Abstract
One hundred seventy high school seniors were randomly assigned to five juries of each of the following types: 6 members, 12 members, 5 members plus confederate, or 11 members plus confederate. The confederate was trained to argue forcefully for the guilt of the defendant in a fictional case involving a fellow student. The 6- and 12-member juries did not differ in the proportion of guilty verdicts assigned. The 5-member and 11-member juries both yielded in the direction of the assertive confederate; however, the effect was more pronounced in the smaller jury. While there are several limitations of this experiment as an analogue for actual juries, the present results suggest that there may be serious risks in reducing jury size below the traditional panel of 12.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
