Initiatives
- Brandi Dale Rogers, University of Wisconsin, Madison: Science, Law, and the Argumentative Antecedents of Fetal Personhood: A Rhetorical Analysis of Early Prenatal Torts
- Clarke Rountree, University of Alabama, Huntsville: Reversing Course: Supreme Court Overruling in an Early Admiralty Case
- Clariza Ruiz De Castilla, University of Texas, Austin: Citizenship in the Sunshine State: Florida News Coverage on Arizona’s SB 1070
- Kristina Ruiz-Mesa, Univ of Colorado, Boulder: COMMunities of Practice and Discourses of a DREAM: How Congress and Fox News Represent ‘Others’ within the DREAM Act
- Susan H. Sarapin, Troy University: Forget about It! The Ironic Effects of Instructions to Disregard Perry, Ben, Gil, and Ducky
- Susan H. Sarapin, Troy University: Toward a Causal Explanation of ‘The CSI Effect’: Self-efficacy as Mediator between Fictional Crime-TV Exposure and Verdict Certainty
- Joseph Sery, University of San Francisco: ‘Fruit from the Poisonous Tree’: The Rhetorical Strategy behind Mapp v. Ohio
- Rohini Singh, Univ of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: Turning the Tables: Refutation by Reversal in Clarence Darrow’s Plea for Leopold and Loeb
- Jeff Swift, North Carolina State University: The Invisible Hand of the Speech Marketplace: The Supreme Court’s Currency Manipulation
- Elycia M. Taylor, Catherine Knight Steele, and Emilie Lucchesi, University of Illinois, Chicago: Protective or Oppressive? Analyzing Death Penalty Framing
- Dave Tell, University of Kansas, and Eric C. Miller, Penn State University: Rhetoric and Judicial Activism: The Case of Hillary Goodridge v. Department of Public Health
- Mary Lynn L. Veden, Univ of Arkansas, Fayetteville: The Alchemy and Antirrhetic of West Coast Hotel v. Parrish
- Rachel Avon A. Whidden, Lake Forest College: Proving Science in Court: Vaccine Injury Payouts and the Legitimization of the MMR-Autism Connection
In this post, Professor Gastil comments on several aspects of the jury deliberation in the criminal trial of Jerry Sandusky.
First, Professor Gastil observes that the Sandusky jury appears to have been “evidence-driven” rather than “verdict-driven.” He writes:
The Sandusky jury appeared to consider the evidence carefully. They took a full 20 hours to deliberate, and they reviewed specific testimony, presumably to discuss points of uncertainty or disagreement.
In addition, Professor Gastil notes that the large number of counts considered by the jury will likely increase the civic impact of the jurors’ deliberative experience. He writes:
Our research [reported in the book The Jury and Democracy (Oxford University Press, 2010)] found that the more charges in a criminal case, the larger the impact of deliberation on one’s future participation in public life (e.g., voting). The effect appeared to come from the sheer deliberative load–the number of separate judgments you had to make, each time holding a person’s fate–often even their freedom–in your hands.
Professor Gastil further discusses the significance of the apparently successful sequestration of the jury and the tension between the jury’s obligations to apply the legal standard of culpability and the public’s perceptions of culpability.
For more information, please see the complete post.
Professor Dr. John Gastil of the Penn State University Department of Communication Arts and Sciences has posted When a hung jury is a reasoned “verdict”: The John Edwards trial, at Jury and Democracy.
Professor Gastil argues that, in retrospect, the jurors appear to have acted rationally in crediting Edwards’s “personal explanation” over the government’s political explanation for the donations at issue.
Professor Gastil observes:
The judge gave the jury a task even trained social scientists couldn’t handle–the reading of intentions in a situation fraught with ambiguity.
For more information, please see the complete post.
Professor Dr. Anthony Gray and Eola Barnett, LLB, both of the University of Southern Queensland School of Law, have published Sustainable Juries: Thinking Outside Peer Jury Criminal Trials, 20 Journal of Judicial Administration 18-38 (July 2010) (Issue No. 1). Here is the abstract:
Debate continues about the efficacy of the continued use of juries in courts, and recent years have seen a reduction (in Australia) in the occasions on which a jury is used in criminal trials, as well as the abolition of the requirement for unanimity. On the other hand, the use of juries has a long history dating prior to the Magna Carta, and is of great historical importance in terms of American independence. Significant research indicates that public confidence in and perceptions of the criminal justice system improve when a citizen has contact with the legal system through jury service, and there is something seen as inherently right in having a person in a society being judged by their peers.
This article focuses on weaknesses with the jury system as currently utilised, including evidence that jurors sometimes do not understand fundamental legal principles like beyond reasonable doubt, that contrary to the ideal, jurors may not in fact represent a true cross-section of society and are ‘chosen’ by the process for questionable purposes often unrelated to their ability to understand the evidence, that evidence is sometimes extremely complex, and that sometimes jurors decide cases on surprising grounds. While these findings might suggest possible reform in terms of jury selection, judicial directions to juries, and juror education, the main conclusion drawn in this article is that, at least in some cases, courts should consider the use of ‘specialist juries’, in other words citizens with particular training or expertise in relevant areas, to assist in making sure that the ‘quality’ of jury deliberations is as high as possible.
For the full text of the article, please contact the authors.
Thanks to the authors for providing the abstract.
Daftary-Kapur et al. on Measuring Knowledge of the Insanity Defense: Scale Construction and ValidationJune 11, 2010
Dr. Tarika Daftary-Kapur of the Vera Institute of Justice, and colleagues, have published Measuring Knowledge of the Insanity Defense: Scale Construction and Validation, forthcoming in Behavioral Sciences and the Law. Here is the abstract:
Given the influence of social conformity and prejudice, defendants pleading not guilty by reason of insanity face the significant challenges of securing fair and impartial juries. Attitudes and knowledge of the insanity defense are factors that may influence levels of impartiality. In the light of this, we set out to develop a scale to examine knowledge levels of the insanity defense and their influence on decision-making. Two studies were conducted to construct a scale designed to assess laypersons’ knowledge of the insanity defense. Items measuring knowledge of the insanity defense were based on Perlin’s (1995) insanity defense myths. The first study identified particular items in need of revision and subscales that required the development of additional items in order to improve reliability and construct validity in the second study. The second study used the revised scale, demonstrating improved validity and reliability. The scale also had acceptable predictive validity with reference to insanity defense verdicts.
Lisa L. Smith, BSc., MSc., MFSSoc., of the University of Leicester School of Psychology presented a paper entitled Identifying and Measuring Juror Bias About Forensic Science Evidence, at Jury Research Symposium 2010, held 25-26 March 2010 in Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
Here is the abstract:
This series of mock jury studies has investigated the process of juror decision making about the probative value of different types of forensic evidence (e.g. DNA, fingerprints, etc.). The findings suggest that there is widespread agreement among mock jurors about the usefulness of forensic evidence that has very high probative value[;] however evidence of a weak or moderate standard produces significant disagreement among jurors regarding its usefulness in determining the guilt of a defendant. An Interactionist model of jury decision making would predict that in cases where evidence is weak or ambiguous individual jurors’ pre‐trial beliefs and opinions will have a greater impact on the decision making process. The Forensic Evidence Evaluation Bias Scale (FEEBS) was developed to determine whether a pre‐trial bias related to perceptions of forensic evidence could be measured, and the scale’s ability to predict judgments about evidence and verdicts was investigated. A factor analysis of the FEEBS revealed that participants could be conceptualised as having either a pro‐prosecution or pro‐defence bias concerning forensic evidence. This presentation will discuss these findings in relation to the recent attention given to anecdotal reports of a ‘CSI Effect’ as well as the implications that this bias has on verdict decisions both within the current research and in the courtroom.
For the full text of the paper, please contact the author.