A Meta-Analysis of the effects of jury size.

Abstract

In a series of opinions in the 1970s, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that juries smaller than 12 persons would be constitutional if they performed no differently than traditional 12-person juries. In a meta-analysis, we examined the effects of jury size on the criteria the court specified as the basis for making such comparisons. A search for all relevant empirical studies identified 17 that examined differences between 6-and 12-member juries. The total sample for the 17 studies was 2,061 juries involving some 15,000 individual jurors. Among other findings, it appears that larger juries are more likely than smaller juries to contain members of minority groups, deliberate longer, hang more often, and possibly recall trial testimony more accurately.

Addressing Complexity in Environmental Management and Governance

“…Second, the number and kind of actors is likely to impact adaptation and flexibility: To start with, a lower number of actors in the decision-making process is likely to be effective, since the amount of people increases the time needed for decisions [59,80,82], arguably leading to less flexible decision-making processes. To give some examples, 12-juror juries are at least slightly slower than six-juror juries [82].…”

“…To give some examples, 12-juror juries are at least slightly slower than six-juror juries [82]. Higher numbers of actors increasingly complicate decision making in international relations [77].…”

“…Admittedly, however, such time variations may be negligible, depending on the amount of saved time and the quality of the output. Picking up our example of jury deliberation, Saks and Marty [82] (p. 458) chose 12 person juries since the mean difference for deliberation time was not great, while the quality of deliberation was supposed to be enhanced; Ansell and Gash [59] emphasize that time-consuming collaboration can also facilitate the implementation of decisions. Further, involving experts in decision-making processes might negatively impact adaptive decision making.…”

The empirical estimation of the cost-minimizing jury size and voting rule in civil trials

“…2 More specifically, the Court relied on a set of criteria to determine whether a six-member jury could function as a twelve-member jury in an equivalent manner. The criteria consisted of "quality of deliberation, reliability of the jury's fact-finding, the verdict ratio, the ability of dissenters on the jury to resist majority pressure to conform, and the jury's capacity to provide a fair cross-sectional representation of the community" (Saks and Marti, 1997). The basis of the Court's ruling came from empirical evidence found in four studies that showed there was no "discernable difference between the results reached by two different sized juries," and thus six-member juries were permitted (Williams v. Florida, 413 U.S., 1973).…”

The optimal jury size when jury deliberation follows a random walk

“…SeeKerr and MacCoun (1985) andSaks and Marti (1997) for literature reviews of the effects of jury size.…”