The impact of minimal versus extended voir dire and judicial rehabilitation on mock jurors’ decisions in civil cases.

Abstract

Objectives: Three experiments tested the utility of minimal versus extended voir dire questions in predicting mock jurors’ verdicts and damage awards, and whether the biasing impact of their preexisting attitudes on case judgments could be reduced by judicial rehabilitation. Hypotheses: We hypothesized that extended voir dire questions would be more predictive of case judgments than minimal voir dire questions. We hypothesized that judicial rehabilitation would not reduce this impact of preexisting attitudes on case judgments. Method: Across three experiments, each focusing on a different civil case (insurance bad faith, wrongful birth, medical malpractice misdiagnosis), online participants (N=2,041; 62% female; 77% White, 9% African American, 6% Asian/Pacific Islander, 6% Hispanic or Latino/a; Mage=40) were paid Mturk workers. They were randomly assigned to experience (a) no voir dire, minimal voir dire focusing on previous legal experience and self-identification of biases, or extended voir dire focusing on specific attitudes about civil litigation, parties, and laws, before judging the case and (b) no judicial rehabilitation, or judicial rehabilitation. Participants read a civil case, made case judgments, and completed bias awareness measures. Results: Demographic information and minimal voir dire questions did not predict case judgments, but the majority of extended voir dire responses predicted verdicts and damage awards. Judicial rehabilitation did not reduce the biasing impact of their preexisting attitudes on case judgments—but did result in mock jurors reporting that they were less biased, despite judicial rehabilitation not actually reducing their bias. Conclusions: Attorneys need the opportunity during voir dire to ask jurors about specific attitudes that might bias their decisions because relying on jurors’ self-identification of their own biases has little utility. Further, although judicial rehabilitation might make jurors think that they are less biased, it may not actually reduce the impact of their preexisting attitudes on their case decisions. Public interest statement: Contrary to popular belief, juror biases are not likely to be cured by judicial rehabilitation, and might backfire by creating the illusion in jurors that they are unbiased. Although very few mock jurors were able to self-identify things that might bias them when asked general questions in voir dire, they were willing to admit specific attitudes that biased their verdicts and damage awards when asked. Thus, we suggest reducing bias on juries by allowing attorneys to ask specific, detailed voir dire questionnaires crafted by the parties to streamline the jury selection process and remove jurors for cause or via peremptory challenges, rather than relying on “quick fixes”, such as general questions that ask jurors to self-identify their own bias or judicial rehabilitation.