Effects of voir dire variations in capital trials: A replication and extension

Nietzel, Michael T.; Dillehay, Ronald C.; Himelein, Melissa J.

doi:10.1002/bsl.2370050410

Cited by 16 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The highest number of sustained challenges resulted under conditions of individual sequestration. In a follow-up study of 18 capital cases, Nietzel, Dillehay, and Himelin (1987) also found that individual sequestered voir dire produced the highest number of sustained challenges (see also Nietzel & Dillehay, 1983).…”

Section: Jurors' Failure To Disclose Prejudices During Voir Dirementioning

confidence: 98%

Case studies of pre- and midtrial prejudice in criminal and civil litigation.

Vidmar

2002

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a number of case studies involving pre- and midtrial prejudice in criminal and civil litigation. The cases reveal deficiencies in the way that prejudicial publicity has been conceptualized and operationalized in many simulation experiments. The studies reveal that potential juror prejudices that concern lawyers and judges involve more than just main effects of mass media. Pre- and midtrial prejudice also involves more general prejudices, gossip and rumor, the assertion of community normative values about justice, and conformity pressures. Four categories of prejudice recognized in American law are described and labeled: interest, specific, generic, and conformity prejudice. The case studies also reveal interesting dynamics involving “minimization” and inconsistency in jurors’ self-reports of attitudes which contradict a commonly held judicial view that superficial questioning is sufficient to uncover prejudice. Despite identifying deficiencies in the simulation literature, the paper concludes that experimental research is necessary to provide answers to causal questions that case studies and field research cannot ordinarily provide.

show abstract

Section: Jurors' Failure To Disclose Prejudices During Voir Dirementioning

confidence: 98%

Case studies of pre- and midtrial prejudice in criminal and civil litigation.

Vidmar

2002

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consequently, it is difficult to draw meaningful conclusions, because important individual differences between the groups may exist and because the different groups were not presented with the same evidence. Similarly, comparisons have been made between cases that trial consultants worked on and cases in which they were not used (e.g., Nietzel , Dillehay, & Himelein, 1987). Other researchers have reported results on the utility of SJS techniques from studies that have used a very small sample of cases (e.g., Frederick, 1984), making it difficult to have faith in these studies' reliability and validity.…”

Section: Effectiveness Of Sjsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Utility of Scientific Jury Selection

Lieberman

2011

Curr Dir Psychol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many attorneys place considerable importance on the jury selection process. In order to more effectively screen potential jurors, attorneys involved in major litigation frequently hire jury selection consultants. Consultants use a variety of survey and observational approaches based on social science research techniques to conduct scientific jury selection (SJS). Over the past three decades, psychologists have engaged in research that has implications for evaluating the utility of SJS. In some cases, these research endeavors have examined the general relationship between background characteristics of research participants and their inclinations to either convict or acquit a defendant. In other cases, SJS techniques have been studied in actual trials, as well as mock trial simulations. In this article, I review these lines of research and conclude that while SJS may have some utility, methodological flaws associated with existing research prevent clear conclusions from being drawn. There is currently a strong need for high-quality evaluative research studies to be conducted on the SJS approach.

show abstract

“…And the fact of the matter is that the circumstances of a juror at that stage of a trial will vary so considerably that it would be difficult to compare the two. Beyond the very general level, there simply is not sufficient uniformity in voir dire (e.g., the number of questions asked, the phrasing of most of the questions, order in which they are asked, and other topics covered) to make it possible to identify anything resembling a standard (see Fortune, 1980; and for consequences due to variations in voir dire in capital cases, see Nietzel & Dillehay, 1982, and Nietzel, Dillehay, & Himelein, 1987). One important similarity, however, is that our subjects had been answering questions about their feelings about the death penalty and their ability to consider alternative punishments leading into the screening under Witt .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To assess their ADP status, respondents were asked the question from Neises and Dillehay (1987) about their disposition to give the death penalty whenever a defendant is convicted of capital murder. Respondents indicated whether they would always give death if they were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of first degree, intentional murder, or if they would not always do so.…”

Section: Tlie Structured Interviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Life under Wainwright v. Witt: Juror dispositions and death qualification.

Dillehay¹,

Sandys²

1996

Law and Human Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current standard for determining juror qualification in cases in which the prosecution is seeking the death penalty was formulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1985 in Wainwright v. Witt. This standard differs importantly from its predecessor, and requires that prospective jurors be dismissed if their views would prevent or substantially impair their ability to perform their functions as jurors. We assessed respondents according to the criteria imposed by Witt. We also measured independently prospective jurors' abilities to perform the various specific tasks of a capital juror and their disposition to impose the death penally automatically upon defendants convicted of murder punishable by death. Data from 148 respondents, selected randomly from juries on previously tried felony cases, indicated that 28.2% of those includable by the Witt standard would automatically impose the death penalty. Considering all respondents who would be erroneously included or excluded, a total of 36% of the sample showed inconsistencies with the Witt criterion. These findings are discussed in terms of jurors' difficulties in anticipating their roles as capital jurors.

show abstract

Effects of voir dire variations in capital trials: A replication and extension

Cited by 16 publications

References 7 publications

Case studies of pre- and midtrial prejudice in criminal and civil litigation.

Case studies of pre- and midtrial prejudice in criminal and civil litigation.

The Utility of Scientific Jury Selection

Life under Wainwright v. Witt: Juror dispositions and death qualification.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About