Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T02:05:50.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Blindfolding the Jury to Verdict Consequences: Damages, Experts, and the Civil Jury

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

Shari Seidman Diamond  and
Jonathan D. Casper
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This research examines the behavior of jurors as active information processors. Our experimental examination of the performance of the civil jury in response to a complex price-fixing case varies the information provided to jurors about the consequences of their damage award decisions (i.e., the treble damage rule) and the type of expert testimony (statistical models vs. concrete yardstick models). We find, consistent with a picture of the jury as active rather than passive, that jurors are more likely to follow judicial instructions when they are given explanations rather than bald admonitions. In addition, complex expert testimony neither overpowers the jurors nor is dismissed by them. The expert presenting a statistical model is viewed as having higher expertise but lower clarity; as a result the statistical expert and the expert presenting a more concrete model are not significantly different in their persuasiveness. Finally, in contrast to most research on the criminal jury, we find that deliberations do affect jury awards.

Type
The Active Juror
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , 1992 , pp. 513 - 563
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 by The Law and Society Association

Footnotes

This research received support from the American Bar Foundation, the Law and Social Sciences Program of the National Science Foundation (Grant #SES-8922582), and the Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research of Northwestern University. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 1991 Law & Society Meetings in Amsterdam in June 1991. We are indebted to Judge Frank W. Barbaro and Court Administrator Jeff Arnold who provided us with access to adults called for jury service, and to the juryroom supervisor, Frank Geraci, and juryroom officers, Pat Novak and Mary Leskaro whose kindness with the jurors make the courthouse a congenial place for jury service. Associate Dean James Faught, Professor James Carey, and audio visual expert Rick Partyka of Loyola Law School made it possible for us to videotape the multiple versions of our trial in a realistic courtroom setting. We were also enormously fortunate to have an enthusiastic and extremely capable group of research assistants: Linda Dimitropoulos, Scott Barclay, Lynne Ostergren, and Elizabeth Murphy; and undergraduates Otto Beatty III, Julie Bernstein, Gabriella Gonzalez, Karen Harris, James Hurt, and Lori Thomas, who were supported on summer research fellowships from NSF and the ABF. Finally, we are grateful for suggestions from Rick Lempert, Frank Munger, and Neil Vidmar.

References

References

Abelson, Robert P. (1981) “Psychological Status of the Script Concept,” 36 American Psychologist 715.Google Scholar
Anderson, Norman H., & Jacobson, Ann (1965) “Effect of Stimulus Inconsistency and Discounting Instructions in Personality Impression Formation,” 2 J. of Personality & Social Psychology 531.Google Scholar
Bowers, John Waite (1963) “Language Intensity, Social Introversion, and Attitude Change,” 30 Speech Monographs 345.Google Scholar
Broeder, Dale W. (1959) “The University of Chicago Jury Project,” 38 Nebraska Law Rev. 744.Google Scholar
Burger, Warren (1979) Address by Chief Justice to the Conference of [State] Chief Justices, Flagstaff, AZ (7 Aug.).Google Scholar
Burns, Robert Emmett (1965) “A Compensation Award for Personal Injury or Wrongful Death Is Tax Exempt: Should We Tell the Jury?” 14 De Paul Law Rev. 320.Google Scholar
Carmichael, Carl W., & Cronkite, Gary Lynn (1965) “Frustration and Language Intensity,” 32 Speech Monographs 107.Google Scholar
Casper, Jonathan D., Benedict, Kennette, & Kelly, Janice (1988) “Cognitions, Attitudes and Decision-making in Search and Seizure Cases,” 18 J. of Applied Social Psychology 93.Google Scholar
Casper, Jonathan D., Benedict, Kennette, & Perry, Jo L. (1989) “Juror Decision Making, Attitudes, and the Hindsight Bias,” 13 Law & Human Behavior 291.Google Scholar
Cook, Thomas D., & Campbell, Donald T. (1979) Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Davis, James H., Kerr, Norbert L., Atkin, Robert S., Holt, Robert, & Meek, David (1975) “The Decision Processes of 6- and 12-Person Mock Juries Assigned to Unanimous and Two-Thirds Majority Rules,” 32 J. of Personality & Social Psychology 1.Google Scholar
Diamond, Shari Seidman, Casper, Jonathan D., & Ostergren, Lynne (1989) “Blindfolding the Jury,” 52 Law & Contemporary Problems 242 (Autumn).Google Scholar
Doob, Anthony N., & Kirschenbaum, Hershi M. (1972) “Some Empirical Evidence on the Effect of s.12 of the Canada Evidence Act upon an Accused,” 15 Criminal Law Q. 88.Google Scholar
Elwork, Amiram, Sales, Bruce D., & Alfini, James J. (1977) “Juridic Decisions: In Ignorance of the Law or in Light of It?” 1 Law & Human Behavior 163.Google Scholar
Ellsworth, Phoebe (1989) “Are Twelve Heads Better than One?” 52 Law & Contemporary Problems 205 (Autumn).Google Scholar
Fienberg, Stephen E., ed. (1989) The Evolving Role of Statistical Assessments as Evidence in the Courts. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischhoff, Baruch (1975) “Hindsight ≠ Foresight: The Effect of Outcome Knowledge on Judgment under Uncertainty,” 1 J. of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 288.Google Scholar
Cinosar, Zvi, & Trope, Yaacov (1980) “The Effects of Base Rates and Individuating Information on Judgments about Another Person,” 16 J. of Experimental Social Psychology 228.Google Scholar
Greene, Edith (1989) “On Juries and Damage Awards: The Process of Decisionmaking,” 52 Law & Contemporary Problems 225 (Autumn).Google Scholar
Hamill, Ruth, Wilson, Timothy DeCamp, & Nisbett, Richard E. (1980) “Insensitivity to Sample Bias: Generating from Atypical Cases,” 39 J. of Personality & Social Psychology 578.Google Scholar
Hans, Valerie P., & Doob, Anthony N. (1975) “Section 12 of the Canada Evidence Act and the Deliberation of Simulated Juries,” 18 Criminal Law Quarterly 235.Google Scholar
Hastie, Reid, Penrod, Steven A., & Pennington, Nancy (1983) Inside the Jury. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heuer, Larry, & Penrod, Steven (1988) “Increasing Jurors' Participation in Trials: A Field Experiment with Jury Notetaking and Question Asking,” 12 Law & Human Behavior 231.Google Scholar
Hosch, Harmon M. (1980) “A Comparison of Three Studies of the Influence of Expert Testimony on Jurors,” 4 Law & Human Behavior 297.Google Scholar
Imwinkelreid, Edward J. (1981) “A New Era in the Evolution of Scientific Evidence: A Primer on Evaluating the Weight of Scientific Evidence,” 23 William & Mary Law Rev. 261.Google Scholar
Isenberg, Daniel J. (1986) “Group Polarization: A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis,” 50 J. of Personality & Social Psychology 1141.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, Slovic, Paul, & Tversky, Amos (1982) Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalven, Harry Jr. (1957) “A Report on the Jury Project of the University of Chicago Law School,” 24 Insurance Council J. 368.Google Scholar
Kalven, Harry Jr., & Zeisel, Hans (1966) The American Jury. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Martin F., & Miller, Charles E. (1987) “Group Decision-making and Normative versus Informational Influence: Effects of Type of Issue and Assigned Decision Rule,” 53 J. of Personality & Social Psychology 306.Google Scholar
Kerr, Norbert L., Harmon, Douglas L., & Graves, James K. (1982) “Independence of Multiple Verdicts by Jurors and Juries,” 12 J. of Applied Social Psychology 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, Geoffrey P., Kerr, Norbert L., & Carroll, John S. (1990) “Pretrial Publicity, Judicial Remedies, and Jury Bias,” 14 Law & Human Behavior 409.Google Scholar
Lamm, Helmut, & Myers, David G. (1978) “Group-induced Polarization of Attitudes and Behavior,” in Berkowitz, L., ed., 11 Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 147. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lind, E. Allan, Thibaut, John, & Walker, Laurens (1976) “A Cross-cultural Comparison of the Effect of Adversary and Nonadversary Processes on Bias in Legal Decision Making.” 62 Virginia Law Rev. 271.Google Scholar
MacCoun, Robert J., & Kerr, Norbert L. (1988) “Asymmetric Influence in Mock Jury Deliberation: Jurors' Bias for Leniency,” 54 J. of Personality & Social Psychology 21.Google Scholar
McGuire, William J. (1985) “Attitudes and Attitude Change,” in Lindzey, G. & Aronson, E., eds., 2 Handbook of Social Psychology. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Michigan Law Review (1983) Note: “Controlling Jury Damage Awards in Private Antitrust Suits,” 81 Michigan Law Rev., 693.Google Scholar
Nisbett, Richard E., & Ross, Lee (1980) Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Nordenberg, Mark A., & Luneberg, William V. (1982) “Decision Making in Complex Federal Civil Cases: Two Alternatives to the Traditional Jury,” 65 Judicature 420.Google Scholar
Pennington, Nancy, & Hastie, Reid (1986) “Evidence Evaluation in Complex Decision Making,” 51 J. of Personality & Social Psychology 242.Google Scholar
Petty, Richard E., & Cacioppo, John T. (1986) Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raitz, Allan, Greene, Edith, Goodman, Jane, & Loftus, Elizabeth F. (1990) “Determining Damages: The Influence of Expert Testimony on Jurors' Decision Making,” 14 Law & Human Behavior 385.Google Scholar
Reyes, Robert M., Thompson, William C., & Bower, Gordon H. (1980) “Judgmental Biases Resulting from Differing Availabilities of Arguments,” 39 J. of Personality & Social Psychology 2.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, Paul (1983) “Nature of Jury Response to the Expert Witness,” 20 J. of Forensic Sciences 528.Google Scholar
Rubinfeld, Daniel L. (1985) “Econometrics in the Courtroom,” 85 Columbia Law Rev. 1048.Google Scholar
Saks, Michael J., & Kidd, Robert F. (1980-81) “Human Information Processing Adjudication: Trial by Heuristics,” 15 Law & Society Rev. 123.Google Scholar
Saks, Michael J., & Duizend, Richard Van (1983) The Use of Scientific Evidence in Litigation Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.Google Scholar
Schwarzer, William W. (1990) “Reforming Jury Trials,” 1990 Univ. of Chicago Legal Forum 119.Google Scholar
Severance, Laurence J., Greene, Edith, & Loftus, Elizabeth F. (1984) “Toward Criminal Jury Instructions that Jurors Can Understand,” 75 J. of Criminal Law & Criminology 198.Google Scholar
Sonaike, S. Femi (1978) “The Influence of Jury Deliberation on Juror Perception of Trial, Credibility, and Damage Awards,” 1978 Brigham Young Univ. Law Rev. 889.Google Scholar
Stasser, Garold, Kerr, Norbert L., & Bray, Robert M. (1982) “The Social Psychology of Jury Deliberations: Structure, Process, and Product,” in Kerr, N. L. & Bray, R. M., eds., The Psychology of the Courtroom. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stoner, James A. F. (1968) “Risky and Cautious Shifts in Group Decisions: The Influence of Widely Held Values,” 4 J. of Experimental Social Psychology 442.Google Scholar
Strodtbeck, Fred L., James, Rita M., & Hawkins, Charles (1957) “Social Status injury Deliberations,” 22 American Sociological Rev. 713.Google Scholar
Strodtbeck, Fred L., & Lipinski, Richard M. (1985) “Becoming First among Equals: Moral Considerations in jury Foreman Selection,” 49 J. of Personality & Social Psychology 927.Google Scholar
Sue, Stanley, Smith, Ronald E., & Gilbert, Renee (1974) “Biasing Effect of Pretrial Publicity on Judicial Decisions,” 2 J. of Criminal Justice 163.Google Scholar
Sue, Stanley, Smith, Ronald E., & Caldwell, Cathy (1973) “Effects of Inadmissible Evidence on the Decisions of Simulated Jurors: A Moral Dilemma,” 3 J. of Applied Social Psychology 345.Google Scholar
Tanford, J. Alexander (1991) “Law Reform by Courts, Legislatures, and Commissions Following Empirical Research on Jury Instructions,” 25 Law & Society Rev. 155.Google Scholar
Taylor, Shelley E., & Thompson, Suzanne C. (1982) “Stalking the Elusive ‘Vividness’ Effect,” 89 Psychological Rev. 155.Google Scholar
Thompson, William C. (1989) “Are Juries Competent to Evaluate Statistical Evidence?” 52 Law & Contemporary Problems 9 (Autumn).Google Scholar
Thompson, William C., & Schumann, Edward L. (1987) “Interpretation of Statistical Evidence in Criminal Trials: The Prosecutor's Fallacy and the Defense Attorney's Fallacy,” 11 Law & Human Behavior 167.Google Scholar
Tribe, Laurence H. (1971) “Trial by Mathematics: Precision and Ritual in the Legal Process,” 84 Harvard Law Rev. 1329.Google Scholar
Vidmar, Neil (1989) “Assessing the Impact of Statistical Evidence: A Social Science Perspective,” in Fienberg, S. E., ed., The Evolving Role of Statistical Assessments as Evidence in the Courts. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Wasserman, David T., & Robinson, J. Neil (1980) “Extra-legal Influences, Group Processes, and Jury Decision-making: A Psychological Perspective,” 12 North Carolina Central Law J. 96.Google Scholar
Wissler, Roselle L., & Saks, Michael J. (1985) “On the Inefficacy of Limiting Instructions: When Jurors Use Prior Conviction Evidence to Decide on Guilt,” 9 Law & Human Behavior 37.Google Scholar
Wolf, Sharon, & Montgomery, David A. (1977) “Effects of Inadmissible Evidence and Level of Judicial Admonishment to Disregard on the Judgments of Mock Jurors,” 7 J. of Applied Social Psychology 205.Google Scholar
Wolfson, Warren D. (1987) “An Experiment in Juror Interrogation of Witnesses,” CBA Record, p. 12 (Feb.).Google Scholar
Wong, Paul T. P., & Weiner, Bernard (1981) “When People Ask ‘Why’ Questions, and the Heuristics of Attributional Search,” 40 J. of Personality & Social Psychology 650.Google Scholar
Zuehl, James (1982) “The Ad Damnum, Jury Instructions, and Personal Injury Damage Awards” (manuscript, University of Chicago Law School).Google Scholar

Cases Cited

In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, 631 F.2d 1069 (3d Cir., 1980).Google Scholar
Moore v. Jas. H. Matthews & Co., 682 F.2d 820 (7th Cir., 1982).Google Scholar
Pollock & Riley, Inc. v. Pearl Brewing Co., 498 F.2d 1240 (5th Cir., 1974).Google Scholar
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969).Google Scholar

Statutes Cited

Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 78, par. 4 (1 July 1987).Google Scholar
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. 1964(c) (1988).Google Scholar