Jury Representativeness: A Mandate for Multiple Source Lists

David Kairys · Joseph Born Kadane · John P. Lehoczky

37 citations0/0 files storedCalifornia Law Review

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 Judicial and Constitutional Studies

Abstract

Most of the unrepresentativeness in our jury systems is attributable to the unrepresentativeness of the source lists, which are usually compiled only from voter registration lists.This Article argues that the Constitution mandates representative and inclusive jury selection processes.It attempts to quantify standards for inclusiveness and representativeness, and suggests inexpensive means by which these goals can be achieved through the use of multiple lists.

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 — 37 citations exist upstream.

Cited by

2013Learning from Ancient Athens: Demarchy and Corporate Governance 1991Where did Black Jurors Go? A Theoretical Synthesis of Racial Disenfranchisement in the Jury System and Jury Selection 1983The Presentation of Bayesian Statistical Analyses in Legal Proceedings 1982Statistical Evidence of Discrimination 2008Determinants and Consequences of Jury Racial Diversity: Empirical Findings, Implications, and Directions for Future Research 1994Chapter 7 Operations research in studying crime and justice: Its history and accomplishments 2002What can the English Legal System learn from jury research published up to 2001 1991Cross-sectional jury representation or systematic jury representation? Simple random and cluster sampling strategies in jury selection

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