The American jury

Some steps between attitudes and verdicts

“…In most cases the weight of the evidence is insufficient to produce firstballot unanimity in the jury (Hans & Vidmar, 1986;Hastie, Penrod, & Pennington, 1983;Kalven & Zeisel, 1966). Different jurors draw different conclusions about the right verdict on the basis of exactly the same evidence.…”

“…Third, the "classic" study in the held of research on jury decision making concluded that the distribution of jurors' individual verdict preferences before deliberation predicted the verdict at the end of deliberation in "nine out of ten juries" (Kalven & Zeisel, 1966: p. 488). The implication was that an account Qf_tb.e.Jnanngr.in_ whkh_predeliberation verqicts arose, with a focus on th~ reasons for 9_iff~:r:_~_I1c~samong jurors whoheard the same case, WOUld provide-US w-iti}the_aJ1SWer to the question of the final verdict.…”

Juries and Medical Malpractice Claims: Empirical Facts versus Myths

“…Some studies have asked trial judges to make independent assessments of who should have prevailed in civil cases over which they presided [17,20,38]. The judgments were made while the jury was still deliberating and therefore were not contaminated by knowledge of the outcome.…”

Deliberating Collective Decisions

“…A substantial fraction of deliberation appears to be devoted to a discussion of the facts (Pennington 1983). In fact, starting from Kalven and Zeisel (1966), numerous scholars have argued that juries do a good job at reaching an understanding of the facts. In a study of mock juries, Ellsworth (1989) writes: "In general, over the course of deliberation, jurors appear to focus more on the important facts and issues, come to a clearer understanding of them, and approach consensus on the facts."…”