Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/springer-journals/permitting-jury-discussions-during-trial-impact-of-the-arizona-reform-K0NTU1iWLB
References (41)
-
N. Kerr, R. MacCoun, Geoffrey Kramer (1996)
Bias in judgment: Comparing individuals and groups.Psychological Review, 103
-
Larry Heuer, Steven Penrod (1989)
Instructing jurorsLaw and Human Behavior, 13
-
N. K. Lakamp (1998)
Deliberating juror predeliberation discussions: Should California follow the Arizona model?U.C.L.A. Law Review, 45
-
S. Diamond (1997)
Illuminations and Shadows from Jury SimulationsLaw and Human Behavior, 21
-
Christy Visher (1987)
Juror decision makingLaw and Human Behavior, 11
-
G. T. Munsterman (1996)
A brief history of state jury reform effortsJudicature, 79
-
V. Hamilton, R. Hastie, Steven Penrod, N. Pennington (1985)
Inside the Jury.Contemporary Sociology, 14
-
Donald Gjerdingen (1993)
The Future of Our Past: The Legal Mind and the Legacy of Classical Common-Law ThoughtIndiana Law Journal, 68
-
R. W. Pearson, M. Ross, R. M. Dawes (1992)
Questions about questions: Inquiries in the cognitive bases of surveys -
V. Hans, Paula Hannaford-Agor, G. Munsterman (1999)
The Arizona Jury Reform Permitting Civil Jury Trial Discussions: The View of Trial Participants, Judges, and JurorsUniversity of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 32
-
N. Pennington, R. Hastie (1992)
Explaining the evidence: Tests of the Story Model for juror decision making.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62
-
Stephan Landsman (1984)
The adversary system : a description and defense -
S. Kassin, L. Wrightsman (1988)
The American Jury on Trial: Psychological Perspectives -
R. D. Myers, G. M. Griller (1997)
Educating jurors means better trials: Jury reform in ArizonaJudges' Journal, 36
-
Allan Lind, John Thibaut, L. Walker, EA Lind, TR Tyler (1988)
The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice -
S. Diamond, Jonathan Casper (1992)
Blindfolding the Jury to Verdict Consequences: Damages, Experts, and the Civil JuryLaw & Society Review, 26
-
P. Ellsworth (1989)
Are Twelve Heads Better Than OneLaw and contemporary problems, 52
-
M. J. Saks (1981)
Small-group decision making and complex information tasks -
C. Lord, L. Ross, M. Lepper (1979)
Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered EvidenceJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37
-
Scott Decker (1979)
Law and Society ReviewJournal of Drug Issues, 9
-
G. Miller, N. Cantor (1982)
Book Review Nisbett, R. , & Ross, L.Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1980.Social Cognition, 1
-
R. Hastie, Bernadette Park (1986)
The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or on-linePsychological Review, 93
-
R. E. Nisbett, L. Ross (1980)
Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of human judgment -
H. Weld, E. Danzig (1940)
A Study of the Way in Which a Verdict Is Reached by a JuryAmerican Journal of Psychology, 53
-
L. Heuer, S. Penrod (1989)
A field experiment with written and preliminary instructionsLaw and Human Behavior, 13
-
(1995)
Improving Jury Comprehension in Criminal and Civil Trials -
L. Heuer, S. Penrod (1996)
Increasing juror participation in trials through note taking and question askingJudicature, 79
-
C. Visher (1987)
Juror decision making: the importance of evidenceLaw and Human Behavior, 11
-
G. Munsterman, P. Hannaford, G. Whitehead (1997)
Jury trial innovations -
E. F. Loftus, D. Leber (1986)
Do jurors talk?Trial, 1986
-
R. Pearson, Michael Ross, R. Dawes (1992)
Personal Recall and the Limits of Retrospective Questions in Surveys -
(1994)
Jurors: The power of twelve -
N. Pennington, R. Hastie (1986)
Evidence evaluation in complex decision making.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51
-
B. Dann (1993)
"Learning Lessons" and "Speaking Rights": Creating Educated and Democratic JuriesIndiana Law Journal, 68
-
G. LaFree, V. Hans, N. Vidmar (1987)
Judging the Jury.Contemporary Sociology, 16
-
Richard Lempert (1975)
Uncovering "Nondiscernible" Differences: Empirical Research and the Jury-Size CasesMichigan Law Review, 73
-
J. E. Shtabsky (1996)
Comment. A more active jury: Has Arizona set the standard for reform with its new jury rules?Arizona State Law Journal, 28
-
H. Bernstein, D. Horowitz, David Lange, H. Powell, Melvin Shimm, J. Weistart, R. Danner, Claire Germain, B. Baccari, Lisa Eichhorn, James Farrin, K. Cashion, Steven Chabinsky, Thomas Contois, James Glenister, Stephen Armitage, J. Cannon, C. Connolly, David Dabbs, Katherine Flanagan, P. Franklin, Donald Nielsen, Christopher Hart, Charles North, William O'Neil, Jane Schaefer, Eric Lieberman, Janet Moore, A. Walsh, Raymond Wierciszewski (1990)
LAW AND CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS -
S. T. Fiske, S. E. Taylor (1991)
Social cognition -
S. Kassin, L. Wrightsman (1979)
On the requirements of proof: The timing of judicial instruction and mock juror verdicts.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37
-
A. Goldstein, H. Kalven, H. Zeisel, Thomas Callahan, P. Ennis (1966)
The American JuryLaw & Society Review, 1
- Publisher
- Springer Journals
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2000 by American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychology Association
- Subject
- Psychology; Law and Psychology; Criminology and Criminal Justice, general; Personality and Social Psychology; Community and Environmental Psychology
- ISSN
- 0147-7307
- eISSN
- 1573-661X
- DOI
- 10.1023/A:1005540305832
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
A field experiment tested the effect of an Arizona civil jury reform that allows jurors to discuss evidence among themselves during the trial. Judges, jurors, attorneys, and litigants completed questionnaires in trials randomly assigned to either a Trial Discussions condition, in which jurors were permitted to discuss the evidence during trial, or a No Discussions condition, in which jurors were prohibited from discussing the evidence during trial according to traditional admonitions. Judicial agreement with jury verdicts did not differ between conditions. Permitting jurors to discuss the evidence did affect the degree of certainty that jurors reported about their preferences at the start of jury deliberations, the level of conflict on the jury, and the likelihood of reaching unanimity.
Journal
Law and Human Behavior – Springer Journals
Published: Oct 19, 2004