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

King, Kerry A.; Nesbit, Todd M.

doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2009.02.015

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Compared with smaller juries, larger juries are more diverse, collectively remember more evidence, and produce verdicts that are more predictable and in line with community sentiment; however, they also deliberate longer and reduce the likelihood of individual participation (Bornstein & Greene, 2017; Watanabe, 2020). Statistical models show that optimal jury size—balancing considerations like verdict accuracy and efficiency (that is, costs to both courts and jurors themselves)—varies depending on community factors (for example, opinion homogeneity) but is about nine to 12 (King & Nesbit, 2009; Watanabe, 2020). Given larger juries’ tendency to recall more evidence and discuss it more accurately (Saks & Marti, 1997), we expect that the effects of jailhouse informant testimony observed here would, if anything, be less with larger juries.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of jailhouse informant testimony on jury deliberation.

Golding¹,

Neuschatz²,

Rawn³

et al. 2022

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the impact of jailhouse informant testimony on mock juries. In addition to allowing for jury deliberations, individual judgments (as measured in most prior research) were examined. Two hundred ninety-one undergraduates, in fiveto six-member mock juries, heard a fictional murder trial summary in one of three conditions: jailhouse informant testified after receiving an incentive, jailhouse informant testified after receiving no incentive, or no jailhouse informant testimony. Participants made predeliberation judgments, deliberated on a verdict, and made postdeliberation judgments. The primary results showed that there were more guilty verdicts for juries that heard jailhouseinformant testimony than for those that did not hear such testimony. This relationship was fully mediated by perceptions of the defendant (e.g., sympathy for and credibility of). In addition, jury deliberations often produced a change in verdict; those who gave an initial guilty verdict were more likely to switch to not guilty after deliberation. Finally, cognitive network analyses showed that jailhouse informant testimony was the focus of jury deliberations for both guilty (viewed the testimony as reliable) and not guilty (viewed the testimony as unreliable) verdicts. Results are discussed in terms of the importance of how jailhouse informant testimony can influence jury deliberations in both a positive and negative way.

show abstract