Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T12:52:20.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jurors are competent cue-takers: how institutions substitute for legal sophistication1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2007

Cheryl Boudreau
Cheryl Boudreau*
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego, Department of Political Science
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What conditions are necessary for juries to work effectively? Legal scholars and social scientists have debated this question, and research in psychology and law demonstrates that jurors are easily confused by scientific evidence and readily swayed by the slick framing of argument. Rather than condemn juries as unworkable, however, I demonstrate experimentally that jurors need not possess legal or scientific sophistication to make reasoned choices during trials. Specifically, I demonstrate that various institutions embedded in our legal system (such as penalties for lying and the threat of verification) can substitute for sophistication and enable even unsophisticated individuals to learn what they need to know. Based on these findings, I argue that rather than advocate blue ribbon juries and bench trials as replacements for citizen juries, scholars should instead seek substitutes for jurors’ lack of sophistication in the institutions of our legal system.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Law in Context , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , September 2006 , pp. 293 - 304
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Austen-Smith, David (1994) ‘Strategic Transmission of Costly Information’, Econometrica 62: 955–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blom-Cooper, Louis Sir (2003) ‘A Judge Can Do the Work of 12 Amateurs, and Better’, The Times, 21 October, p. 10.Google Scholar
Boudreau, Cheryl (2006) ‘When do Heuristics Help Citizens? Assessing the Conditions under which Heuristics Improve Decisions’, Working paper, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Cecil, Joe S., Hans, Valerie P. and Wiggins, Elizabeth C. (1991) ‘Citizen Comprehension of Difficult Issues: Lessons from Civil Jury Trials’, American University Law Review 40: 727–74.Google Scholar
Cecil, Joe S., Lind, E. Allan and Bermant, Gordon (1987) Jury Service in Lengthy Civil Trials. Washington DC: Federal Judicial Center.Google Scholar
Chaiken, Shelly (1980) ‘Heuristic versus Systematic Information Processing and the Use of Source versus Message Cues in Persuasion’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39: 752–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, Joel, Bennett, Elizabeth A. and Sukel, Holly L. (1996) ‘Complex Scientific Testimony: How Do Jurors Make Decisions?’ Law and Human Behavior 20: 379–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, Vincent and Sobel, Joel (1982) ‘Strategic Information Transmission’, Econometrica 50: 1431–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N. (2001) ‘On The Limits Of Framing Effects: Who Can Frame?’, Journal of Politics 63: 1041–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elwork, Amiram, Sales, Bruce D. and Alfini, James J. (1977) ‘Juridic Decisions: In Ignorance of the Law or in Light of it?’ Law and Human Behavior 1: 163–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Michael A. (2000–2001) ‘Going for the Blue Ribbon: The Legality of Expert Juries in Patent Litigation’, Columbia Science and Technical Law Review 2: 1–55.Google Scholar
Frank, Jerome (1945) Courts on Trial: Myth and Reality in American Justice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hass, R. Glen (1981) ‘Effects of Source Characteristics on Cognitive Responses and Persuasion’ in Petty, R. E., Ostrom, T. M. and Brock, T. C. (eds.) Cognitive Responses in Persuasion. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, pp. 141–72.Google Scholar
Hastie, Reid and Viscusi, W. Kip (1998) ‘What Juries Can’t Do Well: The Jury’s Performance as a Risk Manager’, Arizona Law Review 40: 901–21.Google Scholar
Hastie, Reid, Penrod, Steven D. and Pennington, Nancy (1983) Inside the Jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hovland, Carl I. and Weiss, Walter (1951) ‘The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness’, Public Opinion Quarterly 15: 635–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalven, Harry Jr. and Zeisel, Hans (1966) The American Jury. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Kuklinski, James H., Quirk, Paul J., Jerit, Jennifer and Rich, Robert F. (2001) ‘The Political Environment and Citizen Competence’, American Journal of Political Science 45: 410–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lempert, Richard O. (1981) ‘Civil Juries and Complex Cases: Let’s Not Rush to Judgment’, Michigan Law Review, 80: 68–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lilly, Graham C. (2001) ‘The Decline of the American Jury’, University of Colorado Law Review 72: 53–91.Google Scholar
Lupia, Arthur and McCubbins, Mathew D. (1998) The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mogin, Paul (1998) ‘Why Judges, Not Juries, Should Set Punitive Damages’, University of Chicago Law Review 65: 179–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, Richard E. and Cacioppo, John T. (1984) ‘The Effects of Involvement on Responses to Argument Quantity and Quality: Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46: 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, Richard E. and Cacioppo, John T. (1986) Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahn, Wendy M., Aldrich, John H. and Borgida, Eugene (1994) ‘Individual and Contextual Variations in Political Candidate Appraisal’, American Political Science Review 88: 193–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schkade, David A. (2002) ‘Erratic by Design: A Task Analysis of Punitive Damages Assessment’, Harvard Journal on Legislation 39: 121–137.Google Scholar
Shuman, Daniel W., Champagne, Anthony and Whitaker, Elizabeth (1996) ‘Assessing the Believability of Expert Witnesses: Science in the Jury Box’, Jurimetrics Journal 37: 23–34.Google Scholar
Strier, Franklin (1994) Reconstructing Justice: An Agenda for Trial Reform. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.Google Scholar
Strier, Franklin (1997) ‘The Educated Jury: A Proposal for Complex Litigation’, DePaul Law Review 47: 49–79.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R., Kahneman, Daniel and Schkade, David (1998) ‘Assessing Punitive Damages (With Notes on Cognition and Valuation in Law)’, Yale Law Journal 107: 2071–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R., Hastie, Reid, Payne, John W., Schkade, David A. and Viscusi, W. Kip (2002a) Punitive Damages: How Juries Decide. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R., Kahneman, Daniel, Schkade, David and Ritov, Ilana (2002b) ‘Predictably Incoherent Judgments’, Stanford Law Review 54: 1153–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trochim, William M. K. (2001) The Research Methods Knowledge Base (2nd edn). Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog Publishing.Google Scholar
Vidmar, Neil and diamond, Shari Seidman (2001) ‘Juries and Expert Evidence’, Brooklyn Law Review 66: 1121–80.Google Scholar