Permitting jury discussions during trial: Impact of the Arizona Reform.

Paula L. Hannaford · Valerie P. Hans · G. Thomas Munsterman

32 citations0/0 files storedLaw and Human Behavior

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Jury Decision Making Processes Legal processes and jurisprudence Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems

Abstract

A field experiment tested the effect of an Arizona civil jury reform that allows jurors to discuss evidence among themselves during the trial. Judges, jurors, attorneys, and litigants completed questionnaires in trials randomly assigned to either a Trial Discussions condition, in which jurors were permitted to discuss the evidence during trial, or a No Discussions condition, in which jurors were prohibited from discussing the evidence during trial according to traditional admonitions. Judicial agreement with jury verdicts did not differ between conditions. Permitting jurors to discuss the evidence did affect the degree of certainty that jurors reported about their preferences at the start of jury deliberations, the level of conflict on the jury, and the likelihood of reaching unanimity.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 32 citations exist upstream.

References

1988The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice 1979Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence.1982Book Review Nisbett, R. , & Ross, L.Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1980.1992Explaining the evidence: Tests of the Story Model for juror decision making.1986Evidence evaluation in complex decision making.1971The American Jury 1996Bias in judgment: Comparing individuals and groups.1967The American Jury.

Cited by

2006Enhancing Juror Understanding of Probabilistic DNA Evidence 2016Evidentiary, extraevidentiary, and deliberation process predictors of real jury verdicts.2013Rational inattention and revealed preference: The data-theoretic approach to economic modeling

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.