Scientific Jury Selection Research Articles

The Utility of Scientific Jury Selection

Many attorneys place considerable importance on the jury selection process. In order to more effectively screen potential jurors, attorneys involved in major litigation frequently hire jury selection consultants. Consultants use a variety of survey and observational approaches based on social science research techniques to conduct scientific jury selection (SJS). Over the past three decades, psychologists have engaged in research that has implications for evaluating the utility of SJS. In some cases, these research endeavors have examined the general relationship between background characteristics of research participants and their inclinations to either convict or acquit a defendant. In other cases, SJS techniques have been studied in actual trials, as well as mock trial simulations. In this article, I review these lines of research and conclude that while SJS may have some utility, methodological flaws associated with existing research prevent clear conclusions from being drawn. There is currently a strong need for high-quality evaluative research studies to be conducted on the SJS approach.

Can Scientific Jury Selection Produce Fair Juries or Just Juries With a Different Bias?

Can Scientific Jury Selection Produce Fair Juries or Just Juries With a Different Bias?

Scientific Jury Selection: Does It Work?

This article describes different methodologies used to predict the likely disposition of jurors in order to guide the exercise of peremptory challenges. The actual use of these methodologies in 27 telephone surveys, 9 focus groups, and 2 studies of jurors after the case was decided is examined. It is concluded that the efficacy of scientific jury selection depends, in part, on the type of case.

Sociologists in action: The McMartin sexual abuse case, litigation, justice, and mass hysteria

This paper describes our involvement as jury consultants in one of the most notorious criminal trials in history—the McMartin child-molestation trial in Los Angeles. The McMartin trial was the longest and costliest criminal trial in American history. The prosecution spent $15 million and took nearly six years in making a criminal case against day-care workers, only to have the jurors declare them not guilty. The defendants in the McMartin trial were charged with molesting young children at a preschool in Manhattan Beach, Los Angeles County, California. In 1987, we had performed scientific defense voir dire jury selection to choose the most impartial jurors to try the two defendants, Raymond Buckey and Peggy Buckey McMartin. In performing scientific jury selection, both a community survey and pre-voir dire questionnaires served as an important empirical foundation to assess jurors’ attitudinal, demographic, and socioeconomic characteristics to develop the effective juror profiles for the trial.

Religiousness, Religious Orientation, and Attitudes Towards Gays and Lesbians1

Two studies are reported that examine the relationships among religiousness, religious orientation, and prejudice toward gays and lesbians. Study 1 reports the results of a survey done for the purposes of scientific jury selection. These results suggest that Baptists, fundamentalists, and “Christians” display more antigay prejudice than do Catholics, Jews, and many Protestant denominations, but even many supporters of gay‐tolerant religions show more antigay prejudice than those claiming no religious preference. Among those with a religious preference, frequency of worship is significantly related to antigay prejudice among those belonging to antigay denominations, but not among those belonging to more gay tolerant religious faiths.Study 2 reports the results of a study of college students regarding religiousness, religious orientation, and prejudice toward gays and lesbians. Results showed that self reported religiousness, frequency of worship, and Batson's internal and external scales were all positively correlated with measures of prejudice toward gays and lesbians, whereas scores on the Quest (Interactional) scale were negatively correlated. Results of both studies strongly challenge the view that those with an intrinsic religious orientation are unprejudiced. It is argued that a social influence process can account for the role played by religious practice and beliefs in creating and maintaining negative attitudes toward gays and lesbians.

Pretrial Publicity and Prospective Jurors: Problems In The Use of Survey Research

Since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a state conviction on the grounds of prejudicial pretrial publicity (Irvin v. Dowd), survey research expertise has become a resource for the defense. This has been especially the case in the use of consultants and their survey products in seeking changes of venue and in scientific jury selection (Nietzel and Dillehay, 1982:41,1; and 1983:4,309). As a result of the increasing acceptance of the use of survey research in legal actions, some scholars and practitioners have expressed concern over its misuse (Goeke, 1984: 1-4; Mamer, 1976: 1101-1133; McCormick, 1982: 879-916). Nietzel and Dillehay (1983: 333-334) and others have emphasized the problems and prospects associated with the use of opinion surveys in support of motions to change venue.

An assessment of the potential utility of “scientific jury selection”: A “thought experiment” approach

The efficacy of “scientific jury selection” (the use of social science methodology to aid the jury selection process) has been a subject of considerable contention. Unfortunately, such issues are difficult to address empirically, especially at the level of jury rather than juror decisions. One means of addressing some of these questions is through the use of “thought experiments” or computer simulations that are based not on intuition or conventional wisdom alone but guided by relevant empirical data. This paper reports the outcomes of simulations that explore jury verdict consequences from the use of scientific jury selection to (a) obtain changes in venue, (b) select jurors, and (c) accomplish both of the preceding. The results indicated that the potential effects of scientific jury selection are strongest when the techniques are successful in bringing about changes of venue or more representative jury panels. Somewhat weaker, albeit still consequential, effects were observed in those instances where scientific jury selection techniques are used to select particular jurors. The psychological and legal implications of these results, and the thought experiment approach in general, are discussed.

Social science involvement in voir dire: Preliminary data on the effectiveness of “scientific jury selection”

AbstractThe validity of what has been termed “scientific” or “systematic” jury selection (SJS) techniques is addressed using data from two actual cases; one criminal and one civil. Data from the highly publicized Joan Little trial indicated that where validity data were available for the survey approach and in‐court rating of authoritarianism, these techniques measured what they purported to measure. Validation data were not available for a third technique—in‐court rating of nonverbal communication. Data from the civil case indicated that the survey approach could successfully predict verdicts of mock jurors. It is concluded that while these data are suggestive of the validity of two of the techniques used in SJS, more rigorous tests are essential before conclusions can be drawn.

American Jury Voir Dire and the Ideal of Equal justice

Two approaches to the minimizing of jury bias have gained attention in recent years. One attempt is to increase the representativeness of juries by developing jury lists that better reflect a cross-section of the community. The second leads to more extensive voir dire examination and the use of what has been called "scientific jury selection." This article focuses upon the second approach—extensive voir dire—and argues that gains in representativeness from expanded jury pools may be lost because citizens are needlessly dismissed from juries during voir dire. This is of particular concern since the small amount of empirical evidence available on the effectiveness of voir dire suggests that it may not be very useful in identifying biased jurors. The article reviews the literature on voir dire, discusses the effects of dismissal on attitudes of jurors, and suggests some topics for research.

The Vagaries and Vulgarities of "Scientific" Jury Selection

Beginning with such famous cases as the Harrisburg conspiracy trial, the use of "scientific" jury selection has gained wide publicity and numerous advocates. Both profit and nonprofit organizations are increasingly offering such services for "good" causes and/or hard cash. Yet no rigorous evaluation of scientific jury selection has ever been undertaken, and impressionistic data on its effectiveness are at best equivocal. In an effort to present a more balanced assessment, this paper undertakes a consciously skeptical examination of the kinds of survey data routinely used to inform the juror- selection process.