Jury Experience Research Articles

Machine Advice with a Warning about Machine Limitations: Experimentally Testing the Solution Mandated by the Wisconsin Supreme Court

Abstract The Wisconsin Supreme Court allows machine advice in the courtroom only if accompanied by a series of warnings. We test 878 US lay participants with jury experience on fifty past cases where we know ground truth. The warnings affect their estimates of the likelihood of recidivism and their confidence, but not their decision whether to grant bail. Participants do not get better at identifying defendants who recidivated during the next two years. Results are essentially the same if participants are warned in easily accessible language, and if they are additionally informed about the low accuracy of machine predictions. The decision to grant bail is also unaffected by the warnings mandated by the Supreme Court if participants do not first decide without knowing the machine prediction. Oversampling cases where defendants committed violent crime does not change results either, whether coupled with machine predictions for general or for violent crime. Giving participants feedback and incentivizing them for finding ground truth has a small, weakly significant effect. The effect becomes significant at conventional levels when additionally using strong graphical warnings. Then participants are less likely to follow the advice. But the effect is counterproductive: they follow the advice less if it actually is closer to ground truth.

Path Dependency in Jury Decision Making

Abstract A large behavioral economics literature is concerned with cognitive biases in individual and group decisions, including sequential decisions. These studies often find a negative path-dependency consistent with mechanisms such as the gambler's fallacy or contrast effects. We provide the first test for such biases in group decision making using observational data. Specifically, we study more than 27,000 verdicts adjudicated sequentially by over 900 juries for high-stake criminal cases at London's Old Bailey Criminal Court in the 18th and 19th centuries. Using jury fixed effects to account for heterogeneity in their baseline propensity to convict, we find that a previous guilty verdict significantly increases the chance of a subsequent guilty verdict by 6.7%–14.1%. This positive autocorrelation is robust to alternative estimation strategies, independent of jury experience and driven by the most recent lag and pairs of similar cases. Such positive path dependency may be explained by sequential assimilation effects, which may reflect a jury's desire to be internally consistent, and short-term “emotional” impacts of the characteristics and/or outcome of one case on another. As in modern-day jury studies, our results highlight that factors independent of the facts and evidence of the current case might affect jury behavior.

The impact of jury experience on perception of the criminal prosecution system

The present study tested the impact of jury experience on citizens' perceptions of the criminal prosecution system. Based on deliberative democratic theory which predicts the beneficial impact of jury experience on citizen-jurors’ confidence and knowledge in law and the justice system, it was hypothesized that jury experience would be associated with favorable impression of the criminal prosecution system and that jury experience would have a positive impact on citizens' perceived knowledge of the criminal prosecution system. The present study through analyzing data collected by the American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI), examined the effect of jury experience (versus no jury experience) on perceptions of the criminal prosecution system. Results show that jury experience positively influences citizen-jurors’ impression and perceived knowledge of the criminal prosecution, supporting an attitudinal and educational impact of jury experience. Potential limitations of the study and policy implications are discussed.

The impact of victim participation in Saiban-in trials in Japan: Insights from the American jury experience

The introduction of new lay participation systems such as those in Japan has much to teach scholars of lay adjudication. The Japanese experience with lay participation can offer fresh scientific insights into the role of lay persons as legal decision makers. Many other jury and mixed tribunal systems are generations or even centuries old, making it difficult to identify their effects. Because Saiban-in seido is a new system with unique characteristics, its immediate and long-term effects can be studied. One important new feature of the Saiban-in seido system is that victims of crime can participate in significant ways in criminal trials (Goto, 2013; Saeki, 2010). Therefore, studying the impact of Saiban-in seido has the potential to add to our knowledge about the best methods for incorporating lay decision makers as well as to provide

Editorial

Editorial Sylvia Vardell (bio) and Catherine Kurkjian (bio) Dear Bookbird Readers, This issue highlights the 2010 winning illustrator and author of the Hans Christian Andersen Award along with the four authors and four illustrators who are finalists for this prestigious award. Every other year IBBY presents the Hans Christian Andersen Award to a living author and illustrator whose complete works have made a lasting contribution to literature for young people. National sections of IBBY make the nominations, and a distinguished international jury of children’s literature specialists selects the recipients. This year’s jury, chaired by Zohreh Ghaeni, selected from among 55 candidates that were submitted by 32 national sections. Ten finalists were shortlisted, including five nominees for the author award and five nominees for the illustrator award. One winner was selected from among the group of writers and one from among the group of illustrators. This year’s five author finalists were David Almond (United Kingdom), Ahmad Reza Ahmadi (Iran), Bartolomeu Campos de Queirós (Brazil), Lennart Hellsing (Sweden), and Louis Jensen (Denmark). The five illustrator finalists were Jutta Bauer (Germany), Carll Cneut (Belgium), Etienne Delessert (Switzerland), Svjetlan Junakóvić (Croatia), and Roger Mello (Brazil). David Almond from the United Kingdom was selected as the winning author and Jutta Bauer from Germany was selected as the winning illustrator. In this issue our readers will learn more about the body of work of the winners and finalists, as well as gain insights from behind-the-scenes of the evaluation process. The first set of articles focuses on the winners. First off, we learn about the winning author David [End Page ii] Almond in Nolan Dalrymple’s insightful article about the role of magical realism and the darker side of life in Almond’s writing for young people observing that “young characters must learn to navigate via their sense of the mystical and creative rather than the rational and knowable.” Next, Mareile Oetken paints a picture of Jutta Bauer, the winning illustrator, as an artist who infuses joy, humor, optimism, and her own real life experiences into her work. Oetken eloquently notes that Jutta Bauer’s art can sometimes be a reflection of “the seismographic record of the roads and by-ways taken…” in her own life. Bauer is portrayed as someone who is not content to establish herself as a “visual trademark,” but instead is courageously open to change and experimentation. The next trio of articles describes the art of the finalists and the complex process by which they were selected. In the first piece, A glimpse into the process of a hard decision: Selecting the Andersen author finalists, Hans Christian Andersen juror Helene Schär depicts the difficult issues involved in winnowing down the author nominees to five finalists and then selecting just one winner. She brings to light a variety of multifaceted political, societal, and economic factors that come into play and argues that all five finalists met the criteria as winner, but in the end, only one could be chosen. Schär argues for the expansion of the IBBY Honor List by privileging both quality and diversity. Less controversial, but just as interesting is Annemie Leysen’s Four impressive nominees: Analyzing the Andersen illustrator finalists. In this piece, Leysen systematically describes the illustrations of Carll Cneut (Belgium/Flanders), Etienne Delessert (Switzerland), Svjetlan Junakóvić (Croatia), and Roger Mello (Brazil). Leysen etches precise descriptions of the finalists’ works and compels the reader to seek out the art included in each of the described books. The last in this trio of articles is written by Jury President, Zohreh Ghaeni. In “Not letting the words lose themselves:” The Hans Christian Andersen Jury experience, she outlines how the jury deliberated via blog in an open forum for nine months prior to the selection of the finalists. She notes that the casting of votes was not merely an arithmetical exercise, but the result of nine months of deliberate discussion. In this article, Ghaeni highlights what captured the juror’s imagination about the finalists and conveys the daunting task and mitigating concerns that framed the discussions and final selections. Finally, the last two articles veer from a focus on the Hans Christian Andersen...

“Not letting the words lose themselves;”: The Hans Christian Andersen Jury experience

Jury President Ghaeni shares the behind-the-scenes story of the 2010 Andersen Jury’s process, including identifying criteria, using an interactive blog, considering cultural variables, and weighing the notion of a lasting contribution.

Comparative Analysis of Popular Legal Participation in Japan and the U.S.: Differential Perceptions of Actual Jurors and College Students on the System of Lay Participation in Law*

This paper presents comparative analyses of societal impacts of civic legal participation in Japan and the U.S. In 2001, the Japanese government announced the introduction of the quasi‐jury system, called ‘'Saiban‐in Seido,’’ which begins its first trial in 2009.2 Research, limited mostly to the analysis of American juries, has demonstrated that civic legal participation is effective in democratizing the criminal process and building broader public confidence in the system of justice. At present, Japan relies on a grand jury system called ‘'kensatsu shinsa‐kai,’’ also known as the Prosecutorial Review Commission (PRC). The commission consists of eleven citizens, randomly selected from voter rolls in local jurisdictions, and reviews the appropriateness of prosecutors’ decisions not to indict. The data for the present research was collected from more than 200 individuals who have served in these commissions. They were asked about their experiences and views on Japanese legal procedures. Additional surveys were conducted of more than 2,500 prospective jurors at the Dallas County Courthouse in Texas in March and April, 2006. Furthermore, both Japanese and American college students were asked to respond to the same questions concerning lay participation in the justice system. Analytic findings suggest that both Japanese and American respondents with prior jury experience exhibited a heightened sense of civic responsibility, greater feelings of trust toward government agencies, and a greater sense of community identity and self‐efficacy. Lastly, the paper provides important suggestions to build an effective system of civic lay participation in Japan, as well as in other nations.

Legitimating Criminal Justice through Community Engagement: Lessons from the Jury Experience

Fundamentally justifying the jury is the opportunity it provides for community participation in criminal justice and the legitimation function that offers. Indeed, a strong political motivation for the recent introduction of jury trial in several transitional jurisdictions is the public confidence it transfers to the system at large. Recent research on juror comprehension and satisfaction suggests the possibility of interrogating the participation/confidence nexus more intricately. This note argues that it is the quality of the participation and the participant satisfaction which eventuates that predicts juror confidence. Where the legitimacy of criminal justice through juror participation is to be maximised then the factors effecting satisfaction and confidence are influential variables.

Assessing the Difference Critique of Deliberation: Gender, Emotion, and the Jury Experience

Despite increasing enthusiasm for political deliberation as a rejuvenating tonic for representative democracy, some theorists question the extent to which deliberative forums adequately incorporate diverse individuals and communication styles. Unfortunately, the theoretical debate between the deliberative theory and the “difference critique” has reached an impasse. To advance this important literature, we derive two formal propositions from each perspective and test these rival claims in the context of the jury system, the most prominent institutionalized deliberative practice in the United States. Surveys of over 3,000 jurors who served in local courthouses indicate that gender and other demographic differences are poor predictors of jurors’ satisfaction with their service experience, including their perceptions of deliberation. The study also shows that emotion—a dimension of deliberative experience presumed to be gendered—is important for both men and women. On balance, the results call into question the power of the difference critique, at least in the context of modern jury deliberation.

From Group Member to Democratic Citizen: How Deliberating with Fellow Jurors Reshapes Civic Attitudes

This investigation assesses the attitudinal impact of one of America’s most distinctive and famous group activities—jury deliberation. Tocqueville and the U.S. Supreme Court have both reasoned that jury service can promote civic engagement and recent research supports this view. The present study examines whether the attitudinal impact of jury deliberation depends on the quality of one’s jury experience. Two panel surveys of 2,410 total jurors tested the reciprocal relationship between the subjective experience of deliberation and the changes in civic attitudes toward oneself, fellow citizens, and public institutions. Principal results of structural equation models showed multiple effects of jury deliberation on attitudes, but there were no effects on one’s civic identity and political self-efficacy. Reciprocally, every civic attitude except faith in fellow citizens was predictive of deliberative experience in at least one of the two studies. Overall, the study bolsters the claim of deliberative democratic theorists that the experience of consequential face-to-face talk can make private individuals into public citizens by reinforcing their confidence in fellow citizens and public institutions.

Jury Decision Making: Using Group Theory to Improve Deliberation

Jury decision‐making process is usually protected from the prying eyes of the public and social scientists. Our knowledge of the experience comes mainly from mock juries, post‐verdict interviews, and occasional television documentaries. These methods have their limitations. Information about juries is currently driven by those few notorious trials, both criminal and civil, that attract high media attention. Unfortunately, that attention invites challenges to the ability of juries to make complex decisions and undermines the entire jury process. Group theory describes five special characteristics of successful group decision making: small size, purpose, identification, interaction, and accepted behavior. The author advocates that an understanding of group theory can help court officials improve the jury deliberation process by moving the deliberations to a higher level of reasoning and, consequently, improve the jury experience, the overall quality of jury decisions, and the public’s faith in those decisions. Specific suggestions for change are also included. No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. —Magna Carta (1215)

Jury Service as an Invitation to Citizenship: Assessing the Civic Value of Institutionalized Deliberation

When considering the merits of deliberative democracy, it is important to look into the experience of the American jury system. The jury has demonstrated the potential for citizen deliberation to play a central role in longstanding governmental institutions, but it has also played an unrecognized role in promoting civic engagement. Building on previous research demonstrating how jury service spurs increased electoral participation after jury service, we present results from a three‐wave panel survey that show that a subjectively rewarding jury experience can spur broader civic engagement beyond voting. Given the value of the jury as both a model of deliberation and an engine of civic spirit, we consider the potential value of creating citizen juries to improve the initiative process, which currently lacks the citizen deliberation that is essential for any effective direct democratic processes.

Jury Service as an Invitation to Citizenship: Assessing the Civic Value of Institutionalized Deliberation

When considering the merits of deliberative democracy, it is important to look to the experience of the American jury system. The jury has demonstrated the potential for citizen deliberation to play a central role in longstanding governmental institutions, but it has also played an unrecognized role in promoting civic engagement. Building on previous research demonstrating how jury service spurs increased electoral participation after jury service, we present results from a three-wave panel survey that show that a subjectively rewarding jury experience can spur broader civic engagement beyond voting. Given the value of the jury as both a model of deliberation and an engine of civic spirit, we consider the potential value of creating citizen juries to improve the initiative process, which currently lacks the citizen deliberation that is essential for any effective direct democratic processes.

Judging jury service: results of the North Carolina administrative office of the courts juror survey.

This study examined venirepersons' and jurors' levels of satisfaction with jury service. Surveys were distributed to all persons who reported for state court jury service during two one-week periods in each North Carolina county. Questions concerned satisfaction with various aspects of jury service, the effects of service, hardships experienced, details of and reactions to cases heard, and basic demographic information. Responses were obtained from 82 of the 100 counties and 4,654 venirepersons (of whom 1,478 served as jurors). Consistent with prior research on juror experiences, results generally revealed high levels of satisfaction and positive opinions about various aspects of jury service. Service did not influence opinions about the courts for most respondents, and those whose opinions changed tended to become more positive about jury service. Suggestions for future research emphasize giving higher priority to publishing unpublished research on jury experience, explaining the high satisfaction levels observed in samples of jurors, and examining the impact of trial reform on juror satisfaction levels.

USING A JURY SIMULATION AS A CLASSROOM EXERCISE

The authors' empirical research project considers the effects of differences in actual legal rules on jury decisions and, concurrently, gives business students the opportunity to participate in a realistic jury experience. The project uses actual trial evidence to produce a videotaped simulated trial presentation thereby insuring that the testimony, legal arguments, jury instructions and facts are realistic. To date, approximately 2,000 business students have participated in the simulation, under the supervision of 13 different Academy members at 11 different universities. This article describes the project and its curricular benefits within the context of an introductory course in law.

Perceptions of jury duty: Satisfaction and overall impression

A jury service exit questionnaire that was designed to measure satisfaction with and overall impression of jury duty was administered to a saturation sample of 2,947 respondents by court clerks serving District or Circuit courts in nine counties in southeastern Michigan. For those sworn to jury duty, global satisfaction with the jury experience is found to be influenced by perceptions of trial characteristics and by the extent of participation in the jury system. The significant predictors of overall impression with the jury system are respondent age, being elected jury foreman, and deliberating a criminal rather than civil case.

The Impact of Case Characteristics and Prior Jury Experience on Jury Verdicts1

An archival analysis of records from 206 criminal cases was used to evaluate the impact of personal and situational factors on jury verdicts. In particular, we evaluated whether repeated jury service produced bias in jurors that was sufficient to affect jury decisions. A variety of case characteristics and indices of prior jury experience was examined for their relative impact on trial outcomes. Several of the case characteristics were related to verdicts, but the personal characteristics were not. Although more than half of the juries contained experienced jurors, juror experience had little influence on verdicts in either major or subsidiary analyses. However, there was a slight tendency for small juries with large proportions of experienced jurors to convict. This result is consistent with data from Kentucky; a meta‐analysis across the two data sets indicates that it is a reliable finding. The results have implications for the determination of jury size. We suggest that future research examine the possibility that increasing jury size may reduce the influence of an individual's bias by providing a balance of other jurors with no or offsetting biases.

Juror experience and jury verdicts.

Most trial attorneys believe that repeated jury service produces several effects in jurors, one of the most important of which is an increased disposition toward conviction of criminal defendants. However, case law reveals a reluctance to accept the proposition that prior service per se would disquality a juror from sitting on an instant case because of actual or implied bias. The need for direct empirical investigation of the effects of prior jury service prompted the present study, which examined a complete docket of 175 consecutive criminal trials across onecalendar year in a state circuit court which required a 30-day term of its venire. The results indicated that as the number of jurors with prior jury experience increased there was a modest, but significant, increase in the probability of a conviction. Analysis of the relationship between initial verdicts and subsequent service disconfirmed the alternative hypothesis that attorneys deselected jurors on the basis of their first verdicts. Several parameters of experience were also related to foreperson selection. Implications for legal practice and for additional research are discussed.

Jury size and jury verdicts

The analysis of jury size and jury verdicts in criminal m a t t e r s now has along , though interrupted , history . Work In this subject in the 18th and 19th centuries by Condorcet arid Laplace is discussed and the Poisson model of the 1830's is highighted . The latter is modified t o analyze the America1 jury experience of the 20th century. Recent U. S. Supreme Court decis on sin the 1970's on jury size and jury decisiol - making have created a resurgence of interest especially on a comparison of six member and twelve member juries . Some comparisons of size in terms of probabilities of errors invericts are presented.

The Effect of Jury Experience on Jury Verdicts

This study considers the hypothesis that juries with more experience are more likely to convict a defendant than less experienced juries are. The theory, which has wide support among prosecutors and defense attorneys, is tested by taking all the jury trials in the Sixth Judicial District in Arkansas for the years 1978 and 1979, identifying juries with greater experience and those with less experience during those two years, and using statistical analysis to determine the strength of the relationship. The results indicate that the theory is not statistically supported. An additional analysis was completed to determine if a relationship exists between jury experience and severity of sentence. This theory also could not be supported by the statistical data. The conclusion is reached that no relationship exists between jury experience and jury verdicts, but it is acknowledged that manipulation of the cases, which come before the various juries may skew the results of the statistical analysis.