Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-c4bhq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-20T23:59:49.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Dutiful Voice: Justice in the Distribution of Jury Service

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Mary R. Rose
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Jury service in the United States is both compulsory and yet distributed to some but not others in a nonsystematic way. Concerns about unfairness in this distribution system have led to legal changes; however, there is still little empirical information on how jurors view the jury selection process. This study considers jury selection in terms of participants' perceptions of procedural and distributive justice. I argue that justice in this setting is related to areas of conflict between the decision maker and the prospective jurors, especially over privacy protection, despite strong rhetoric that jurors minimize their own preferences and rights in this setting. Data from interviews of 194 formerly excused and selected jurors support this contention.

Type
Articles of General Interest
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , September 2005 , pp. 601 - 634
Copyright
© 2005 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

I am grateful to Karen Cook, Karla Fischer, Allen Lind, Susan Roth, and especially Neil Vidmar for assistance in the development and execution of this project. Thanks also go to Shari S. Diamond, Leslie Ellis, Herbert Kritzer, Beth Murphy, Janice Nadler, Laura Beth Nielsen, Joseph Sanders, John Sides, and the anonymous reviewers for their invaluable help with previous drafts. All errors and omissions are entirely my own. Finally, although not responsible for approving or funding this project, I am grateful to support from the American Bar Foundation, which afforded protected time for writing up the study's results.

References

Amar, Vikram David (1995) “Jury Service as Political Participation Akin to Voting,” 80 Cornell Law Rev. 203–59.Google Scholar
Balch, Robert W., et al. (1976) “The Socialization of Jurors: The Voir Dire as a Rite of Passage,” 4 J. of Criminal Justice 271–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldus, David C., et al. (2001) “The Use of Peremptory Challenges in Capital Murder Trials: A Legal and Empirical Analysis,” 3 University of Pennsylvania J. of Constitutional Law 3–169.Google Scholar
Bermant, Gordon (1977) Conduct of the Voir Dire Examination: Practices and Opinions of Federal District Judges. Washington, D.C.: Federal Judicial Center.Google Scholar
Bermant, Gordon, & Shapard, John (1981) “The Voir Dire Examination, Juror Challenges, and Adversary Advocacy,” in Sales, B. D., ed., Perspectives in Law and Psychology, Vol. 2: The Trial Process. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Boatright, Robert G. (1999) “Why Citizens Don't Respond to Jury Summonses and What Courts Can Do About It,” 82 Judicature 156–64.Google Scholar
Brockner, Joel, et al. (1990) “When It Is Especially Important to Explain Why: Factors Affecting the Relationship Between Managers' Explanations of a Layoff and Survivors' Reactions to the Layoff,” 26 J. of Experimental Social Psychology 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brockner, Joel, & Wiesenfeld, Batia M. (1996) “An Integrative Framework for Explaining Reactions to Decisions: Interactive Effects of Outcomes and Procedures,” 120 Psychological Bulletin 189–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bryk, Anthony S., & Raudenbush, Stephen W. (1992) Hierarchical Linear Models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Casper, Jonathan D., et al. (1988) “Procedural Justice in Felony Cases,” 22 Law & Society Rev. 483–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, Shari Seidman (1993) “What Jurors Think: Expectations and Reactions of Citizens Who Serve as Jurors,” in Litan, R. E., ed., Verdict: Assessing the Civil Jury System. Washington, D.C.: Brookings.Google Scholar
Diamond, Shari Seidman et al. (1997) “Realistic Responses to the Limitations of Batson v. Kentucky,” 7 Cornell J. of Law & Public Policy 77–95.Google Scholar
Finkelstein, Michael O., & Levin, Bruce (1997) “Clear Choices and Guesswork in Peremptory Challenges in Federal Criminal Trials,” 160 (part 2) J. of the Royal Statistical Society 275–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folger, Robert (1977) “Distributive and Procedural Justice: Combined Impact of ‘Voice’ and Improvement of Experienced Inequity,” 35 J. of Personality & Social Psychology 108–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukarai, Hiroshi, et al. (1993) Race and the Jury: Racial Disenfranchisement and the Search for Justice. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, MA: Polity.Google Scholar
Gilliland, Stephen W. (1994) “Effects of Procedural and Distributive Justice on Reactions to a Selection System,” 79 J. of Applied Psychology 691–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glover, Michael R. (1982) “The Right to Privacy of Prospective Jurors During Voir Dire,” 70 California Law Rev. 709–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannaford, Paula L. (2001) “Safeguarding Juror Privacy: A New Framework for Court Policies and Procedures,” 85 Judicature 18–25, 44.Google Scholar
Hazelwood, D. Lynn, & Brigham, John C. (1998) “The Effects of Juror Anonymity on Jury Verdicts,” 22 Law & Human Behavior 695–713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hegtvedt, Karen A., & Cook, Karen S. (2001) “Distributive Justice: Recent Theoretical Developments and Applications,” in Sanders, J. & Hamilton, V. L., eds., Handbook of Justice Research in Law. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.Google Scholar
Hibbing, John R., & Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth (2001) “Process Preferences and American Politics: What the People Want Government to Be,” 95 American Political Science Rev. 145–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, Morris B. (1997) “Peremptory Challenges Should Be Abolished: A Trial Judge's Perspective,” 64 The University of Chicago Law Rev. 809–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Cathy, & Haney, Craig (1994) “Felony Voir Dire: An Exploratory Study of Its Content and Effect,” 18 Law & Human Behavior 487–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Susan E. (1987) “Judge- Versus Attorney-Conducted Voir Dire: An Empirical Investigation of Juror Candor,” 11 Law & Human Behavior 131–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, Norbert L., et al. (1991) “On the Effectiveness of Voir Dire in Criminal Cases with Prejudicial Pretrial Publicity: An Empirical Study,” 40 American University Law Rev. 665–701.Google Scholar
King, Nancy J. (1996) “Nameless Justice: The Case for Routine Use of Anonymous Juries in Criminal Trials,” 49 Vanderbilt Law Rev. 123–59.Google Scholar
Langer, Ellen, et al. (1978) “The Mindlessness of Ostensibly Thoughtful Action: The Role of ‘Placebic’ Information in Interpersonal Interaction,” 36 J. of Personality & Social Psychology 635–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lind, E. Allen, et al. (1990) “Voice, Control, and Procedural Justice: Instrumental and Noninstrumental Concerns in Fairness Judgments,” 59 J. of Personality & Social Psychology 952–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lind, E. Allen, & Tyler, Tom R. (1988) The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynd, Paul R. (1998) “Juror Sexual Orientation: The Fair Cross-Section Requirement, Privacy, Challenges for Cause, and Peremptories,” 46 UCLA Law Rev. 231–88.Google Scholar
Marder, Nancy S. (1995) “Beyond Gender: Peremptory Challenges and the Roles of the Jury,” 73 Texas Law Rev. 1041–138.Google Scholar
Mikula, Gerald, et al. (1990) “What People Regard as Unjust: Types and Structures of Everyday Experiences of Injustice,” 20 European J. of Social Psychology 133–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Dale T. (2001) “Disrespect and the Experience of Injustice,” 52 Annual Rev. of Psychology 527–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Molm, Linda D., et al. (2003) “In the Eye of the Beholder: Procedural Justice in Social Exchange,” 68 American Sociological Rev. 128–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munsterman, G. Thomas, et al. (1997) Jury Trial Innovations. Charlottesville, VA: National Center for State Courts.Google Scholar
Narby, Douglas J., & Cutler, Brian L. (1994) “Effectiveness of Voir Dire as a Safeguard in Eyewitness Cases,” 79 J. of Applied Psychology 724–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nietzel, Michael T., & Dillehay, Ronald C. (1982) “The Effects of Variations in Voir Dire Procedures in Capital Murder Trials,” 6 Law & Human Behavior 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Mary R. (1999) “The Peremptory Challenge Accused of Race or Gender Discrimination? Some Data from One County,” 23 Law & Human Behavior 695–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Mary R. (2001) “Expectations of Privacy? Jurors' Views of Voir Dire Questions,” 85 Judicature 10–7, 43.Google Scholar
Rose, Mary R. (2003) “A ‘Voir Dire’ of Voir Dire: Listening to Jurors' Views Regarding the Peremptory Challenge,” 78 Chicago-Kent Law Rev. 1061–98.Google Scholar
Rubin, David B. (1987) Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schafer, Joseph L., & Graham, John W. (2002) “Missing Data: Our View of the State of the Art,” 7 Psychological Methods 147–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seltzer, Richard, et al. (1991) “Juror Honesty During the Voir Dire,” 19 J. of Criminal Justice 451–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shuman, Daniel W., et al. (1994) “The Health Effects of Jury Service,” 18 Law & Psychology Rev. 267–307.Google Scholar
Singer, Judith D. (1998) “Using SAS PROC MIXED to Fit Multilevel Models, Hierarchical Models, and Individual Growth Models,” 23 J. of Educational & Behavioral Statistics 323–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snijders, Tom A. B., & Bosker, Roel (1999) Multilevel Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Thibaut, John, & Walker, Laurens (1975) Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Thibaut, John, & Walker, Laurens (1978) “A Theory of Procedure,” 66 California Law Rev. 541–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. (1990) Why People Obey the Law. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. (1994) “Psychological Models of the Justice Motive: Antecedents of Distributive and Procedural Justice,” 67 J. of Personality & Social Psychology 850–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, Tom R., & Lind, E. Allen (1992) “A Relational Model of Authority in Groups,” in Zanna, M., ed., Advances in Experimental & Social Psychology, Vol. 25. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R., & Lind, E. Allen (2001) “Procedural Justice,” in Sanders, J. & Hamilton, V. L., eds., Handbook of Justice Research in Law. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, Kees, et al. (1998) “Evaluating Outcomes by Means of the Fair Process Effect: Evidence for Different Processes in Fairness and Satisfaction Judgments,” 74 J. of Personality & Social Psychology 1493–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van den Bos, Kees, & Van Prooijen, Jan-Willem (2001) “Referents Cognitions Theory: The Role of Closeness of Reference Points in the Psychology of Voice,” 81 J. of Personality & Social Psychology 616–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weinstein, David (1997) “Protecting a Juror's Right to Privacy: Constitutional Constraints and Policy Options,” 70 Temple Law Rev. 1–51.Google Scholar
Zeisel, Hans, & Diamond, Shari Seidman (1978) “The Effect of Peremptory Challenges on Jury and Verdict: An Experiment in Federal District Court,” 30 Stanford Law Rev. 491–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar