Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7xsfk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-01T10:02:16.303Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Representation through Participation: A Multilevel Analysis of Jury Deliberations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Erin York Cornwell  and
Valerie P. Hans
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fully participatory jury deliberations figure prominently in the idealized view of the American jury system, where balanced participation among diverse jurors leads to more accurate fact-finding and instills public confidence in the legal system. However, research more than 50 years ago indicated that jury-room interactions are shaped by social status, with upper-class men participating more than their lower-class and female counterparts. The effects of social status on juror participation have been examined only sporadically since then, and rarely with actual jurors. We utilize data from 2,189 criminal jurors serving on 302 juries in four jurisdictions to consider whether—and in what conditions—participation in jury deliberations differs across social groups. Our results indicate the continuing importance of social status in structuring jury-room interactions, but also reveal some surprising patterns with respect to race and gender that depart from earlier research. We also find that contextual factors including location, case characteristics, and faction size shape the relationship between social status and participation. We conclude with a critical discussion of our results and urge other researchers to take into account contextual factors when examining how individual juror characteristics shape what happens inside the jury room.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , September 2011 , pp. 667 - 698
Copyright
© 2011 Law and Society Association.

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

This project analyzes data gathered under Grant No. 98-IJ-CX-0048, National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or the National Center for State Courts. We are grateful for comments from the L&SR reviewers and editors, as well as those of Margaret Andersen, Benjamin Cornwell, Shari Seidman Diamond, Paula Hannaford-Agor, Jerry Kang, Elissa Krauss, Emily Owens, Françoise Vermeylen, and Nicole Waters. We thank Emily Cusick and Mitchell Drucker for research assistance in the development of this project.

References

References

Abramson, Jeffrey (1994) We, the Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Agresti, Alan, & Agresti, Barbara F. (1978) “Statistical Analysis of Qualitative Variation,” 9 Sociological Methodology 204–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Judicature Society (1999) Behind Closed Doors: A Guide for Jury Deliberation. Chicago, IL: American Judicature Society (Wisconsin court version available online at http://www.wicourts.gov/services/juror/docs/deliberate.pdf).Google Scholar
Andersen, Margaret (2009) Thinking about Women: Sociological Perspectives on Sex and Gender, 8th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Antonio, Michael E., & Hans, Valerie P. (2001) “Race and the Civil Jury: How Does a Juror's Race Shape the Jury Experience?,” in Roesch, Ronald et al., eds., Psychology in the Courts: International Advances in Knowledge. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Asante, Molefi, & Davis, Alice (1985) “Black and White Communication: Analyzing Work Place Encounters,” 16 J. of Black Studies 77–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balkwell, James W., & Berger, Joseph (1996) “Gender, Status, and Behavior in Task Situations,” 59 Social Psychology Q. 273–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, Joseph, et al. (1966) “Status Characteristics and Expectation States,” in Berger, J. et al., eds., Sociological Theories in Progress, Vol. 1. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Berger, Joseph, et al. 1972. “Status Characteristics and Social Interaction,” 3 American Sociological Rev. 241–55.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry E., et al. (1995) “Beyond SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation,” 89 American Political Science Rev. 271–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunell, Thomas, et al. (2009) “Factors Affecting the Length of Time a Jury Deliberates: Case Characteristics and Jury Composition,” 5 Rev. of Law & Economics 555–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornwell, Erin York (2010) “Opening and Closing the Jury Room Door: A Sociohistorical Consideration of the 1955 Chicago Jury Project Scandal,” 31 Justice System J. 49–73.Google Scholar
Correll, Shelley J., & Ridgeway, Cecilia L. (2006) “Expectation States Theory,” in Delamater, J., ed., Handbook of Social Psychology. New York: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Davis, James, et al. (1989) “Some Social Mechanics of Group Decision Making: The Distribution of Opinion, Polling Sequence, and Implications for Consensus,” 57 J. of Personality and Social Psychology 1000–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, Dennis J., et al. (2001) “Jury Decision Making: 45 Years of Empirical Research on Deliberating Groups,” 7 Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 622–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, Dennis J., et al. (2007) “Deliberation Quality: A Preliminary Examination in Criminal Juries,” 4 J. of Empirical Legal Studies 273–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, Shari Seidman, & Casper, Jonathan (1992) “Blindfolding the Jury to Verdict Consequences: Damages, Experts, and the Civil Jury,” 26 Law & Society Rev. 513–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, Shari Seidman, et al. (2006) “Revisiting the Unanimity Requirement: The Behavior of the Non-Unanimous Jury,” 100 Northwestern Univ. Law Rev. 201–30.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Theodore, et al. (2005) “Judge–Jury Agreement in Criminal Cases: A Partial Replication of Kalven and Zeisel's The American Jury,” 2 J. of Empirical Legal Studies 171–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, Theodore & Hans, Valerie P. (2009) “Taking a Stand on Taking the Stand: The Effect of a Prior Criminal Record on the Decision to Testify and on Trial Outcomes,” 94 Cornell Law Rev. 1353–90.Google Scholar
Ellis, Leslie, & Diamond, Shari Seidman (2003) “Race, Diversity, and Jury Composition,” 78 Chicago-Kent Law Rev. 1033–58.Google Scholar
Ellison, Christopher G., et al. (1996) “Religious Homogeneity and Metropolitan Suicide Rates,” 76 Social Forces 273–99.Google Scholar
Ellsworth, Phoebe C. (1989) “Are Twelve Heads Better Than One?,” 52 Law and Contemporary Problems 205–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsass, Priscilla M., & Graves, Laura M. (1997) “Demographic Diversity in Decision-Making Groups: The Experiences of Women and People of Color,” 22 Academy of Management Rev. 946–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Claude S., & Mattson, Greggor (2009) “Is America Fragmenting?,” 35 Annual Rev. of Sociology 435–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukurai, Hiroshi, & Krooth, Richard (2003) Race in the Jury Box: Affirmative Action in Jury Selection. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garvey, Stephen P., et al. (2004) “Juror First Votes in Criminal Trials,” 2 J. of Empirical Legal Studies 371–98.Google Scholar
Gastil, John, et al. (2010) The Jury and Democracy: How Jury Deliberation Promotes Civic Engagement and Political Participation. NewYork: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Givelber, Daniel (2005) “Lost Innocence: Speculation and Data About the Acquitted,” 42 American Criminal Law Rev. 1167–99.Google Scholar
Givelber, Daniel & Farrell, Amy (2008) “Judges and Juries: The Defense Case and Differences in Acquittal Rates,” 33 Law & Social Inquiry 31–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goar, Carla (2007) “Social Identity Theory and the Reduction of Inequality: Can Cross-Cutting Categorization Reduce Inequality in Mixed-Race Groups?,” 35 Social Behavior and Personality 537–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannaford-Agor, Paula, et al. (2002) Are Hung Juries a Problem? Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts. Available online at http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Res_Juries_HungJuriesPub.pdf.Google Scholar
Hannaford-Agor, Paula & Hans, Valerie P. (2003) “Nullification at Work: A Glimpse from the National Center for State Courts’ Study of Hung Juries,” 78 Chicago-Kent Law Rev. 1249–77.Google Scholar
Hans, Valerie P. (2001) “The Power of Twelve: The Impact of Jury Size and Unanimity on Civil Jury Decision Making,” 4 Delaware Law Rev. 1–31.Google Scholar
Hans, Valerie P., et al. (2003) “The Hung Jury: The American Jury's Insights and Contemporary Understanding,” 39 Criminal Law Bulletin 33–50.Google Scholar
Hastie, Reid, et al. (1983). Inside the Jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, Charles H. (1962) “Interaction Rates of Jurors Aligned in Factions,” 27 American Sociological Rev. 689–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heise, Michael (2004) “Criminal Case Complexity: An Empirical Perspective,” 1 J. Empirical Legal Studies 331–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsh, C. Elizabeth (2009) “The Strength of Weak Enforcement: The Impact of Discrimination Charges, Legal Environments, and Organizational Conditions on Workplace Segregation,” 74 American Sociological Rev. 245–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, Rita M. (1959) “Status and Competence of Jurors,” 64 American J. of Sociology 563–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalven, Harry Jr., & Zeisel, Hans (1966) The American Jury. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Kerr, Norbert L., et al. (1996) “Bias in Judgment: Comparing Individuals and Groups,” 103 Psychological Rev. 687–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirchmeyer, Catherine (1993) “Multicultural Task Groups: An Account of the Low Contribution Level of Minorities,” 24 Small Group Research 127–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Ji, et al. (1999) “The Effects of Proportional Representation on Intragroup Behavior in Mixed-Race Decision-Making Groups,” 30 Small Group Research 259–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maass, Anne, et al. (1985) “Testifying on Eyewitness Reliability: Expert Advice is Not Always Persuasive,” 15 J. of Applied Social Psychology 207–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacCoun, Robert J., & Tyler, Tom R. (1988) “The Basis of Citizens’ Perceptions of the Criminal Jury,” 12 Law and Human Behavior 333–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, David K., et al. (2000) “Studying Perceptions of Juror Influence In Vivo: A Social Relations Analysis,” 24 Law and Human Behavior 173–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marder, Nancy S. (2002) “Juries, Justice, and Multiculturalism,” 75 Southern California Law Rev. 659–726.Google Scholar
Massachusetts Trial Juror's Handbook (1984) Boston, MA: Office of the Jury Commissioner for the Commonwealth. Available online at http://www.mass.gov/courts/jury/handbook.htm.Google Scholar
Meeker, Barbara Foley, & Weitzel-O'Neill, Patricia A. (1977) “Sex Roles and Interpersonal Behavior in Task Oriented Groups,” 42 American Sociological Rev. 679–716.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller-Loessi, Karen (1992) “Toward Gender Integration in the Workplace: Issues at Multiple Levels,” 35 Sociological Perspectives 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemeth, Charlan, et al. (1976) “From the ’50s to the ’70s: Women in Jury Deliberations,” 39 Sociometry 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Scott (2010) “Status Disparities in the Capital of Capital Punishment,” 43 Law & Society Rev. 807–37.Google Scholar
Raudenbush, Stephen W., & Bryk, Anthony S. (2002) Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods, 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Ridgeway, Cecilia L., & Smith-Lovin, Lynn (1999) “The Gender System and Interaction,” 25 Annual Rev. of Sociology 191–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Mary R. (2005) “A Dutiful Voice: Justice in the Distribution of Jury Service,” 39 Law & Society Rev. 601–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Mary R. (2009) “Access to Juries: Some Puzzles Regarding Race and Jury Participation,” 12 Sociology of Crime, Law, and Deviance 119–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Mary R., et al. (2006) “He Said/She Said: An Analysis of Gender and Participation in Real Jury Deliberations.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Montreal, Quebec.Google Scholar
Saks, Michael J. (1977) Jury Verdicts. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Sommers, Samuel R. (2006) “On Racial Diversity and Group Decision Making: Identifying Multiple Effects of Racial Composition on Jury Deliberations,” 90 J. of Personality and Social Psychology 597–612.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sommers, Samuel R. & Ellsworth, Phoebe C. (2003) “The Jury and Race: How Much Do We Really Know About Race and Juries? A Review of the Social Science Theory and Research,” 78 Chicago-Kent Law Rev. 997–1031.Google Scholar
Spencer, Bruce D. (2007) “Estimating the Accuracy of Jury Verdicts,” 4 J. of Empirical Legal Studies 305–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strodtbeck, Fred L., & Mann, Richard D. (1956) “Sex-Role Differentiation in Jury Deliberations,” 19 Sociometry 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strodtbeck, Fred L., & Mann, Richard D. et al. (1957) “Social Status and Jury Deliberations,” 22 American Sociological Rev. 713–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor-Thompson, Kim (2000) “Empty Votes in Jury Deliberations,” 113 Harvard Law Rev. 1261–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thye, Shane R. (2000) “A Status Value Theory of Power in Exchange Relations,” 65 American Sociological Rev. 407–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tocqueville, Alexis de (1835/2000). Democracy in America. Trans. by George Lawrence. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Velasco, Pilar de Paul (1995) “The Influence of Size and Decision Rule in Jury Decision-Making,” in Davies, G. et al., eds., Psychology, Law, and Criminal Justice: International Developments in Research and Practice. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vidmar, Neil, & Hans, Valerie P. (2007) American Juries: The Verdict. New York: Prometheus.Google Scholar
Waters, Nicole L., & Hans, Valerie P. (2009) “A Jury of One: Opinion Formation, Conformity, and Dissent on Juries,” 6 J. of Empirical Legal Studies 513–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, Murray Jr., & Driskell, James E. Jr. (1978) “Status Generalization: A Review and Some New Data,” 43 American Sociological Rev. 220–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkenfeld, Joshua (2004) “Newly Compelling: Reexamining Judicial Construction of Juries in the Aftermath of Grutter v. Bollinger,” 104 Columbia Law Rev. 2292–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, William Julius (1980) The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
York, Erin, & Cornwell, Benjamin (2006) “Status on Trial: Social Characteristics and Influence in the Jury Room,” 85 Social Forces 455–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cases Cited

Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979).Google Scholar
Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 492 (1972).Google Scholar
Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880).Google Scholar
Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thiel v. Southern Pacific Company, 328 U.S. 217 (1946).Google Scholar