JURIES },1\D JURY DECISION MAKIUG
Dr". f:.-ed
M~Y£l~"
Reading and Sn~elal St~dy - POLS 405
Senior Honors Project - ID 499
March 11, 1977
6r cof
-ri'c ,"_,
i-c,
;; t- 1'7:":·)
.,1.
, .,
-,~ r~ ~
~,
r"
,[ I '
-JURIE.S AND JURY Dr,:=rSION rl,AKING
I.
Jnries
Jury
Infc:-matlcn
G~nernl
.
--------------.---------------~
,
N~llificaticn ~-~-~~-~~-~-~~~--·~-~~~~~-·---·---------n
III.
IV.
v.
VI.
Hi.story of'
",1u~y
Trial .. ----,.. ........ - .. - ........ -----...... ~---- ... --------9
Juvenile JUI'Y Trials .. - ___ ............ _ ..... ___ .. _ ..... _ .............. __ .. _ .... ___ ··l
De~th-Qualifi!:d
r)
Juries -----------------------------------12
"III.
Voir Dire ---~~ .. -~---~--- .. -~-----~~~---~--~-----~~~-~--~--1~
VIII.
Nonu!'l3.nimous Verdict. ~ .... - ....... - .. - ... ------------------------ .. ---J.I'::
IX.
Six-M~~ber
Jcrles
x.
GrB.nd Jury
-.- .----- ..
XI.
XII.
>:111.
~----~-~~~~~~~ .. -~-~~--~--~~-----~---.---17
.. -- ...
Jury Oiscrimin<l tion - ... -----------------------2t·
Ghs lJ.~f'lgir:(~
CIvil Jury Trials
Ju~y In~tl~uctlons
~
~----------
.. ____
~-
__
.... ------ ....... ..
~_~~~
~---------
__ ____ ___
~
~
~_._~~
"'-'.':"
"..
'
___ . 4 ___ 2(
- .. - .... -~--.-- .. --.. --.. ---- .. ---.. ---... -- . --- .. ---- )_:)
Juror 3~ leeti on an:1 Ma~gernent
·-----_·--------------------3:-;
L
"C};):·:.i~ir f.rB;ur:J~r.t to the ~Tu~y for the Defel:.se in Crirr.:-.,,,.. l
.....
, .,.:)..:...
~'''s"
b"" J ",~' ) . . -·.··"·.r~·1n
Art;·.ur.
~. fr~~:AT
I"'nIlI: ..lll.f'\. __
'.1 •
.........
I.
'-'r·ll..1J C'I4' '.J"\
':'~Dn;'~OLVJY fi~::' POTreE -::CIS~WE.
rr:urch, lq67; Se(1),Z-17.
'l'he ,~10sin~ a:':'?::wnent to tr:(> jury llmst n:~::"lr-2,'j 1 ~n~' <"'~~J""'~'
~')r 7.he: T.rJs:~:if)n of tL,,; c.e~ense into a c;:he~ive 8r-=-::.lrnen-: c':'~t!<:
'~f>str0yil'['L;I~ C;L:::e )f the nrc:s~cutor or pre :€r.~irE! :em [If:'.>'''·'. L~ve ~cf~n~~ f~r his cliH~~.
The i~t~nt of the 3~+i~lE i~ ~0
',-=:p th',: :':~i1';',l"lal Q.':fei"'s·= la'.... ,:.~::- organize a:"1d de.l.i·lF':'" :i per'jlJ;~si\'t: ;;:] :)S:~IR' arP."1J.ment, b~ St'd on :~.n unc'lp.r:,;tanc::np; 0:!" :-l"~·(.r ·~·. C
~03t ~r!c'c-:1v~ly i-::luence the rner'lbersof the jury t.c':;}rd hi:;
T
.&.
'_~
.... '
_
.&.· •
,j.
, .• ,.
T
T.
.L.aoi~
! j eTl ~.
2. "Pre ~ lld lC i~l !~e'~ls Co,,,erap;e and Locking U p tr~t Jury" by
fr,mk K2.:)sik. ·POLICE. r.i~r~h-April, 196ry; 11'55-5:3.
:t hR. co: !,)~en acknow1 edp;ed th,8. t a~verse publi..-: i ty :n2 y ~f·A:~ '..,
t:'e outccme of <:l jury's vercii(!t. A remedy for this si "<.:.ati·_<:
h,,-:c; been t'J '3eq·.le~t::r the jury; however this solt:.-:io:1 !':'lay i~l ; 1..c:;e:r ad"l'f~rse:y affect juror ·:'·eliberation2 "::.-y shi:~i:1c; th"'? !,.;~­
:J";'1 co: ipi ':. __ :; :::' !7,u'ilt fro!"l t!-'e pre3~ to t!1e jtA't::.
T;-.e soure,:, '-)~
~.he pro'b L"", '.::.' tt~~ source of' the adverse publici ~~J - H!e ~ :"",._;;.,e::'utors, ).;·~2.ee, 3r_':! att("Jr:.i;;~·S.
3.
"The: ,6.. :~··~?·':~c.?:-; .Tury - !'7ote<:; For An EnF,l is;l :cr1'1:;ro'!er:~/" h::
.."Yr. c~!~rJ ~!3.ns :als~.)l. R\:'U::n T.\B~J~. ;j.r~l:"il. lS; --:;
:--f-~~r:l K.:1.1~~~~n •
1 1_ 5'",-'. ,{.J'1 ~
.-,
_:'u'
"
·7
,
Theartic~.e is 3. dlscussion cf scne of the fin ~ lr.:.~~ ,,~
L ... '1.".<;>n ?-.;;: Zp.:.s~l in ';';neir st::)~y, Th~ Am~ri~.a~·l ,Tr:'.ry.
A:'1011P, trji-'
;-"""UE'~'--'i~~l;:;~€-d ;ire Jury ser.ti~,:cn'ts ac)ut t . . le cetp::.'1C?_I' t 2"
~::-::
:c'..w, 2:'~' :"'2;; "e:.::rnl prOD(')S8.::'S~ aLe. thE: place )'f' co:"r".J.Jt~ ,,~ -;",
, ....... "
,If'-:~
"-:>";nfY'
K·'a"·"'··
..1 .a.nd
.... l··~c,l·~
d"t""
y.n'
••..• "
.:S. .....
,
e;..
J..
....
u" '!'J
:>
l'"
r·'j·.~l··~~ ~·1·.·: -ti. ~: . . f: Inct:.:1c·::~ rj:' r!'JI.tr) ... r/tjr:·~ Jr:-~ :,:·:~~··e. (~r~j t} .. :;~t
.'. '........... .,.. ~ 'f" -I'~ •••
"' ',~' : ' .•'f
(1',).... ('I ~~ v-~ u~ t' ....... ors )' '1' ....~~ rl"''-'
h,,, ~~/")'"''
- ....... 0::>
-.. ~. ...· ..
::
I ........ '
-
if;.
~ I - . • .... P~.I-
.....:......
-.?
"'!'~l':
LE::i~~;
.. ,
T::~~
:ir.t. ~r~
-
-
y
......
'-4.1..
.J.
.....
C'Jr·)~hy
~
...
'~~y'
.;ltI~ya
by
~!'~ty,
~.99)1
rJ.• ')-lC &
1
~
_.
t:,.;:
.~
~:.l
..
('I'"
_ .. 1
<" .....
~-
-
BrB.~t
':.'~!'nick.
•.••
i. .. '- ' .
,.. ..,.
1
' " '-
I
F'
...
,_,
...
':':{2 . ~:,~,~::·:: . .\l~
5J-5 i J..
h:;:e;:-.1.can jury ~w~tE'm :}er:rit3 ttl~ in~iyijual tl; p:.l.4ti-·
h.:s.."Q·... err.~,1~nt. whila acti':"l.?, as a
£"(wer1ir~'.:t1~· er.cro:.ichmp.nt on p~rsonal rights.
; ~ eS~f!n-::.ially a corner~tone I)~ democracy,
.:.ti
~hGrtcQ~5n~s.
should be ;:'etained.
s~.feg:J,lr~. c..;!C'_i~lst
The A~('ric'li~ j 11ry
and despi te i 't~
~~,(~
~'cr"; ~ ~t
C~o..
O ~'·-.t·
_
_
,~I'-uln i!lh~:,'i ~ J~.1'( -·~ .. S t':l ~}.'? t1:SC~l:_~. )~r:,(~'" 'J1' tt~,~·:· J.~
'.' ','.". .....
"'ll.fT",
c·,t .., •...!lJ +.. 1-.,:
,,~"
' 1,,: ,"\ ~ ~
'.
r : • •,.
.. u·~ i " ,t,
• ~;
~ ~:~
",-J' )
l Y
.... ~ . ~:~
~ ~ t . . ~::
"'~.
C":;,Je:_~~~'!'l
l'
~"
::lt1:SV/er
questi0~:-~
~·ut
t()
'I
-'.'
~!:ej~
I
'h'~'
t::f! Vt~rc:i.c~.p If:d th'lt ~OVI1S;?~ ,'pfn:.~ir, fr'r"
cept ui?cn T.r·";nr rlr;-:; 'ce "to 1;h(> ~("urt ar:u t,
'.
'.
c'. . ~..:r~··-·t
:-.J::'
:.,
~~(\j2..tl·l·'.i:·.· .
·:~W:·.
''-:'It:::-t;;l('>~~':f''' ~,~(0v,·.. ,:-;lnl: c'Jun~·;el.
"A ..iJtry In~tructior. to D3::p'''~'g:1rd ? Cc-"1I?f'?·,,~ln·.ts cu~,~··)~··
'>il}!"t C:)~lfe~:si(.Jr~ in Deter~TJinin:z the Guilt of De. €r:d:"t;'1:-: I:i:":',.;.r i · :
~l.snt tc ''":U!''f' Error Re:stiltin,o; 'fro:") th8 DenL:<l ·:f l)efs !.;;:,:l~i:.:.
:~onstj tution.:11 Rip;ht ; ) f r:::ross-E}':')!;linati\)l'l, Rt'~lto~ v. l.'>'i +~C
6.
U e-.J.
....
.." 77Tl~J
•
~.~
'.'J.""
\
• .1.
_,-_
(.
'~"::t.L-,C'.
'j91
l..t:" . . - , ) . ,
.,;!. ..
l?
_ ....
) (1. Q
,. 68)"
T·'I":i"':'V-T-{.~;;--r:;;-,·--~·;::--:
. . . 'TlEXA("I
.
aJ~V
"~,,,,"_" ....... ~~~iTlu.!.
...
.
'·r
"-:~':;?
1
1:'1 C~SE'.J wher'? th~ jury is .i.r:structei t l ) di::;n>~.r:'!:l (·0rf·~~·<::i··"1
"rl~r"'"
;."" ·"Vl·Q·~!r.ce
t.n','.i·t.
l~"'JJ.'+inu
l'n~-""'llctint,~
' ) "y
c;;
c
4.~.......
_
__
_ <"',llcn'
_
~
J. ... : , ' , _
.1 ...... ' •.> -.~,.
!v.l.:.
':l " t ' U
,..:" ....
pro:1 i,lCC tl1e oDposi te result ."'rr)!n that intlSndt:;d.
If i,':::::'S!'C,(L:J JE,:,
_I"
....
"
to the jury are no~ ~ufficient there are two al~~rr~t:v2 ~pt',~~~
of t,:,yin; l.w n co-cefendants: by separate tri3,ls )Y' 0,: .:-:>,~~~<~ ~1
join t -+:!"ial :.:,::,::,perly conducted so as no t to ~::--e ,; '",C l.C(; !.L.=: ·::l:3. ',':-'2:>
c~' the defendant who had no~ confe.ssed to the cri!1"l~.
7. "Trial b~' Jury !rl Criminal Ca ses" • COLUr··~BI;'_ Lfl.. vi ~~~'lIE~';.,
l~~3.rch. 1969r f59{.3) ,419-h 71.
The ~urrose of the jury ha~ been define~ in two ~~dels:
f j :si.: a:: 3. F.uarantor of aCCl~rr..~y in f:tct-:ind i T'Y:; a:'1"1 se(.c:~"
as a
p~litical
institution
~roviding
indi'lidual
2rGt~~ti0n
from
tl:€ sts te.
The article eX:3.r.lines four court c' ,"" -, rle:t2 i~t~ \IIi :r;,
ju::y tri3l r:'-"':'"tts:
Durtcan v. Louisi:l!1;} ("~~1~ jU-"f ~.s ;:. ;:-::,1: c:.2~·1
in::;titutic:-:); 'tlithcl.-,;;"Ooon v. lllh;ois (caoi-:~::,l p\.L~iisllI'1en-;-. ~;,;l'~
+;""'n
;~'.J -r ,,".
~t"',.7::-;'
.-.J_~+a C(···-,·~... -;'-~'" I _.
."
_'~ .. ..' \.... 1 ","' . [1. :J _;tA·-l
_. . .~
..... ' . ..
'_ c:_ rnu~IJ.·f';c:t""r'~r."'i
,
~ __
_... ~ ',,_
'"ona"'l
:),....;"
..
~I'je)·
"-0.'
l'--,li.,
........
.
--4
c·t->tE<::
v
T~c'roe-,",,~
(,~;
-".r-t+
+0
.... ..,..!..-....
, _.
v .. _ 0::-.
,,-"u
'
__
,J
,
c_ ••. " " <1
...... : L...
v
c .J... J.
t ...
r·-
" . . J ..
~
by jury).
I.. '::' '"
J
_
TiLe ,qrt;r.le conclude:3 th3t 'the jury
...
_
..
~
'Ni-~l
a hunnni t::t.ri3.r. in:~ti tu-+:i::n;., br.e that i:1,in p-..lrt
tj~n of ~he guilty.
'l~
•
~
. . ,
be
'f:0J:'
',.:€·r~<.~.'e.J
the p-_'cte::-
5. nJur~.,. Research in Amel·iC'8.: Its Past and Future" t.J ~o':1~1.rc.
s. 2rlarif:pr. LA~V AIm SOCI:T'! R-'!:VIEW. Febru3.ry, 1970: h(J):;l.. :;3'10.
Thl:' two ~l;:..jor themes ):' f:m"'}irical rese'lr~i: (In jurie: :::.rt:
cmcerned ",'/i th jury (~omn~ t ~ncet:!nd jury repr~ :en 1.3. t i Ort. St'.ldie 3
3,;,0 fir.riL!1.~s for the pa:~t four and one h:.>.lf s.e~ade~ ?ore revj.e·... ed
a~d sug~esti~ns for future r~se~rch are offered.
9.
"Invasion of Jury Deliberations, Existin~ Rules and Su£gested
by Kris Landri th.
BA YLCR M·t! REVIEW. Su:r.mer. 1971;
23( J) ahi I-5-4SJ.
Jury misconduct is difficult to determine si~ce ju~y
deliberations are off-limits to inquiry. Only overt conduct,
as opncse~ to "mental 9roces~es" should be taken into c0n~i­
deration in the motion for a new trial on ~rounds of jury miscon~uct.
Jurors should be required to testify of submit an
affjdavit in alle~ed misconduct situations.
Chan~es"
-
"Jury System Reform" by Allan S. Nanes.
August, 1?71;61Iq2-96.
10.
~URRE~,T
HI.S,!'ORY.
·i
~Fln'y
frob'er'13 in "':hc ,lur:f 3,'y':'tem L: t[.i, ~1:)Untry art": (~~''i'"':in.''''
crj~i('-~ ;;, Cqll for :t':""r~"lsP'i ,,"e or ,'t(-!):i'.i;'·j c.f' ,'1...:;'10:.
";}~ll.·)
,;l., . ·..;.'""·~
ar!1
th,:~
:'·~1{
r)~~
~.7':'"~:.1!
'IY;C"I~V'~'-~~!v:f'
~r;t;""l''''''j-::
..
...
.(. -'
... ).
._
:{~!j:'.'~.t?~~·...,:J~r
'·-·v.:'lpj"lt
wi th h;vulv;
~-
'-
•
~
"..'
:~ ...!,:~l~r·:::
1!'
+:~:~.:
~
bpi!1P' c·:(~"'.r:7:1entp..i
1;h(' 'l?':
of
:lu~io-', i::n~'l.l
ce~··t'1i~ prQced~:~tJ:/l!1(; testi:nm-,ies, p:.·-:i..;:.rn('d
~~:"x-;iler;-,~)sr juries, ~nj nonunanimcu3 VE-.l.~dict~.
:e:"1t for
~~,)ns,
't
:"'.:-~\'_!I"-~~"
th("j'.:~:)!· a:'2 ')~l,:! ~~ "~;" .)!' :r,(~
+1'.P''''
",·,'~·+.,r1
n.;f'-'.~,,,,,
nrt'>'-(',.~·,·
u.. 1 ""_
'-'
".'
'.',"
'.) ....... , .
• ....
) .. !....
. . __ _ - _ '" J .•.
t')
(>1
I':' :'-,
i:''::;',rL.lC-
1. "The '~ut.;S-~,iOl: vf R(:visin~ the Jury System". CCN::;~ESSI()r-~A~_
DIGEST. :,ll.::-;ls~-Se;Jtem~r:r, !.971; 50(~,,9)1l9)-?2!".
Thp :lr~ir.le is a special fe?tur~ eJn-rnir:iLi." -:h(~ 'Jresent
c;tatu;3 :-:.(' O~Jr ,iury system today.
It inco:p':>r'it,:: ti-l 2. CC.:12tl.+i.,eion3.1 3::c1 C(l!,!,,"l()n 12w ~)aS~2 0f "'.;he jur~/, feQe~~: r'.J.~ es )"1'
prof!·.:;·:h;~e., a llstirW 01" st1.tL'~ usin,~ l~ss thar, 1?-::er::6n
=lIr~e::;, !"ecen't. action by Conf.:r.e~s and the Courts • .J.~d tr.e ;J:-,'~':
CO~3 of curtailing the 3ize and URe of juries.
12.
1~71;
tlT::-:a]~::
Jury" by Alan Grar,t.
44'31A-323.
POLIC:':
JC'UR;~n.L.
Oc~~obE:.,
.
By trach:,g a famous En~lish robbery trial, the autro!"
disCllSSE;,s the pros and cons of the modern jury. In t~'? f?,e~
,)f clearJy con-:r~ldictory evidenc'e, the jurors, wi tr.. th.e C';!Ltrollinr' i:;flucnce of the jud~7e. deterMined the ~~tcts of -ch(~
~-·:~e.
It i~ arfued that wh2.t is needed fvr a f!olJd deci"-:::-In
i~ a A:rf)Wleri2;e of the ways of 7,he world and 8. d<::.:::irc '"';0 come
to ~ goo~ co~clusion. Thus, the prima need ~a~ well be ~~r
~)€o:')le fr::',:l ev~,ryG~','.-life to servl? as ju!'ors.
:J
tlT1".,,, A'[.tri can ..Tury System: ;~ Tl;;e '!'or R.:;e~(3.r:!.il"!a -:; i ",'~ to -!:,,~~
Silbert .:. :: •.:1<.-,'113. JU:>ICATURE. Octv~er, 1971; 55(3) ,':,'-'?9.
Until recently, 'the ri;:h~ to trial by jury had lJ.r.(i~r-~onl'
1 i:ttle chan~e sL1ce the Ameri can Revo luti on. The 3uprei'ie
;"~cnlrt nec':'sions i:-. :;un':!8.n, "Tilli3.ms, J0h"1s..)r and A"jo~n~;s r.-)'W- • c~,
'
-I
'
'~I
h... e s ~;::"'.t:'
--:--:;-;"-::T-.
''''-.
t"\i
!:lr,_' ' '",a'_S.ln',
v .lr~r t r l'_:::I, -1 _"
__ .1 J. rO!dl. new.::;.
........ '_.
• .,C
''':2 jor r~):din.,-;~n Duncan and ','Hlli:C.ms 2.re 1iscuS~3ed. ~:O;lP' wi +.;.~
a!1 ~~'1alysi'3 oft!1€ jury syster.1 and ~ecom!TIend'l.ti:)ns for its il,:0
C"
-)
-
!')rcv~rne:.:1t.
1/~.
"~hf~ Er:{~lisrl Jury" hy ~'-!.R. Cornish.
NE'.',' SOCIETY.
r:OVF-'1';te:-, 1971; :6(4) :870·-872.
The E~HTlish ju!'y has been charac~erized a~ "m~le, 111r;jJ?·aged, ~iddle-~inded, and class M • The history of jur~ trial
is tracertl fr0~ the time when ju~ors were as much witnesses
a.s jud~e~ of f3.ct, throU!:~h the modern techni qU8S of ru} ~s of
~v iJence, 't 0 the present jury inequi ties requirin~--: property
:'wner.3h:. p.
Th~ jury in Eng-Ian is presently an insti tu tiOH
with somewhat controversial selection procedures.
15. "'l'he Ju!'y, the Court-Martial, and the Constitution"
Eur;ene r.~. 'lc~:l L08.n. CORNELL LA:.~ RI~VIE·d. Febru8.ry 1972;
361-LH8.
- The rnilitary had tr':!ditionally been gO'lerned by its
system of courts-martial. Con~ress, in what is believed
by
57();.
own
to te
r.l<",-t;l')ri~<l Jccide:!t,
~~5.x t~! ~ir.P;,(!~·:r.r~ ~ t:3 roi .j. . . t
;p'!
-
i:!~:''1~;titti~:'./"l
'Ju"'2tlon~J.ult:
r,E:~,:;
()f
t~~p
"r.'jvi~;i.")n
,~ii;~
to
"!'-t ,·'{~~~,t H:~
t!~ .;.-11 ~~:I l~lr~)".
.'0,'
: '!,{
tr,llJ.
i.:-
whcr,hc'r !;rial ~'.1 i:~'Y ',,:u1d
r:-1~l~t'll.'Y 1'1 tn8 r:r<,:~"';,r,t d'..:.~;.
1 1',.
"H3r0.i.~·:'::er:-,: ()f Jury '{€for!Tt"
!.i~:::RIC:;r:
R A3::>C1CIATI('N.
,-T •.12.y,
n:..
1'l:i~it'1ry
A~ ::~l'.I'- '·1"f~
frr.·~ ~.r:t,>
~:~ ..~t.'~~ _i ::~
~hp.:i~ '_'t.:_~y,
:·.~,pe~·
i _
!"f)
i~;
::'e ·:::fcc':..'c'.:-
by Irvinl; R. L:.:\uf;nn.n.
197::. 511:c:,.15-7'.0.
!"cfon.s of t:.c jlU:Y s.'!:--'.:;~m rn:~~, ce r,:ecc,~:.s,,:p"'y tc ',)J.'f:C.
'~t:rve th~ j~. Y :is a cornersto"l€ of d'le pr,)cess.
The ?t2·.:lf:: .... :ll
•.r n·:.,' Sc J_~': t lun :lnd Serv: ce and Servi c e Ac t ::. f
1?~ e, :Hi ~ ~hf'
·~.ig:ibiL.t~· of won en a:1'~ If.it8 21 yea."-~ olds r.::3.',re i_M;)rOVe~ u"!,::
~.~ f:'r,:sen~':l-+;~(';n.:ll q~lali ty o~ jury ve?1:r19s.
'PhS L',:;:l r: '":,(,\"2.['t:
_~:;,:lller ~'...i.rl~'::; and nonunar.1MOu..3 verd1cts crcmlse .-':'.':.i.c2r
e;f:cienc:(Lut :nust be ~."lrefuJ Ly mor.i tored tJ In:3!lre ar: ir:l')3. rt:::.:.l trl ::1.
~~::~.~·:i:-'
'b~! Dor.altj ~. ~.~:1.r+l~'.•
1 Y/A ugu s ~,
" - C),-:,,,',,_ ...:. •
'"
_ "...,2
') ; ; r,:~(',J ( Lj.r,/ : "):.:
Da. ta 0:.: jurors from 1962 was analyzed a::: to ".:he d~ reef;
8..n~'!. in'ii !"'~c t. c03t~f jury du ty.
The cost to soc ie ty is h i,C'le::
t~an is aDparent due to t~e fact th~t jurors are taken from
~hp "sup~ly ~ide" of the economi. and Kces3ive~y lar~e p001~
o:~ juror::: 3.:-e neces!:1.ry to 3.11ow for excuse s. ex':-<~ pt ion:: ;::.rH]
lc!~r~e~t~.
The aut~or beliAves that a volunt·er jury wo~~j
S1,ve soc i et8.1 ~J sts 1n gr:neral.
1".
tiThe
I IL
'
.' J,'1'':'':'1.'
.. J c,".
r.'(
:8.
:Sc~)ncr"iics
"Tb~
of Jl1ry
"'ccr'c~~Y
_PCL ....
.1 "'ICAL
J.
~",
II!
I~F
"',
4
,Tury'
JUD:C~T~~E.
c:
C()nscri~ti'Jn"
•
J 11
?
F'1ct-Findinp: Role" by Leo!'".ard
J~~u~ry 1973; 56(6)12~~-248.
The :JZ' im2. ry :functi cn of t~e :ur.f is
Leif~'l
?inz.
that 1):- a :""::> ~ +-:'i;-C.L":.T
body of J.ay citizens. Jury trials toda.y however, re,l.d re j',;r'(I,A:';
t~ interrret and apnly com~lex le~~l principles.
The autho~
:.r,·''..les for ret3,ini:1,,: the ,~u!'y as fact-i'inders, allow~Y)~ tho,?
.j~!ci..:rr:- to ap""',l.-r :r,e rules of l'1.w.
19.
"Ch::l,len.l::;in~
Octc~~r
the Jury" by G. Robertsot1.
NE,'i SJ'ATES":Aj:.
19. 1973; 86aS46-S k 8.
~hc article deals wit~ atte~rts to restrict ~n~ dp~~luc
the r1,?::lt t:) ju"'y t:.. . ial ir: England. Some of tt2se rec~n' 1.'<;!~t.:-ic-~ior..s i~lclucie= (lepri'''in,:J'' ). defendan"t of l~is :""i'~r~t ~!~.i l"-:!ceive a li.s", of occupations of potenti::ll juroT3; 13.mit:'.""r.:
~ury trials to the more serious cases; r~fusi~e :egal ai,l for
j'..;ry trial; ::lnd heavy penalties for not-guilty pleas.
20. "Jury Eavesdropningl A Scalpel in the Hands of the
Recognized Scholar". - NORTlf.AfES':"ERN UNIVERSITY LA',., REVIE\'I.
~ovember-December
197JJ 68(3):908-921.
Congre3~ould make jury eavesdropping by a "recognized schol~r" working on a "legal or
social science study" not a crime. This article takes the
position th~t such a proposal is too va~e in its terminolo~y;
th~t eavesdroppin~ would impair the functioning of the jury; and
tha t i t .".auld conflict with the fourth amendment right t,o
privacy.
A proposal pending before
21.
"~'{~y Pe :.iDle CC~(lOla in 1\ bOll t Jt..ry Du t.y" •
REPORT. Dec(~:ntpr 31, 1971; 75(27) :2:'-30.
u. S. liE\iS &:
YKr~LD
"'he ar+iclc ex',Jlinf)s ':C'-: of ::;!'! ':un··.:n: ....,:ref:~u~-·'~ 1:, tn.'
sy~) t ,'OJ"; •
',I'-my \Hl e r i can:-:- ::i '[ ') i J. ,~ :_1 cy d '1 t,'! - t ~'::t ~) l.w:h ex er.p,.:,ti')l1.s, lie~, .!, r.ot re,a:i~i:p;-i'::~ to v,)te.
JU":'-;r~ 8it'idle ~,....
'Nai tinG ru(,~lS CAC1.USG of pc;,)!' ,~nlgeJ'llent.
C'-l(~'.·Y(.,;. ~re llnd"_r
w?y in i:he jury syste:n h()wev~!", fro!') ::dx-r.1e~'tp:" ~:uries to ~iv:,e
e~ficient juror utilizati0n to the use of com~vt~rs.
.i u r y
?~.
"RIG:!l: to Jury Tri'11 - Jury Trial Right if: Case of ;l'ul'tipIe Indirec~ Ccnt~mpts Should b~ Determined hy Seriousnps~ of
F:..mishm::r:t f,,;!' E:lch Con'terr.pt R21ther Than SP.r-i(lli:'l:e~:~ of Ag,":!">?p;~te P'Jnishment (In re PIJp.1"'tC'J ~ico NewsIlflper }u::.]c Loc~1.~ ;~:?5,
~i!c::"t Circuit 1973)'·.
:-iARVARD
REV!EW.
i·'el~r'.iary 19':"4; "';"
(l.L) ,865-376.
u:.w
In ~<;ra ner :'uild, the :;',;urts ruled th::l. t the aR<Tre~"', t i ')n
of ind~rect C'c!'}t:empi'S'"'"'did not. require ,jury t~ial. It is ar~ued th:3. t the serioust~p.ss of the puni~hment should be t:'12 b~,~: i ~~
for decidinf; . . .!hether a jury trial is warraTl<:ed i"1 contempt
cases.
23.
"Sworn Twelve" by C.H. Rolphe.
1974,
NEW STATESrri.,\N.
Marc~
29,
~7zu38-439.
jury, although held high in public esteem,
job. It is not a cross-section of the com~u­
ni ty !10r C3.n it make a more valid decision than a juG.{!e. Th,::,
article advJc~t:es abolishih~ jury trial an~ ~£placing it with
t~ials by ~ jud~e and two assessors.
Er!~lish
doi~~ its
The
is not
24.
279.
.
R""se~rch in England and the Un! ted states" by Sa-::'ah
,3RITISH JC'URNAL OF CRIMIi:;QLOGY. July' 1:)74; l h (3),276-
"Jury
rkC~be.
The q,rticle examines the American studies dor-€: by [;.lIven
='trJ:' Zeisel (The American Jl.(r.x:) and Rita James Simon' s T!11? IJefer.se of In~~ni ty, along wi -:r. recent rese2 rch j n En<land. Le-
viewing ::;::me of the findin£;s concerning types of jurors, jUl':'
s1 7e, le Q'~'\l in structions, and defend.:mts· a ttri bute s, the a . . . ticl-2 po intc:: out new areas !'or research into tr.e inst:' tuti·m
of the j'Jry ..
25.
"Jury T~ial in Minnes0ta - Right or Obli~~tion?n.
!.iINNESOTA LA~'l RSVIEW. Aoril 1976; 60(4) .759-772.
In St:1 te v. Ki l burr, a black :nale who had confessed to
killin'S a '.... hite teen8.ge girl,moved for a waiver of jury trial,
or as an alter-native, chanp,e 0f venue. Both motions were denied •• The article suggests that where there is "reason to believe w pretrial publicity or the character of the ccmmunity
might prejudice potential jury members, the waiver of a jury
trial would insure the defendant's right to an impartial hearing.
26.
tiThe Great and Inestimable Privilege, The American Crimina 1 Jury" by James E. Rooks Jr. CURRE,\IT HISTORY. June 1976,
70.261-264, 274-276.
The process of resolvin~ disputes has historically and
constitutionally been the function 0f the fact-finding jury.
T'l~
~x:~-a +j:1': ~n11
~~]r":
~S:l
t;y the
r:(-:,rlt
m0!1'~Y
j,··,rice
S2.~'V8,:
'~ov.:;r:I'"
1~'.r·~~~r~;·4..:····I,
"-t,r}d a:\ a '..-.e·~·~:o:" 'Jf r;i~~:'7.:"::·1 r_·-·~.~t·iei~~.:l-. ~,;;: i l l tl:r~~
t:lelr' ~ocjety.
"::'':1'-~ jnn: !"y:-,tt-m ~lC':'1 ."'t~ <i r"',~f:_
';"je Canf;~l' t ) f alluwinp: g:nrerr;:',[" t; '1l'o(''''';oes ".0
):~over;'H1H'rt of
,(~'.l,1rd ap::-:tin~"
be con(lti~te\: t-:l~J(mj
27.
:~lV01vpl ,r" wcrt~"i ;,l-,(':;urro::~~
i'1~:J1o::tijj:" ~he ci.t~=f~n:·J t;-;rr;
"Ri~tt
tlle
cO"r'!·er~ensi()?
tn Jury Trial in
C)nte~~t
~i-l_~:,:.p'1.
of r::
Cases:
A Critic81 ViHW
.h""
~(""'7e",-'-:·
e"'U're("a"'~,,,·"I
R'I'~c:'
'"'()C~l'"""",C"'~
v
Pe",'r·s."l,pr'n:"'·'
'-'
'....;
..... ' ..
y',_
,-......l._ . . -' l'ni':::'::"":.....
! l~ jay} o.r:...;' •_..2:;Y~ ~ t. •
r;OR'1'HVffi3TEPN UNI V:: ~ 31 r£'.: L!\ ,;; ~..(.~ V !.?~ ... : •
..T IA 1 y AI ,:~:1 ~ t F;? t) ~
70 ( J ) : 5:; J - 5 :':'? •
The S'J;::>r8:!'I":! Court 8XT8Yla.e'1 the ::"ir:ht to .iU"~ tri8.] j~.
'~rec~ e"t't;erq::t ~'1S8'3 (in '·. ,rr.:t::h conte""l'Pt'l')U;-;·.CT,s tc-:e p';(-:c:e
,~J
r
.I
\,
....
",,'~r')'
.,4...
.... .1
,..1..)"'.&.... _ .__ - - . : . - . ; .
. : ...... ~_.
_
......
in the c0urtr0o~). But there is al~o ~ liMit~~i0n of tt:s
ri,,,:-:1 w:lic~j permi tfl th2 trial jud{';F: to sUiil[.mrily -:ur;ish C'Y,-'
~~>r'!)'ts 1'...:rin;r r'1t~e~ th~n 3.ft-:r tIle tr-ial.
Tr,e .!.'":3:l': .1::: :;L',-:
'~u·~t,t!lt::Jl C;~l,~I~cuti';"_ ':nnt8nces may be >1 l0,'e"; Wi~,\"()l,!~ :-l
.
. . . . .., .
--..
..
<lury tr~3.~,· L.j tr,e trlal JudE"', .In or('le';' t'" '~,aY..l.'TI),,:,e ':13 CO;':tem~)i... t-Jo'.... er, Y.l;:is~es CO"lternpt whi.J.e t11e ~E"r,'na} i!1f'ult.:~ arf?
still fr<:;,c:h. l>" ~lis mind instead of ratior.ally 1t:>licer·tln"! on
the eve~+3 3ftn~ the triq].
1'
22.
"rrial by Ju.ry or by
r~a~istrates?"
by B.1.' E:1rris.
BRITIS:!
';CrRr:AL Cf CR:li~·E~CLOGY.
A;Jril 1976; 16(2)d31;.-lP".
The r~les deLe~mining whether a C2se is to te ~ri~d to ~
::~a;~is':r'i1,e or to a j:lry ~ s ~, resul t 02:' a sed/'S c':i.' hi'-'t'::rical
~~~idents.
Sc~e cases are tried ~y indict~ent (jury), o~he~s
~~t; 'lri(lril..,., _:lnd the res+. fall into c-:te::.:-ories which e~ch :'l~'V~
diff~~en~ nr0c~~ur~s for ~8termining the mode ~f tri~l.
Various 301,:d.0"'1s - w€i{~hinp' th,? conseq 1.lel1c€S of cor ';i~t~'::n fcr
the defe~'l" a:",t. and s'lbc. i viHn.g offenc~ c:; into eg, tef)~o!'ie s from
~r~vest to mos~ tri~ial - are sugges~ed and discussed.
II.
JURV
~ULLIFICA~ION
29.
"~rhe In~tituti(mali1.3.tion ()f Gcnflict;
Jury Acquit~~::ll:"'''
by M'Jl'ti!':el' .R. r:ad.i.sh an,J ~3.nford :f. r<3.1j~h.
JC1.if~NAL Or-' S':-~=::
T1;' "
'L ;;';4.
" ' ;__' .,
? ) •• _1 ,-,
G _ ......
') ~ .,
•
..') '7 (\ L..
....., ,
.'.
I ....'"')..)~. -_'.u..J
:'he ~-+-';.::1€: trr~ces ~;"'f, eV(".ution of' the ,jury, fron, t .. e
e'1.r:'y da.ys 'NLen jurors WE. e c:'mtrolled by me.1.ns of attaint t.:-;
the prcf!/O"", t" '"here juror3 8re not h~ld account3.ole for ~,r.eir
v0rdict. Th.t; nuty :Jf t~le ,jury now is to find tne facts 21.:!cor·:in~ to thIS' j'ddge's instr 11 cticms, but at tinles the jury's
~,
common sense, considerations of fairness to the defe!11ant, o!'
~p~r'1is'l
of ttiE' 1av'l ju~~tify '~8~rture from the judr;e's r~tJes.
Accordil'[ t') the theory of ] egi timated opposi tion, some rules
permit deDarture from t~e vt!ry rules binding them.
JO.
Ka:~
"On .Tustified Rule De-partures by Officials" by Mortirnnr R.
i sh ar:d Sanfo r'd. H. Kae ish.
CALIFORNIA L.t. . ."! REVIEr:l.
JU'1e
1971; 59(4)sQ11-930.
The jury's rol~ C:ln bp.st be rlescribed l.S a conflicting
one: the jury is re~uired to confor~ to the instructions of
of the ~uurt, but is extended ~e privilege of returning a
verdict of acquittal coptrar:,· to the vidence and judicjnl
7
l' ) " ; " , l - r 'I,"'+:"" ~
•
•
--)
.' ....
.,..
·~~~.-.0r'~lr~',.
'1''-11'''' tIe
.....'.
-:r',
. '
th'"~
Y)uilif'i(~:t~.cjri
t.
~
\,.-
1~1.··;,
·.;~ie~
~,.;.\!
•f
:
t~~ ·~r,=·
"t~ler~
'l"... ) . . 1!,..,':····Llr-t{'·~
. . ) • • ~ \,
._
'_."
\.,.,A •
is
l-'
~li:..:tj~j~: ~~l
".i·tn~~:
,:T(~!j~d;,
;.)
l"
···:;·~llrl·l
.-
_
'...
;!~ 'c~:\ :.;..;r
re.:~o:·.~1
~/-t
t
.
_!
.~"4t:-
~er~Llrt
·.·t·.>.,·,.·.~ .J.:c tv
L~11:~·.l
!'':'''''(l:::
thp jn;:+.r"l'::-:-vLO)·I!"_
D~[';"... tures
Fr , :,;~ql R'll!::::-:
' ...7,·:':v· .. ll:.;fic ,-(;'y;'
Dis0be:.H(·!;cs-" by :}~'orr-;:",: c. :::::r: ~-:: ~ i.:::.
CALIFO?~!I}.
L.'i j R:;:VL~·'I.
.'.;ly-Septem!!(;r 19 7 4, CJ:~(lJ.) 1~2)r~-:::'OS.
T);c: .:-4!'~" ~i:.i..st3 rlot Q!"11y "..s 3. f1.ct-fin'.~ilj'~ i~,3ti.tuti')""
'....' t :~:-: '.'1. 1.,'lf:'er '~I~'7h'een -t:re cr:"min"il la;,v :~~~4 C0~:rr.,-n s"-;:se c!'
·.L~ co~nu:.i:y.
jury r:ullification i:3tr.e cf;r;c-2:'~ '.:1' "':-'0::; r~c:ht
..... r
~>'e J"'r,
~r
rpfuse
i'~. ~""'ll" the la'" ; J..~ -\-Ie"
i plr':,
~.. II.·. e · ,1",,_
t..;"
.
_
'- "'..i
-' . . . . __
_ . '.
...e~c.:'fli· -:-;rju-:',3 be aC:l'.l:t~€·r1.
Criteria i'or ,j.;S7":': ·"'!rdi..·lfC th~
'~\'i(l€;:ce ~'_nr1 ~he judi,:·'~ ins,,:,~'uctions sh"'.!l~ t·,,: :or ·jlat·.:-o f.;1'
": r. e be: Ie fit 0 f the j t. ry _
')L
"
~1'
"Lq·,·f';ll
L,:, ",1 ": ~"r,:t t-:'
~
~...
..J .....,
~. I
L
..~
.. •
~
I".'"
ecessi ty :i.. n Crimin:,l. :":1 'N'
Thp,~:' : r. t -::-:
~y '.::ct'.'I:':.r
B. Ar:1{)l ~~~ 3.n;! r":'rrr~3.n r'.
~arl:.nd.
<TSl!R:;A: OF CRVn:'AL I,A\, I\ND CiUrnrCL . .'GY.
Se:-temher
1974; 65(3):289-301.
The ~rticlc examine~ ~he defanse of necessity where ~rnak­
ir.r; the lC",,~\' is justified to preserve a higher principle. :''Wo
alternativ~s to the necessity d~fense a~e explored:
jury
nv 11 i fi~::;, t.io~ arid prosecutor ial discretion. lind t" r ~ ury !1ullific~tiQn, jurors hav~ the riBht to acquit a defendan~ if th~ir
~~n8cienc0~ S0 dict~te.
The nec~ssity in3tructio~ is ~uch ~o~e
T.':trrow - i ~ :'s :imi tedt') case~'1here a qUesti':)!': ·~f comcetir.g
values i~ recog~ized. The author ar~ues that th~ def8nse of
r:€:c'2ssi t,'i Sil'JU:'4 be includec\ln l.he ProPQsed ~:-w ?c~8':-<1.::::!'imi­
nal Gone t·: r'rp.vent the 3.buse of .~ustice by law.
:;2.
"The.
Def'~!".3e
of
~
,:L·.;:?E' t:i-.e :er'ser Evil"
l ;
"Ju~tice
an:! the Jury" by VI. Neil B!'ooks ;?,nd .';'r. thcnv r.
1975; 31(3)1171-1<32. '
::u:n-::r:>us ler~al sch:::l,T3 h3.'l8 pra:is~d the fU:'lcti')r. of t:r.C
~ ury t:.a t :ic~or:l ... wi th notion~ of Justi ce ard .:ai.rness :1re'r::~i:in~ ir. U~':..· cnmmunity.
Strict applic?-:ion of ~hE:: 1".',', i~l
O!'': •.Yl !"::~ :l.r. cOlY'pliance with an. idea of f~irnes~ and juri~3
2.~t2 :J.3efu: ir: re-ore3erlting ~he values of tlle t..!(Jm:'i.LUrtl-:~~" ~~~~
tem-:;er>,,: t,;l'~ .!..3,·.V in. certain situations.
'j.
D:~ob.
JOU:U:AL OF SCCIAl 13,:;UES.
)4. Of Jury ;fullifica tiOL in the Americ:m System, A Skeutical
View" by Gary J. Simpson. TEX/.$ LAW RE'lIEW. March 1976J 54(3):
l.,38-525_
Jury nullification is ar~ued to be neither historically,
functionally, or constitutionally the riRht of the criminal
jury. There is a distinction between the rif:ht of a jury to
decide the meaning of a law and the right to nullify one.
Acceptance of jury nullification would create a parochial
system of law-making and undermine the power of legislated
st:l tutE's.
=='}"
':JLf'(;r':. ~~c\"ebl,)0k'l ~):t~ ~;j.1GE.. r~, ~Jl~_\;l:l.
~~(.,
:i.: ")1; 32:);0.
~":SI~1
S~'.~~':iE,":::.:/j\t.
:';f'pt~...,i)~~.
,;:x~.",~r:e:lc~ ·,)f GIn
is :'t-,c~Otlr:tc<.:.
r.:'he
(}~lt")(
S3r·Ijcr.:
jlJ'~-'~,
':he
~t'J:'o'IJ-jurors,
£~!l~:lj_3ii ju!'.J':' Dn .-1
"~t::··re.
T~e ,,.ut"·I\')~-·t~,
srei.
!,.... ·.'-\'f'21;!{
l"r'rr~'·"';!.{)t'·t~
a!;":'-:ecisi(m-.·-,c.~!·:>'~·
:-;l"--,e~;:-~:-;~s
\
."
(f
a. •.. ~
1 i:~c\Jssed.
"i!S.
"Ju~v Dllt"'1 -; ~ ( :3) J1 U: ':'1 ? 1. ~
se:..-ved as
'!'r,~_' auth~r
',:' Cco:o{.~ cun t:; fl')~
-;0!.v~s I:::;; facll"tgs
the
~n~
37.
~utnor's
"'I:l~y
r~:;:'\
:1'.
JUDIC_;'TL~~.
TIle Jl.tror·s 'l:Jf.\-I"
~
TK'-+:'
::-12, Irs i
Lt juror i"1
'-::;ir~ui
i.;a v of 1'-170.
C'c+~b~~.r
Jj~-;~":
-: C"'t'...:ro:
r>f
r·t i:.: ~_.~ :-,,,:."tst:rv:;,tioi1S cc'":cprnir:D: ju.ry t::--h:!.,
t':~r~
:]!;]
1~
--:'1,;
,j
experiences as a juror.
u.s.
Fef:nle S(IJ')ol::.ir. Alnnt Jury Dtity".
:Jceer'\ber)1, 1971:
?5(:~?)
r:s.;,'3 5.:. W:)H':;)
z2E-':1O.
TLt: article ex~r.:ines SOfo'l9 I"\f the cur::-,~~nt r.:rF.lSRur.?scn tLc
jury sys+~:m. i"~;;;,ny Ameri·:!aT!~ avoid 5ury dut:! -' through exerr.Dtlo~s, lies, or not ~eRlst~~inH to vote.
Juror3 si~ idle in
'n'::.litin!" r,)/):11S tec9.'.lss of -;")oor rnan:=it<;eruent.
Char.f~es :·u'e undpr
\;C';r i~: tr,e ;jury systeM however, -fr"::." six-member' j'lr.:i.cs to
~0re
e~fieient
~P,.
"'I'~lt:
b'i
jure!"
Juror in
f~aroi.i.~·:e
~;€:''''
-~;;--'rH
1('7~··
.. J
, . ; , . . . ."-'~.
. ..... • •?'-'""(-2.11
v
J..
~ ~
~
A~·!ERICAP
~f co~rU:er3.
Attitudes
Yorio( CitYI
Si~l)n.
!<:.
to the use
utiliz~til')n
JAR
::-"1':.'-:
ASSOCli~':'l(!;
EXper2€!lce:,"
.;.-;tJ~;;j\A;.I.
Ft-'l-
•
-~hE .ltti +II:~""~ of :Iurf)!"s to their ti;:-.e snent ir: jLlry dlity
<ts"l'2~sed by surrey ')(i. q,uestions r1r.ginr: :!!'cm ph~/ c;iqs1 (;OI"rJf0rt of ~h~ facilities to cornDens3tio~ for jury duty. 1he r~­
~uJts are presented, ~nd sUDplenent~d by recc~mendati0ns fra~
was
the
19.
~nc
SUbCOffi~ittee
conducti~~
"Th.: Econ:Jm:'c
G.
c:ho~2.s
~~e
~'1rdshi~
rt1unsterman.
economic hardship
the study.
'J: ,Tury Duty" by Wil.liam R. :--ai:-:::"'::,
Jt'JI8A?URE.
Ma.y 1975; 58(10),49-';,.~f
duty car
~ury
~9
seen a=
c~m­
p :s·:~d o~' thr-e8 ~rl.cto!,s:
fr~q~Je!1't repeti ticn 0:[ ser'rice, 1,:' ....·
il'ry
~G'_
1 o"'r:
terro<:>
n.f'
'-'e""vi"'e
I"-"c .... e c1 uC"~rl(7
-roe~ ",.
A.
_'- ..... '- .:.,
c-'''d
...
L:',
,_
\..' ....
.J,...-:, J·u~
.L ... '"
_
_ ......
is no t 1 ~ li;:ely to be irr_ ple;'e . . ., ted soon beC'1U3e ·of s~ric"t oildGets, b'lt lenp,th ancl'.;repeti tion of service can be reduced
c.,
L ..
throur:h bet+:er
~
~
oJ
sele~tion
J..
1,#.
pr3ct~ces
r
J. ..
...
~
~
and larger numbers of po-
tential .iurors.
40.
"Memoirs of a Manhatten Juror.
by E. Patrie}';: Healy.
An Adventure in Apathy"
April
AMERICAN EAR ASSOCIATION JOUR..1'fAL ••
1976; 62,1J.f)O-463.
Taking part in jury duty can be an inconvenient and
and apathetic process. The article recalls the experiences of
a Manhatten man called for two weeks' jury duty.
9
IV.
RISTORY OF JURY
T~I:'~
41. "Thp A~~~!can J~ry Systc~h by Morris J.
CtJP.~NT HI~'!'-~RY.
,Tune 19/,1; (,O:J57-J61,JG?
BlooDst2in.
The Americ:1!". jury sy3te:'1
'.'!<lS lal';;ely :':.di);-t(~d fr0!'t the
system or jury trial. ~he article tr~ces the development of the jury in Enc;land. ;-.:.ld in the early il istory of the
:1ni 1:ed States. i'T0\'.' the unanimclls verdict ~lnd t''Ielve-I:lQmb~r
.1'J.ry are as;:ects of t~e ,iury system which o..re bein~ 'VIa '\.E:reddO\'/!1, and it remains 1;0 be seen if the purpose of the .iury cnf:
remain intact in the face of ~hese changes.
En~lish
For It" by r.1arvin .J. Bertoch.
ASSOCIAT!ON JC~REAL. Octob~r 1971, 57:1012-1014~
About 590 B.C. Ath~ns fi!.'~;t used trial C01lrts c0:-:iposed
of jurors dra'.'m from ~very se"'"t.1ent of society. Jury p':';'lel s
were composed of from 500-1500 ma~ters; both criminal and civil
C'lses were argued. Some -:>f the more :famous trials !'eco~deC"!
were Aeschylus' trilogy, The Oresteia. and the Trial of Socr:;t1.:c3.
42.
"The Greeks Had a Jury
;~~RICAN BA~
43. "Demythologizing the Histcric Role of thg Grand Jury" by
Helene E. Sch·...'artz. AtfZRIC:.N CRIMINAL LAW REVIE~"".' Summer 1972;
1 0 ( 4 ) I 701-770.
The idealized view of the grand jury as that instituti~n
which protects the citizen against government o'Ppre~si0n is
challen,g;ed here. Tracing 'tr.e evoluticn of the g:-and ~ury frcT;l
the time of Henry II, the article documents the c~ses in wr,iel".
the grand jury ser. . . ed as a vehicle of governnent sutlpressi::m
of political dissidents. what is needed now, instead cf abolition of the grand jury, is a reintorcement of its tra1itional
fur-etlon 3S the priT.'J.ry barrier between the accused and the
accuser.
44. "The Constitutional Hi~tory of the Seventh Amenr:ment" by
CharlesW. ~'lolfram. MIh~'mSOTA LAW REVIEW .. March 1973. 57(4),
639-747.
T~e article attempts to elucidate the intent of the seventh
amendment as it was wri ttAn into the Bill of Rights. In te:rp! ,l,tation of tne seyenth amend~ent has been ba9~rl on the hi~toric~'il
test, i.e., in determin; n,c'" wnether a jury w:::.s required by the
seventh amendment had to be based on the practice of English
Courts at the til''le the Bill of Rights became effective In 19'11.'
After an extensive review of the brigin of the seventh amendment, the author sugu,ests a new inter~~etation o£ the seventh
amendments instead of an historioal interpr~tation. a -dynamic"
reading of the seventh amendment would be more-fitting, recognizing it as flexible and changing.
45.
"Chancery Procedure and the Seventh Amendment. Jury Trial
of Issues in Equity C~s~s Before 1791" by Harold Chesnin and
Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. YALE LAW JOURNAL. April 1974; 83(5),
.-
999-1021.
There is evidence to suggest that courts of equity in the
eightteenth century and before, relied on jury tial procedures
10
r,.c....
to rietp.rminp 1'le~tl()l1~ (j~
At +.\::: t:~e of t~e 3j()f!tior:
of t:1E> ~ev0.!1t'1 'lfI1en,1,ent in 1'191, ~:1P E!'"ip.:lis~' COtTt .:)1'
Cr.;>,:1Ce:c:i \<;;_1..~ ~/\ tr~:;~d_tjcn frc·-r; a r'ul.~ trl:t c~:~~u~ed :';:~t
-.
i~,:)i.tes V:t::l'C fY,er'.t:::r.ally sUC:1Ji·+,'tc'l
s~ch submi3sions di3creti0n~ry.
•
to .iuriles to
Oi;e
~hat r:l:;,~e
46. "The J'lry :1ndthe En,?;li~h la.·.... of Hordcirje" hv Tho~j3.s A.
I}ceen. ;,aCHrr.;AH LAW PEV'IEIiJ • •Tar~l1ary 1976; k7(J)t41"_H~9.
Socia.l "lttitudes 't·)w.'.lrd llom'cide -:\1';1 !'Jtric-: laws (:t:
i11)Mlcide in p~e-':'udor Eng12.?1d ".'ere in co!')fl ~ c'i:. Yhe trlal
jury, w~,ich, ltntil the late ri:i~(ne Ages corlt.rolled th~ f1,,)w cf
evidence in a trial, acted as a mediator b~tween s~cial vi~ws
PV~ the law.
Thus, in only? dmall percent:t::,e of hOf:lic:'de
C'lses was a verdict of {:tlil t.': returned. In the six~een"~h
certury, the jury ceased to be self-inf0rrning, relyin~ on the
p"Jsecutor -to produce evid~nee, and consequ~ntly control of
ler;ral procer-:€~ings passed\from the jury to th~ ben~h. The
legal process became subject more to the rule of law and thus
a homicide v~rdict neC'3.rae less subject tc¥ lenient verdict by
by individual jurors~
v•
JUVENILZ JURY TRIALS
47. "Juveniles in Delinquency Proceedin~s are ~0t Ccnstitutionally Entitled to the Ri~ht of Trial by \.Tury - ?':cKei.,er '.'.
Penns Iv::mia (tl.S. 1971)". MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW. r~cvember 1971;
1 : 171-194.
The article takes issue with th~ Supr~me Court's decision.
denying jury trial to ,;uveniles. The doctrine of rorer.~ c;~t.~lc...,=,
is not consistent wi th the reali ty of th.~ juvenile'· jus1:ice system. The essentially criminal na.ture of this syste!'l would
apparently require the aD'Dlication of due p!'ocess.sa!'ec:uards to
criminal nroceedin~s. The McKeiver decision reverses the
trend set hy Kent, -'o}ault anOins[·ip, by halting th'! extE.:nsion
of due processsafeguards to juveniIes.
48.
"Constitutional L~w - Due ProcessJ No Constit.ution~l
to Trial by .Jury for JU'I'eniles in Del inquency Proceadir..gs".
MINNESOTA LA',v REVIEW. Dp.ce;aber 1971J 56(2),249-263.
In McK~iver v. Penn8ylvania the Court ruled that trlal by
jury is not consti tutionally required for juvenile .J.dju;:lication
proceedings. The article is a review of the leadj~~ opinions
of the concurrin,g; and dissenting justices, and discusses the
significance of Gault, Wins~ip, and Duncan v. Louisiana to
to the decision in McKelver.
!U~ht
49.
"Jury
~rial
- Juvenile Court.
JOURNAL OF CRI~!l A.L
Vf, CR
POLICE SCIENCE. December 1971, 62(4).497-504.
McKeiver v. Pennsylvania ~arks a reversal in the trend of
ex+.ending constItutional guaranties to juveniles. The cases
related to procedural sa:feguards :for juveniles - Kent, Gault,
40) U.S. 528, 1971".
-
il
W5n"hip -
"t,r I' -:::.'
~..l
-
wer~
~) ... , . ~.,,._.~ .. ~',
reviewO~t alnnr
V • ..u"
~ r ~; c~l· r . n r
t"'lIy j
.•.. ,. '" • .!.
".
with two
r.:
lO,..· .... I \r •
u
t'!
c~se~ rp:"v'1nt to jur~
T'"
!l"'- ,. . .: C"'
.. ··'1
t- .... , ...':l., "'_ i ...... J j , , ; . .
.,1,.,'
:'._:\'_1 ".'
I
t},e C0Ui't rC:7-! til:.i"':"-t::e .i . . . r'y ;,1,-1rl.l h,lt; n ! ; t l l l ~-:!~~:;k:1lia~--e-~~~i;
of the f'..:.n'l;:>"neiltal fairrles~, ~f',;t, and l:G~~,"~ue'!tly is no-t
con~~titut.icnally man.::lat·-·(J for jU-.iE:nlles.
T;-;e L1,~r)1.~ (;cn~,i.Je_i.·."·
tions of the Court in reachin" this (:(;c.;_~io!1 ac',: E:l3.bori-1t'e~
upon.
50.
by Jury in Ad,1udic3.tional sta,';E- of state JU'lt~rd.J.e
DelinJ~~~cy ProcAqdi~~s not Constitutionally Requi:ed."
~TNlVERSI?Y OF KANSAS lAW REVIE',f.
1972: 2C: ~;';S'/-]7
~ l' •..,~.
l' n.I'll C'.,
; ' -_.0-'-' v
:'0
V . .'00
~ .....
1 e ....
co n -t
! >~
~r
' _nn ;:)e.y .. . L,.'"
' : ,:1 ....
a
\"'., 1 _~'
C nc.o
.
Th ~~ ._. U..l
.
t
'
f
.
'
1
d'
'
h
•
...~
pf'rml a Jury' or JUV~!':l e procee :'llfTS l3 va:J~~ or; "i1e cor:~p.:",:o'!' lJ'1ren'3 T'l:l.tri.:!e. T~is rat:0l"'ale is criticised ho\Yever in
"TrIal
Court
5.
five main arf'u~entsl (1) a l3.ck of formality increases the
puwer of the jud~el (2) courts lack the faciliti~s
and TIerso"1n€·1 to ade'1uately perform their role of oorens 1)'1 1:r~ ,~~ J
(J) confide!'! tiali ty !li3.Y still be preserved wi th a j LU'J ~rlaf:­
(4) the ~ti~a of delinauency is comparable to the sti~ma of
criminality: (5) juries str~ngthen the courts' fact-findin~
function.
arbitr~r~
51. -rf.cKe i ver v. Pennsylvar.ie.: The Last Word on Juver.i le:: OU1'7.
1·
... '
~.I b y 0 -,-~r.lan .•
h
?-·VI~;'j.
'lJU(,lC·l~'.onsi
,i. -.l\.€' t cam
• t'O~:JE7,L
.., n.... LA";" .......
_,,_
A ~·
April 1972; 57(h).SG:-570.
In r,icKei VP,!". "the Ccurt ruled that the SDecial diagncst:.c
and rehabilitqtive 9tatus of the juvenile court makes the jurJ.·
trial an unr1<}~esGCl.r;:r ele:.1ent of due process. Yet, t!1e til':C,C,r-y
and pur~:)ose be~lind the juvenile court has not been :ealized
within the past few decades, and the author believes the
Supreme Court will ~ot be a likely source of reform for juv@~ile
procedures in the near future.
52.
"The Exclusion of You."l(::: Adults From Juries:
Jury Irnpartiali ty."
June 1975,
A Threat ·to
JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINOLCGY.
6~(2)1150-164.
Excludin~ youn~
adults from jury duty co~stitutes ~
threat to thp sixth aMendment ~u~rantee of jury im~irtiality.
An amenctment to the Federal Jury Se~,ice and Selection Act
provided for inclusion of eightteen to twenty-one year olds in
jury pools, yet eleven states at the time this article was
written excluded eightteen year aIds from jury service. Discriminati:m against young adul ts results not only from statutory exclusions but from the selection process itself: panels
from which juries are drawn have not been updated and consequently do not include 18 to 21 year olds. The author maintains that young adults do constitute a cognizable group in
American society, and as such should be included in jury selection and service.
53.
atJrl
'Tr,lc''''i~'A~
Reldto.;~:
'jiL';ter 19(5);
Di~:,;:'ii!.:.in8.tion
C'1!.;8!::"
21t.l)'~·J-88.
WitJ1l~::"tJo()n
.
b:J' TI'li.L1ia,r
held 'tr.-lt.
In J . . . ry S",lectjon -
i:.
KiMble.
P8.:C::-Wl"lS
h":.vin..;
2rtYL0R
~1_t!:.;H::r.:::::~~·r:
I.A'd :i,::;'J':::='C
resEr-"'lt;":':J~S
,~bsu';
"the -le'3. t:h fennl t~.r are qU:-llif5ed to 3er/e as jur~Jrs in c2.pi t'.,l
c".ses. De3. t~-(htr:.lified jurors may be prone to dec:l;1G for tL~
:'c)~:osclltion; i~' so, t!1e artiel!: CO!1tends the de8.th 3en'ten~8
wou]d !)e :L!1vo.liri b~c'tu~e t~e effr;ct wouJ.~ be to ::'0r~~i-.·F' +~1,?
lef'e~'d3.'l'; or :",n l~"')ar.t~ql itp·v.
Decisions re,,,,~,,,;'"!"n :..ri-:-}10""<-~'''''-''''
:1:i~e"pr'ol'~i1::i':~J t~le ~x~lusio;" of potenti~l ;iu;~~;' on - til~-b;~:r;-"':":
·.)f race, na~.~(;nal origin, re15.(,.i.ou~ b€:lief, al'!-d econor.Jic c13:'"7.
"Criminal Procecture: SaL~ctin~ Jury to Det'3rmine Cap:' t:: 1
;·::nr::ESUrrA LAd 2~~VIE:.!. March 1969; 53(4)s8J8-~~!.i.~~
';Ird.es Dra?erly selecte1 to determine guilt in c~~)i t'3.1
C'3.8eS r,-:::.y be unrenrcsentative in the determination of pU.'1iS:l:ne~it bec::Hl~e of con3cien-tiolls scru·ples against capi tal pL,nis~.­
mente In ;-'{i-thersTIoon v. Il:.i_nois. the Court set stan:lards for
selectini~ a jt~ry to je'term~ne punishmen"t.
Wi thArsnoon, howe·lt-~~.
,')4-.
F:':~lj"'h~r..i~nt."
is viewed only as "the initial case in the application of
constitutional safa~"!'uards to the determination of D~ishment;
futur~ rulin,;;-;~ ffi3.Y ~hallen-2:e the assessment of the-death
penal ty when no subst~ntiye punishment selection stand.3.rcR
are
55.
pr~scribed.
th~ California Penalty Jury in Fir3t-Degree
S':'A:'iPORD LAi'l REVIEW. Jur.e 1969: 2111297-1497.
Penalty decisions in 238 casp.s between 1958 and 1966 w~re
analyzed accordin~ ~) 178 items of inrornation about ea~h caGe.
~he main findings of this ~tudy a~e:
most of the life-de~th
decisior::~ made by California juries were made on a rational
basis, :'ollowing a system ':)1' 'J't:lndarcs; no signif ic.J.:i'l t raci31
bias Vla~ evid~nt althouP.'h stron~ economic bias . . . as found. and
certain J.spec"t~ of conduction of the trials had an W1desirable
i;,pact eor; thp, juries' penal t~r decisions. In light of the fa~".;
t!la t eco':omic st~, tus is such an important deterninan t in jur~~
deci!'5ion-ma kir.,:;. the article proposes tha t juries should be
allowed "to Eet penal 'tIes in :first-degree murder cases only
when stan(~~rds arl.! set up.
"A 3tudy of
Murder Cases."
56. "Toward Exnansion of Withersnoonl Capital Scruples, Jury
Bias. an] the Use of Psycholof-,ical Data to Raise Legal Fre-.
gumptions" by Faye Goldherg. a~RVARD CIVIL RIGHTS - CIVIL
January 1970, 5(1)153-69.
The study used 100 white and 100 black college students
to detennine the effect o~ beliefs about capital punishment on
the dete!'mination of guilt or innocence. Beliefs about capital
punishment showeu no significant effect on the outcome o~ the
LIBERTIES REVIEW.
verdict, howeyer many of the subjects whO stated they held
scruples against the death penalty "contradicted" their answers by imposing the death sentence.
"S'.lry Selection and
57.
~"~'la
_
<:-
",C ,··t
... 1.. s.
T "'t • . ~.
....
1,..··''''
.4. ";!.r
'oJ'
:
I'"
'i'.E
"
th/~
'''',''TVr,-''-
Se,'th
~1f';"'V
_:I4.V~.",..,J._
(I
P
' .. ~
P('nalt:~J:
~-Ti""'A"n
... h_IJ
liv
V':l+t:'C'!'<7"c~jl::1
3""/")
~'.".
"'7'"
1..
I
~' - ,
. ( •
Tht:: dec:i si.m i.n Hi th::?!..22.~~ 'rV~:'S ::1:...d~ retroactivA.
(
.1..-
ir.
- ~', ~-r~-:~I'---r---:
l../'\,\
I~';,,"
......
.;"t!'.lI:l,:,:'!'
:
::n'.\~­
eve::.', low!"::, '.:'<".:r-t!:l t, l'1C ~~:-d ~.e . : -,;"',j imp::ellen:. th" ::;t~1.n,.j;.lr;ls ~-:i'2.
in ','fjth;">}':'')Pf)(l;) 3.~·:d htn;e bf".:n r,:~luct&n"t to rl~".:€-rr;e '':~~3."th C,:('!.!_
tt-:n:~es ac:co.i:·TIn.;z to the mar.;,\s,+,e of tL5"s ~ecisicn.
The evidenc0
'..,r.:-t~ jurors TL',t opposirl~ the (ie8.t~l penal ty are more prone '1:0
"(")!"...,ict 5.s ir:"onclusiYe an:! i t se~r.'I!3 unlH:elv tha t the 3uprernc
Court wi 11 reql... j re reverSrll of ~;:uil t.
.
58.
»NAW Dat~
on the Effect of a 'DeRth Qualified' Jury on
Pro~GS~n by Geor~e L. ·Jurow.
~~~1A~~
~he Guil~ Detpr~inati0n
J2.n:.la!.7 1971; Rlt(1'3)s567-611.
A ::tudy usirW 211 et1)ploy~s of the Sperry Rand Co~'por:!. ti0n
as~~ssen '":,hc fGlirness of ju!'y selection procedures.
Thefil!':,ings ~nro\riceC: support for ~he Court's decisj on in ·,-.'i :he:"~S"JJ:)l~:
LAW P.EVIEW.
th0fle in favcr of capital punishm8nt wer0 conviction-prone;
those opp0~ed;were acqui ttal-prone.' Those jurors ~ei ther ?1:.solutely favoring or o~posing capital punishment were most
flexible in
t~eir
verdicts.
59.
"The Constitutional Invalidity of Convictions Impose n
by De]' th-Qualifiee J'lrors" 'by Welsh S. Whi te.
CORNELI U:,{
RSVIEW. Ju:!.y 1973; 58(6) .1176-1220.
Several D09t-Wi~her9noon studies indicate that deathqualifie~ jur~2s are lIkely to be prosecution-prone becaD3~
of a significa!1t ccrrela":ion between approving the de:lth
pe!",al ty and finding the defendant ,c?'Uil ty. Excluding venireme~ from the jury be~ause they aren't in favor of c~p~t~l
punishment sy~temat~ ca.ll.., excludes a high prop,1rtion of the
pop'.11a tion hold ing cert~in corrUTlon a tti tudes. and also certain demc~raphlc Rroups, ~articularly blacks and wc~en. ~hR
resul t i3 a consti tutic!'lally u!"lrepresenta tive jury. The
C :1urt mu;,t detF!rmine now h ow ~o re-croacti vely apply -tlie rul':'nf~
in Wi the:-suo:m to invalidate prior convictions by convictlor,..·t.J....... one ~ U'~ l' ~ ~ e
" , " . # _.
60. "The Rel2 tionehiu BetH'een Atti tuc~es Toward Ca 'Pi t~l
Punishm€nt anc Assignrr.ent of the Death Penalty" by Georre
Stricker an~ :}eroge L. Jurow. JCURI~AL OF PSYCHlA'I'RY A~D LAW.
197 /4-: 2: 415- 4 22 ~
Question~aires concerning attitudes toward capital punishment, liberalism-conservatism, and the assignment of per.alties in thirteen capital cases were administered to 190
college stUdents. The findings supported the decisions in
the Witherspoon case~ subjec~s who were opposed to capital
punishment were inclined to be more lenient in assigning a
penalty, while those who favored capital punishment were more
punitive than the moderate group.
VII.
vCTR
DI~~
";:the S~~h? 1..)'- t1-jc Rebe121.)18 S'!rc~" by H')~"cr't F. r.:2.xweL:'.
B.\R AS~)(!C 1./1. TICr·f ,~()P~:'i.id...
Se ;'Iter,lber '0'10 ;sC ,3 -; >: .()~~.•
Supr£;~e Court, decisi::;r.G it. DLI~-:.£:.."..U. r:.~ 0r:-'~, :~r::" ';i:' 'the~~~..;::..~
~c;.,.~ ch:.:.:-.r:~(l -t~:2 D8la.t!ce r.CtW6:~;·~ St,1"t2 an: i'e.::e> . .-sl pr:,\.'(~!" Q',:.?:r l'E' jur,;! t;ri -::~ 1.
Voir dire t ir: ,rleasuring k:J to the fedel'al
~·1:·-i.ndarr. S t sn o:lld sc:-ve its purposp. of eli!"1:n~. t ire
bi1=l s, w:~ t~'l­
f·1.
Ar,~~RI SAN
n'
ju!'y "more fair tn one side ths.n ttle other".
I~struc'ti OLS to the j1lry chould be co-ord in;:; te '! w i·:;il. t:l~ vo l'~~
'~i:r.e. and the 3cope of the volt" dire should be lind t.~d t.::- ~lt;-:
~inlng prejudice ir. potential jurors.
·)ut
obtaining
:1.
62.
"Voir Di~a Has its Proper Uses" by Harry E. Youtt.
A~r~~nCAn Bjd~ A330SIATIO~; JOURNAL.'
J::lnu~ry 1971 J 57: J3-4.0.
Voir ~ir~ is not only the objective examination of P0~ential jurors but the facilitation of
der3tandin~ between jury and counsel.
communication and unCounsel should be
allowed to examine juror8, exercise peremptory challeng~.
explain leeal rules and procedures to the jury during the
voir ~iro, and respect a juror'~ fifth amendment right ~o sile~ce on the na~ure of certain activities.
63. "Voir Dire, Its Value - How to Use it" by Harry I.
Hannah, JUDICA~URE. October 1971: 55(3),110-115.
The auther discusses th~ process of voir dire and ar0 1es
for its ~p-tention as a necessary assurance for an imparti~l
,jury. The judge has the responsibility for impressinf; the
jury with the gravity of their task and conducting the qualifying examination. Proper han~ling of voir dire should prod~ce
a "competent, quali:fied jury.
64. "Voir Dire by Two Lawyers: An E3sential Safeguard" by
Alice". Padawer-Singer, Andrew Singer and Rickie Singer.
J·UDICATUaE. April 1974; 57(9) 1)86-391.
In d study of the effectiveness of voir dire, the author3
found in mock trials that voir :!ir'3 juries wh8 ~ac, been exposed to prejudicial infor"i"lI3.tion were less influenced by this
information in their verdict than those juries r~ndomly selected without voir dire ~xaminations. The authors attributed
this difference to the bolief that voir dire reduces th~
effects of prejudicial information - by sensltizing jurors to
the importance of the law and examination of the evidence,
and also to the fact that the voir dire procee~ings were
carried out by two lawyers, the prosecutor and the defense.
An added advanta~e of this method of selection is that the
two lawyers sensitize jurors to various aspects of the case.
65. "Voir Direl Preserving 'Its Wonderful Power'· by Barbara
Allen Babcock. STANFORD LAW REVIEW. February 1975, 27(3).
545-565.
15
'rh~
'I!':". ~ 1'''
r!i
1 S ::\ r~,; ~D"~'~3.r~l <.:~ "'~!J"':.l -:'~lt iOll:i.': (~le:n~;: '.~. ir..
-:.;':;.":T:;::7'l'
"., -:-:
t 'J
-:-.u~
' r";
+ ,'" - on."Co'• .'.' ..... }le'; ~', ~ "-1'1'.·'~~.ri .. ,',
j
.:~
.J _..;
.. ~~.
......
~ .. ~ ~'..
~~~.
.~
~;'.: v (l~ ;."' :. ~..i··'_ '~\y ~~~ .,~2. \::U-' ~""'-::-.~~ L"~l~ ~. t:] V' ,.:t';E: :.In,-:' ~~~~ ,~~.! V.,:'ll'
(.,.,.. . ~ )r-.r'~-~-:-·:'-,
7··-:",-·\ft:'~"'1I3rlc'·"'.1 ~
,
~r~i:.""l-'r ';"1 +h'~' '~QlJ'·T.'/oil." '~;\~';:
'. 1- ~':'"'\ ..
U.
~~. '_ ... "- ....
-'~
f:~..
~
~
--7------'
: ... ", - h: ... r .. ,
l :_~:1_ 1:r:~,...~ ~:~.- ":"1.::, L tlrl~ :'~l1':_~ r.{;JE:S-"" 1010 ~.!:: -+:0 t,,:~ ~l:_: ..~t-~;!,
,-"''-'e "; .. ,r '~r"r:' (."'+.1',""" il'I'" cl."l""'l r~tl~0" th';n Lr'd.'rj":,,,~~ l:l~Tl't,r'r-) • . l:1d "2, d ·:',~'in(." the j'l(L::;~ ir,::-tp.)~d r): eCL;nsf:l to:· \"c~:·~:... (',~ t,he
""Q
.
.
l~1':')~';'!·:'
I..
\.,..0
6'.
~
..... 1.
•• :-' .L
A •• '
.....
_
.:
1
~
•
""_
......
It)
..
1.
•
I
••
' . ••
•
-.'
I. "_"
...........
.......
c\~:;iiila':i.()n.
~;'.)ir rl:"ri prcc~\~ll::-es
~. •_"l,0
U r.. E" l' ..~.r"
_ ... ',' ~y "... Ji U'.-.J r-_ J' ."
'.. e •...
~
'-
'
'."
...... , .
...
-.....
'oJ..t.
, ••
A
-.-
,
~
should be st?nd"'ll'l':.iz'~c' tc
1 ...
, :'.
he
""'''::i-:.-- J)ire; Est:tbl.i.3tLi .t:" :i!inimtlln lSta{~(1~!"'J.~3 t·.' F~~ilit-.;~ ..-?:
---;-------,
3XE:ri~lSf-' of P0resptory Challenr;8S' by Ja:,r 1\:. 5r~,·~:--s~
r
'J'r.:'.~;?:'\P.D L\,[ :';.::~VJ..E·:l.
July 1':',75; 27(6):1.493-152::.
Th~ ex~rci8e of v~ir dl~~ is ne~ess~r; for ju~y i~~l!';"'l;ty
~i.)-u "niv'
'!--l::'+~''''+
;:-.:-;~~~'"
-:~l"U'I_'
..L,.
1,\
U
..L. .....
.. .I
_
l
· ...
.. l o-f' nrel'tl"~CO
r
. ' ___ ,." ...
\' __ ...... \.,.>
v"",
t "_'-4
.::-',::~.~ ".:.~,:;! (C!1.use), I.,;.:. ~: re ~u'otle influ.;:>>;ces 3"4~!'1 h<:: O'o't)U-;:
oJ
bi<L., a!;,_,
P::::4~.i~.1
.......
a~
~_
~
DtI'olicitv !";l(;.uld be challengef'
,,:et'e~l;V~:iJ.:y.
ar~icle 0utline~ st3n~~rds for the exer~i~G of ~e~2mpto::y
cll:'tll~nge3. ar:c1 ~rg€'s a:r J i:'p.l1ate couY.'ts to accept the per-2:;,ptory wit:l),.l~ proof of actual prejudice.
Tne
67.
,j~'hn
"~a2S Th~n
v.
S~IENCE.
Ry-z:.n.
Ju~~
Unanimous
~erd~cts
in Criminal
Trial~"
ts
JOUR!iAI, Co!? C:Ui,:INAL Lo..'tl. CRn:rrWi,OG'.:. &. i-")LI:;:;
19(7; 53(2):211-217.
3ec8.:lSc -;f t!;e :1L.'~ n ....TH~)fH· of 3.~qui ttals'ir. Sl1gL.".nd of
cefenc".l"t!=; ~ncwn t~, be I="uilty, the Ho:ne Secretary, ;Joy .7e"'_~irl!3~
;'rop~';e('::' tha t less 'tr,al-l u."1a;.i;:'\C:l5 jU!"'Y verdicts be all !)wed.
Elirnir.a tine:: the un~,nimous jury verdict requirem€nt in ':he
United states :-aisas T;r.ree ~aill question, first, is the ur:anjr.-eus verdict r'equire(; ·s~ ~he Constitut:'on for cri'1Jin~~l +.ri'lls?
.3econ~. r10es 8. rnaj()rl~.;y v.?~djc-: rule all~w 'the prosecutior. to
obtain a ~.!('-,nviction vii thout D!"'")vina guilt beyond a rcasona blr::!
doub~?: ar~. th~rd. does due'nroce~s requi~e'~ unani~aus verdi ct i"'! criII'inc11 tria 1 s? TiLe 8.uthor conclud?~ th:1. t c':lC:~ a
r~le WGulj nut lIe a:1 i::frincr,p.7"1ent on th€ rights of th·:! :!efen~:;,­
ant and tha't the U:1a.r.i.T"'0US verdict in an unwieldy an': U:lnN:essary requirement.
68. "Jury Trial". H.\RVARD LA~'l REVIEW. November 1972; 86(1);
148-15r:: ..
Court decisions in Johnson and ~~odaca held that the
~ixth ar.e~dment does not require unan1rnous verdicts in criminal
trials. It is argued th~t majority verdicts will encourage
cu!'sory e::amination of' the i!:l::ues, andpoes not require the
prosecutor to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt.
5','
r
\.1",,-
507hf'
).
'fPr-4'ct-"
•
\......
'
,Y,·>!Sd~ ;],H1 ';'::'O'J.:'C'l. (.ecision::; hel(!
..y-,u ..... c..-;:-;~,
r:~,..:>s~·,
e:,Cr[-",!" ,'~'" T)''''r'''f
\".
• v"
. __
,_ ' ..........
_ ·r
....
~..
~ ~
' J ..
•
•
-
~ 1_
r~,~";onab12
.. ,
.....
tr,c,;, t u: ..:l.'-lL!1i~t<..;;
c ..
S
-
c:!ll-t: be','v~n'"
ri:-rl-:t t,; jur::
•
•
. " .. ......
'~
'-""
[1Cl,')~ 1'):1:' '1rder thE. sixth amen(r:py.~
;;:-:.:11. 'r'h" ,'!1 i ":ri ty cpi!'l i ')!'l .: :; ~CJ. ted tna t u!~an ::::,)!1,,) 'fel'(; ic 'cs,
~i',:~ the ~,1'f:·r,,=-,-:j.:..m':L~1'" jury (."';~ d/:cid.-;.j in !:~il~.:_;:::3 v.,;~h~~.:-ir:~:!.)
!(?!:'e an nist:;rlcal .;:,ccident; a.nc that the re8~:;onah}c:, ric,l;"t't
~tan;i::lr(~ de'";' 2.'-lt.led ;,.. t 2 diffe;..·(>nt time than the .~~~ry 8Y3~,Gll,
~:,,"d ·U-.1..<~~; Qic :101; apply to t!'le 3_xth ;uiiendmcnt rlE:ht tr:: jur'r
t-:--i:ll.
,T{)h~.";~~1 ani Anod8C1. l~[t ot>~n t .. .,o :i!? .>~r :llcstiDr-:.s:
I'~'a'---~;:;;-:-:-;:-:;~r''''~
"t":'":lr n '~n,~",,,~c-"a' ry ;11 st:':"e'
"'r~::;ls t ····1·.L1.-;
.1
......
«v_ .......... ""'.::-.
"",l.I
1., ,t~cJ be ::--e~~.ii.::'ed
th0 f~tt;r~ ~or federal cz'!mir..:;.l trL..;.ls? ~
3.!1'~ how' :;·~l.ll ~ r:ta.>~!:'i ty 1~J;.:qu1red for. ,~ :,,:::m'ln?.r.i:1lou~ ~."9r­
:..A,. ....
:~'~ ~
.L._~.I·"
.1
iz:
C
'.A.
..... _ ............ .,:)t'
...
to,. . . . ._ ' " ' -
t'?
70.
'fTi"~ rkn-Unanimous .Jury" by ri~ichael Masinter.
A~;:ERI(;A!!
CRI"'1INAL :.A',I fffi\'JT~W. Winter 1973; 11(2).5J7-5!~3.
Recent 3L.prezr.e Cct<rt decisions perrnittin€ juries of less
than twely€' m~mbers is inc~nsistent in criminal cases where the
degree of cert~inty require~ proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
By permi ttinES majoi:'"i ty verd 1~1:;5. the Court underc'lts th~ protection 'clcccrdect minor.1. ty defendants.
If the fU :c-:-;i,,'!1 of
T
the jury is t.) interpose the community between the 3.CClI.s"?o
thp. ;::-~a:-'~, t.he ma.iority verdict diminishes tr.~ vi"ta=it"/
of the !nstitution of the jury.
ai'~'::'
71. "The Crimina! Jury Faces Future Shl')ck" by D9Vid J. Saari.
JUDICATuEE • •Tune-J'c.lly 1973; 57(1):12-17.
The author otands in op~osition to recent Su~reme Court
r\,li~gs providing for six-m~mlJer juries and ~onur.-nr.il!lOU8 v-:rdi c ts. B03s:~rd • s Law of Fa;-lily In tera,~ ti0!1 is c i tAd in support of t'1e 3.uth0r' ~ conterition that a twelve pe:::'son jury
o~f€:rs ~r€'1ter representative capacity.
72.
"The Decision ?rocesss8 of Six- and Twelve-Person
~o~k
and 'rwo-Thirds :.1ajori ty Rillef;" "J:>'
James H. Davis, Horbert L. Kt':rr, Robert S. Atkir:.8, Robert
Holt, 3.r. ,1 D3.vid r.1eek. JOUp.nAL OF PERSONALI'!'Y AND SOCIAL
PSYCHCLCGY. July 1975~ 32(1).1-14.
Juries of six or twel va persGns listened to a sizrJda ted
trial of <~ r8.pe case, deliberat€d, and returned ~Terdicts
ei ther in a unanimous or nommanimous decision co~di tion.
The two variables - unanirni ty and jury size - }-.ad no significant effect on the verdict. However the six-person juries
averaged a si~ificantly low(.&r amount of deliber3.tion t1.me.
The :findings also showed that individual jurors o:ften agreed
with the majority, w~en when they privately dissented. The
prim3ry find1.ng was th~t a two-thirds majority condition best
predicted over!tll ve!'dict distributions.
Jurie:~ I\ssir.~r!ed t~~animou::;
......
.1 f
IX.
"'3. t'J1.)~V l't~ir)} I ·~~~'_11~?1T''i ~ .... :;J;),pi(~-'.U .;[)lJRl'::\L ·~~·I; ~;r~rf,~T:·l;.\ L
r,A.I, C!\IiHNOT..JC·'}Y d· ·P6I.,!CE--~c·fi::~T;Cs;- )c·c€!mber 1~':'0; ~,l (1) :'::-:t.S}) •
Thr.: mu h:- 5~sue in tho"? ',,1j11.L;:;r1.S c:. . :·~~ '.\'~::: t,E:; r:r:Jt;vi.ct.~:J!'l
·~n t _ 1.0
. 1'1'
.~, .--:~~::~-,
1
"'" .Jury_
~.
r1"\'!-.::")
e f f. ~l(]'~"
1 0 lm"rl..::.",I
• .lG •.,--b
"t
Y.;...:.1 .::><, ••~ X -"-""rT'"
::,:,,:Je_
L:t,;
~C ..lrt fO~lrlri t:-:r.-t trial by ~. six.-member ;1ury con'3tit.uti!)I-;-.l G1':
~~e gro 1..ll'"d S 0.(' ~ :l(~h: ial effie i(mc:: a.nd ecw10mi c exped i P f ; ":-1,
~nd at~ribute~ t~e twelve-pcrsc~ jury to an "h19tnri~8l ~ccjda~:~
~.7l the <;'rolu'ti:)n of the .jury t:'~l.
'l'r..e C':u:~e 15 r;n~~;~·l~"t·::: :J3::.
~,,:rrc'7lnl(;; '.)1' a conflict of int0rflcst cevMcen the r~i·~t.s 01' ~;r..?
iLdi'.r.i.dl)::t': a;-:d 1::-.<:: state's ac."l'Iinistration ,)i' eff.i..~icr·.t :~'1,:
expedient ju~tice.
-I'
0~
•
.~
.~
74.
r..l
....
l'
·";~re ~!ones
The Dimhllltior: of ":.~c
Zcis~l.
U~IVERSITY OF C!-:ICAGO 1.1..:1'1 Illi-
". _ .And Then l'here
Fo::dl..~ral
Jury"
by Hans
S~mmer 1971; }3(4)a?10-7:1J..,
3mal1er j'lrles. in c("njw;c-1;ion wi th other c:)urt G.ecisions
and ,ro,osals to lir.1.i t the function of the jury, =.ppe.a.rs to t-;!~
a reduc+,irm of the jury 8y3tA~ in seneral. D5.:-feren~es in .jun'
51 ze do IT.:r!ke a differenc e in adj'udica tion, as Sn'Jw'n by st-a ti .:,tical ar~'llysi~. T'lle artiel~ also considered oth~r 'DOss: hie
mc.:i fic2 ::ions of jury .size, and the que 5 tion 0: t:le l:i::t j o~~i t./
V!E'.v.
'1er'diet.
75.
"Six-Mem'!)er Civil Jl.1ri~s Ge..irl Backing" b.'l Edward J. Jev~.tt.
!3A~ ASSOCIATICN JOUP.NAL.
r;o"ember 1971; 5"/:Jl~l-1.::~~.
'!Iill b.r'l::. v_ F}.C'ri·:h WciS a crimin3l C2.se invnl yin? the
8ixth-~ciment a Fl.orid?. statute provicing f~:, six.-~er~,ber
ju~ics.
The Court ruled t:'I:l t the -twelve-m~rnbe!.' Jury \'f2.: ?n
""Listorical accifJ~nt" and net a "nece3s3,ry i:"'J;!'o::-:H ..~.lt" r;:
trial b~r j:.lry. The se'/,:;:ntil 2.1l(>n(lIf;er.·~ righ"t{;;:· 2ury tl'.L-,.~ i ! l
ci':il Ccises h2.s been ir_terIJretf:>c as falling un:Jt:; '~hi.~) ruU.l·,C,
;:Ult: the in~..-.~a-5i;1§; \.lse of six-member juric.:; ig r€~N.l thlg in
3avi~~~ of botn time and money for ~l~ courts.
A~;:GrtI:A:';
the t.1'1~rican Jury" by Han.:: Zelsel.
BAR AS30CIATIOl.'; '::CUP-NAL. April 1972 J 58,367-)70.
The ~!illiams decisicr. which permitted a six-member jury
in the trial of a major felony, is eror1ing the ~ignificance of
the American jury. Twelve-member juries allow greater chance
for minority representatlon in the jury, and contair. twice as
many o~inions upon which to evaluate the evidence as six-
71).
NTh:? Wa.Iling of
A:'-:ERICA~~
member juries.
The effects of the six-member jury combined
verdicts result in more convictions, and
fewer hung juries. These changes in the jury system are a
serious attack upon the institution designed by the Constitution as a guariia.n of civil liberties.
with
-
nonun~nimous
77.
,1. C"itb0r!~.
.-
~ :~ ~ ..
~1inijt.:r'i.f:;:;:
"rhe New
-
:\>JE;:UC:,',~;
9•
?h ~.~ s(:'"
3AR
~~'.n::..ce~
or
P,::'7~dor8.·;:;
3c,~?'t
AS~~:C£;IAr:JON JCU!<.FA.t..
\-.;r D4
:97:2;
<"")<'.t.'
v j.J
)(~.:
~.: '~-
,:l c::ner: jm en t ~~'r '.J'.' i (~e s f' c ~ j ur-:/ t i'l.a 1 it. ~~ 'r 1:l
i rio -y t t) ~'~10 "l"tzl "= ~ -.>:: tr~ e r! QT1!'}O :".t. :"8. ~I"tt, ·~.ll d ':" u n"n·]c '-'
q
1.". '""", .. ~ ...'"' \.,4c>~~'''e,1
"h0l''.3'"'oY'''''
t'll'>
'#.111i:;.',:s
. . (":-.- -,,_ .......,.,~,
"' ...) t'.·~ltr •.,.
"_":uror - .
-' ..... " ....·f
....
_-'-'-"'""--_
v. ::;'~or"_ -;a \.:'-1;:.(, 'dhicl1 pr::r;'1i t~€d si':-membf.~r j:ll'l.e:: i: 7'1.:'.jcY'
--........
-~-- ..- . . .
.
b'
t 0 C1Vl
. '1 caG~:i, 3JnCe
.
+l
('rln.!.~lC~,
~rl:ls lS not ar-pll'::C't..Joe
v.',e
.-: ~,' ',,,'
e "_~ ..v.-;'Le_ ,..." OMmon ~..... ~ '," (+ '1;<-,1 ve -.-; el'~ b·-' ~ I\
1..".....,th .-, ",'>'1,,1 r', '_.I, + '~""I~C'~
1 '"'
_. ;1'
....
~urJ 'Sh.1.1e t:te sixtr: alilel!:-her..t ~;;uara:1tee o'1ly insurr:::2' ,,~~. "i!"',t:::~rt iCl.2." jw":!.
:1oreover t indi v iC.ual di s trict co~r'":s C; iJ no t
',1'''t~ the D(1Ner or the ~.. ight to 'Tt;:ike local al ter:-; ti0n~ in th~
~iz& of the. jury.
<;; ,
"~ z~:-- e r~ ? .. c:,:" '.~ r·::
. . 4"_1."1
,. '"
1r
78.
,J'.'",,,~
~
.~
t,
..~flhr!. t
r ~.::;'-: ,':'r.
""~~"'"
..
~ ~
\..
• Ll"
0.1
• .J,
~
~
:.J. ',"
l~
_
-..
'...........
Do Six-r,lem!)pr Juries Really Save?" b',r '\'lilliar.: R.
J\':LIGATU~.
Jw;e-Zuly :i.973 a 57(1.):0-1.1.
A :::tuay yf' j'Jror utlliz3.tion in ~he DIstrict Court f~r
ti.e Dis tric .. of ColuMbia shews r~o diff~re!'ce in "IC' ir:lirc t L:e
&nc1 triz.l -:.irne between six and twe-lve per30n jurlfs,:.:. . 1 relatively little difference in jury panel ~ize. The i!1fer€:"'i~e
d!'a\'Jl1 frcn: 1;111 s stud'! is th::! -: nunel sizes must be red.uced nroporti cr.2. tely wi th ~ury size to' a,vo:'d even more wai tirg ti:ne
foJ:' jurc,l's serv ir:.g on six-mt:mber juries.
79. "Thf? C~~iminal Jury Paces Future Shock" by David J. Saari.
JUDICATURE. June-July 19731 57(1),12-17.
The c..uth"l' st'1::ds in oPPo3i tiC'ln to recent Supre~(' Court
ruJ.:nt;~ ::,rc"J' id in!'; for siz-memher juries and nonu.'1ani~ous ':erdi::ts. :1os:~rt.!,r}'s Law (If Fa:-'lily Interaction is citeci in support of the author's contention that a twelve-member jury
offers greater rep~e3entative capacity.
bO. "On Tria.l: Trial ty .Jury" by Murray Teigh Bloom. Nf~TrO:,AL
CIVIC RE'/IEW. July 197.3; 7,35e-J61.
In lic:;ht of the fact that ;nany Aroeri-::ans dod,ge ,Jury duty,
inefficiency CO"1su:nes court ar.d t3.xpayers· time and mcney. fl.n~l
jury t!'i~ls. ,:or. tri bu-l:~ to court backl'~gs ;.!nd del3.Ys. a I'evanp':'
tng of the institution of t~.e jury is :-leeded. The six-rr,(!mr:ez'
jury aves tine, ncn~y, proMotes a better courtroom a~~osphere,
and insuree more efficient juror utilization.
81.. n • Conv incin(=; Emplri cal Evidence' on the Six-f'l!ember Jury."
b JT Hans Zeisel and Shari Seidman Diamond. UNIVERSITY O~ CHICAGO
LA~,'1 REVIZ~'i.
\vinter 1974.41(2),281-295.
The "convincing empirical evidence" cited by the Court in
its Williams decision provides misleadine support for the belief that there is "no discernable difference" between results
reached by two different-siz~d juries. The article examines
fOlJr studies used to support the correctness of the Williams
decision. and analyzes the Methodological shortcomings of each
study. The flaws in these studies preclude theri validity,
and question the holdings of the Supreme Court on six-member
juries.
82. "Uncovering 'Non1iR~en1able' Differences: E~Dirj~:: R~­
search and t'rle .:;urv-~ize C:::.:-:~~" bv Ri~hard O. Len'"0ert.
~~I CHL:r.'I.!: l:\"i'! n __-=VIEW.
~I:a rell 1~;:' 5 ; ~ 7 J ( 4-) ,1.;Ij4 -'( cS. .
'I'he article delJates t}w Suprerr.e Cou.rt's holc.illP: in 'Ii 1 Ua:'1:;
Y. FIJr::r:::t t\lat t:lf:re is "no ·L:1cernal'le> ~1.i:'fen~:~ceii bet·.~ie·er~-"·
--'--SIX
"'e"'b r "r\~ l·r.-'o'v"'-me
·t n......,.. J'ury
""rc'1'
ctC"
. ".,_ ..; '1" -4!"r~'"
.. -'11
......
\.:;
. . ....,I
...
'"
'-'.
_'
vi. .. ·')th"'r'
"
jury stuiies and using p.cobabil i ty theory, the author sr,0wed
th'J.t reduction in jury size tJ,)es affect jury verdicts.
A.tI3.1~r­
.1i S shO\':cd -:~1:3. t twelve -mel:1bar juries are more like loy th,'l::1 sixm~mb9r gr~up3 to be represented by minoritY-Rrou9 members, are
~cre likely to be consiste~ across similar case~, and 3re more
;:epresentative of the CO!l!muni1;:! from which they're oraWl':. ':'he
{rtl cle 21so dra:NS on s~:lall-.qTot...:.P research to support -:':i·,~ ccr.lcntion ~h~t twelve-member juries are qualitatively bet~~r ~han
six-member jurip.3.
ii;"",t:'
eJ...l';'_",
....
'4,V'.Jt..._.t.;~
I.
'-'
83. "Six-Member Juries in the Federal Courts" by Edward N.
Beiser and Rene Varrin. JUDICATURE. April 1975; 58(9)s424J., 33.
A comparison of six-me~ber and twelve-member juries in
the Federal District Courts found major differences in ~.rer­
diets a~o ~mounts awarded. Cases heard by six-member jurjes
resolved more often in hor of the defendant than by twelvemenber juries, awards granted by six-member juries were substantially smaller than those granted by twelve-memb€;r juries.
The study found only a modest savings in time wi~h the si=-<member jury.
84. "The' Decision Processes o-r Six- and Twelve-Person Eock
Juries Assigned Unanimous ann Two-Thirds lr"lajority Rules:! by
Ja~es H. Davis, Norbert L. Kerr, Robert S. Atkin, R0bert
HoI t, and David Meek. JOUm;AL OF PERSOr;ALITY AND SOCIAL
PSYCHOLOGY. July 1975, 32(1):1-14.
Ju~ies of six or twelve nersons listened to a simulated
trial of a rape case, delibera~.~d, and returned verdicts
ei ther' in a unanimous or nonunanimous decision conc.i tior~. Tbe
t~"o var.i.able.s - 1..4nanin:i ty and jury size - he.d no signifiC!ant
effect on the verdict. However the six-person juries averaged
a signifis3.ntly lower amount of deliberation time. The ':~nd­
ings also shewed that individual jurors often agreed with the
major! ty, even when they privately dissented. The primarj'
finding was that a tHo-thirds majority condition best predicted
overall verdict distributions.
85. -Differential Effects of Jury Size on Verdicts Following
Deliberation as a Function of the Apparenx Guilt of a Defendand" by Angelo a. Valenti and Leslie L. Downing. JOURNAL OF
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY. October 1975; 32(4):655-664.
The Willia~~ v. Florida decision permitting six-member
juries raised a number of questions as to the effects jury size
has on verdicts. According to this study, jury size had no
20
eff~ct on the verdict wh(;>n a t'}nrent I""ui 1 t w.:I.S lmo but when
... e1'1~
"uiH' W~l<) ;1'~N'}'
j.."r-4_
....
r-)-, siv_~HI~lhpr
..
...
(J'uries ',.'t;"'e
. . .n",or~
. . . lik~~l"'"
J
a!1 ·""·
+';},c;Y', t·";:'lve·;:~'~:l}t''!' j~lri~~ to ~:, !'wict.
'rw€l"e-~ter,;~'sr ~u!'ie:;
were fo:,md tn be mcr'e advant1.J:~:ous tr) the ,le-:€r:.llaYlt: the ?bsnlute sj ze of a minori t.'! in "tne 12r::c·"!' 5'1":'Y \,'~S more likel~,'
V
r..
to cause a
•
v
hun~
- ........
.~_lo
~"
jury (rather than a .:.:uilty ... er~lict).
"The Impact of an Aggressive Juror in Six- and 7welvebv Joh'1 R. Snort:,m. Jeff S. Klc:n, anc. Wynl1 A.
ShermR.r.. CRIf:lINAL JUSTICE Arm BEHAVIOR. September 1. 976 i 3()):
86.
't.1em~~r ~1uri0stt
"'55 -~'" 0,..,~....
Usinl'! high school ~eniors a.s simulated jurors, t~:3 study
"lssi?;11ed 177 students to five j·.lries con8istini~ of. SlY members, twelve me~bers, five mq~bers plus a confederate, or
eleven members plus a confed€. t'E. tee 'l'he res1.l1 ts indic:l ted. "t:'1.,) t
the juri·::!s prompted b~' COYlf0dera tes who a:-:~ued ass2~ti vely ~J,,:",
the ruilt of the defendant yield~d in the direction af the
asserti,'e c:mfederate. ~his finding liS more pronounced in tn'!
five-member plus confederate juries. The controls (six- and
twelve-me~ber juries) did not differ in the proportion of
guilty verdicts assir;ned. 'rhe results sur-;gest that the t ...ml'l .
member jury may still be the mos·t reliable screen for detecting "reasonable doubt" in protecting the rights of the accus8j.
14
X.
GRAND JURY
87. "Puture Defendants Entitled to Witness' Grand Jury Testimony W:L thou"t: Showing of Particularized Need - J.l. s. v.
Youngblood." HAr1VARD lMWI REVIEt1. January 1968; 81{ J ~ 1712-717.
In the case of Y~~~bloodt the defendant was hp.ld not to
have sho~~ a "particularizea need" for the secret testimony of
a yfitness in grand jury proceedin.g;s. The Court, however.
promulga tp.d a new rule for the Second Circuit I. a defendant
need not show particularized need for relevant testilT!ony. The
grand jl1ry' 5 characteri8tic of secrecy is most signific3.!1t i;")
c~ses of pol.itical corruption, in mest other cases it is unnecess~ry and exaggerated.
88, "Discovery by a Criminal De~endant'of his own Grand Jury
Testimony.lf COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW. February 1968, 68(2)r)11-3JJ.
Traditionally, a criminal defendant has not ~een ~iven
access to his own grand jury testimony previous to trial. Although it is a dying rule, many states. and even federal grand
juries, preserye it in some form. A problem arises, however.
with the testimony of the corporate defendant. The article
suggests that a corporate uefendant should not be denied
access to testimony· of any member or former member of the
corporation, when the testimony concerns alle~ed oriminal conduct of the defendant.
-
89.
0:~
"A Re:::.t·;m:rct i3'1i
G~~l·n~~.
!" !)~,,:~j.
~r:vt~n:;rlL
1. :l'~~~;
~3'
t)-,J'
G":'":~'r:c
:lL~1Ir~."~iJ
L,'. )i.
.Jur~r
::~~,~er,t"
'~~Jjr~IrfC·l.,C(~~·,
by ~~.'y";:'):J:'
& ~J(,I.,l·~:~ ~::::~~'.~'~.•
1~',(.1.),. ··-~7.
.
Tr.. 1. J ::. .ci; i c.1,::· '; x,1r.d n e~:; n" (~r·J.l !T, 0d C:-1\ e){ r::·c. n c~ i ':lr,:1 IJ :':'~}1 <;
t""lni t:iorl,ll iT~'a11d j':r~.. pr,-".>-.:>.~u~·e, :r;lr':i.c~l·?rJ.j :!tf usc oi
-
•
1
~'Pecla_.
::;.r-inq, "JurJ.8;,
• 1
"in'.•.C:·l~,~\:l:-=
CQ'.lr1se 1
Pl,-,y1r.t···
mF"'nn
'........
~: • •.,
l~ttl'->
... .l·n·1S
_.J. , .
, _ - l'~~rl:"r"V'
~d •. !·)
C. I.
,)
r"l-
0
J.~()~
.
",;.'~'?
'
~
•
~
'·eL~_lvr::.I.'/
·h"T
u, (.'•..,.·.·.:,.,~
•... ,.to . ' 0
~"n
..... ..,
, ..... "'~
• . ~"~.-:_.
.J'-'
prosecutor', W[l..~ch l'i:::y be n8c~=sary for eff;;ctlve 'J ~vestl;~~. t>X'
c! ?'ove!'r1:re";i; corruT'tl Gr~.
The- au thor cunclud·;s hi ~ 3UrlfE;\; 0 f
'~nc~easeci gr:.md jury flex:i bJli ty "/1 th the o::,"'~rv~ ';'iCt;1 ;;hc'1;
::: r-nnd .j U ';~y e ..'";~: c i e:-lcy :.1'-'.y be .~~;nerally i~c ~'E-:1 ~f't + hI' :l1.~ :~r;"'. '.l!"l~~
'.~ special '·(,:l.l~d jurie::~ find ~!~2~ial ~ounsel, y,:'h the u':'l·ierst,an'iinr. thz:~ ~he t~ran:,jury -:;a:n only supplem(~Dt 7'olicin" institutions n0t r~plaac them.
"Fr:;6era 1 Grand Juy:y Inve['tiE;a tion of' PO}.i tical Jis 3i rier. "Cs "
IiARYARD ernl RIGr.TS - CIVIL IJI3ERTIES REVIE'h.
David J. fir·~.
H~rch 1072; 7(2):432-409.
ThE': arti ~le examine::; -:he F:rand jury's unre s+;:-ic :'ed inve s··
tip;atory Dcwer, the FBI' ~ l}.':,;e of grand jury reSOUrC-23, dna th:'
policy of cr~nd jury secrecy. The func~ion of the ~rand jury
has sh~.fted in the past 200 year.s from a protector agairtst
or.·pressL:.n to an ir"·,estiga tory ins trur.!ent of ~overn:,,:en t. Ii;
effect, 0he prosecutor has teen given the po •• er :)1 ordina:-y
law enfo~cem9nt offic~rs. hut absent the co~stitutin~al restricti(J;1s ;)laced on the pclica.
?o.
:!1. "Gr:.r -: JHry }'roceec inr:s: TLe Prosecutor, the ,!,J·h:.l Juc g~ ,
and Ur.due I:1fh4enc,~." miIVET!SITY OF t;HICAGO lAd REVIE~,~.
Sur.lmer 1972: ):1 (4) : 7{-1-7 t12.
The ?,rand jury's function I)f protection from state
oppreSSi0:l may be converted i:1t.o a rubber st2.!J'J for p::-o~ecu··
~orial o,Dression.
Judge~ and prosecutors who do :1ot co~:orm
to st~~j~.!'ds ;yf procedlJ.I'al fRirness may prevent p:rand ,il'rie3
fr~~ makine independent determin~tions on the triable meritG
of cases.
9~~.
"T~'H'~ F'l::-·:::t Amendment /\3 a Re~traint on -:he Grar.d Jurv
?rocess" ry Peter ilei S~N; n :-l.'d Ancirew Post3.1. AkSRlGAI'; cRI~,:n~!!.~.
~'..'.'{ Ri!."VI~~·~.
SU:~.mer 197:..:; 1,)(4) .671-699.
Recent .r;:-and jury invt?stigations of dissicent p.:rou.~s nn1
activitie3 have necess5tate1 setting up a balance betw8en
legitimate Government functions a~d the continued vitality of
first amendment rights to freedo~s of speech and assnciatlon.
In order to avoid the "chil1in~ effect" which compulsory processes hav2 on these rights. the state must be able to show a
subordir.~tin~ interest which is compellinR, a reasonable nexus
or relationship between this interest and the subject under
investigation, and a reasonable means for pursuing the objective.
.
.....
,
."
. .....
~
~..........
.,.
.. - .-
)')
9).
uDe:J'lytholo,,::izing thF: Hist.)I'ic Role of
Alf£;UCl.:! C;{H'Ir:A.':" LA:I
1-:e lene E. Sch"nrtz.
lee t
th~
Gr".r.d Jt;.'·Y" by
;,)'.A:n:rl..;;r 1,97:?;
RT~VI£';;.
) : 701-T"'O.
':'h~ Id~~:lzc>.1 viev! of the F,:ra!',d .~llry ~!S th:::. ~ ir-.3ti t~ . . ~.i/m
which pr:Jtects t)--,~ citi:€>n 2.g·~in3t go·:err;J:81".t ~rr:I·f<'s:'on is
"'r-'cl'r1"" +llLO
':"lolU+l'on
"of'
tt..'I' t'-.
~'l-""l"~ l·" .... y l~·"-·.,
I"L;
\.,'.
-..,/....
ch "'llo"",ued- h,.:>re
t.:lC t im~;: O~ HenryII, thi:: ~:!rticl e documents t~t:: cas'~s in which
t~te gr':md jury 3erved as :l vehicle of p:0\"9rnm.:::nt supprAssion
of political dis~idents. What is~eeded now, ~nst~ad of ~~0litio~ of the ~rand jury, is a reinforCEment of its tradition~1
function as the primary barrier between th? 8.c~used and tile
t:".-.
~ __ 1 .4.,
,J
•
-
•
.L
(.~
•
~j,
...
~.
I
L _
-.J
a
'-'"
t.
c...;,..I.,.
..... ..; ... .i
'" ~CUg ;r.
-::4.
J:lsh.
S2S.
"The Indicting Gl'ann Jury:
AM~RICAN
A ari tical Sta~e?·· by ~:·Hr.1101
CRBiIrTAL LAW P..5;VIEW. SWltalar 1972; 10(.':) :;307-
The reasoning employed in C..,leman v. Alab'l!!3. (-r~~rr.:i ttir,;->
of accused ar:d counsel in a 1Jreli!'l1n~:ry hE':3rit:i;
pa~tici IJ-'1 ti()~l
establish nrobable cause) is th~t this is a critical stace
the prosec~ti0n. This reasonin~ can and ~hould be exten~ed
grand jury indict~ent procedures. Permitting the a~~istanc
counsel in the grand ju!'y room would reduce the prosecutor-'s
d~minance over the grand jury.
to
in
to
of
95.
"The Grand Jury Witness anti Compulsory Testi:r.ony Lei!isl.?.tion" by James Rie:!. AMEiUCAN CRIMINAL LA::I REV IE'." • Su.1.1~er 1972:
10(4)
:829-5~6.
Compelli"1f': a witness to testify before a grand jur:;", e~/en
though his testimony may be self-incriminating, i8 an abri~ge­
ment of the fifth anenCJnent right af{ainst se If-incrimi~;~ tion.
The 1970 compulsory testi:nony statute fails to provide for
transactional ir:.r.1u!1i ty wtile per!:1i tting use immunity. It is
argued that use im~tU1ity dees not fully protect a .,.,i tne2~~ fro!Tl
fUrther prosecution. and the st-'lndard of transactional i~mu>d t:;
must be a~hered to.
96.
Prot~ctlon
"for a Grand Jury Wi-tness".
SUMmer 1972, 10(4),3P,1-riO~.·
In the cases of Un~tcJ Stat~s v. Eean and G~lbard v.
Uni ted St8.tes, the Suprar:le-C;ourt decided th~t grand jury wi tnesses hDd the privileGe of refusing to testify in situations
where fourth amendment ri~hts were violated. In these cases,
witnesses refused to testify because of infor~tion obtained
through an illegal federal wiretap. Furthermore, compelling
the witness to testify in this situation under threat of contempt proceedings, is an invasion of the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
"P0urth Amenciment
Al'CSRICAr: ::!RHHNAL IJAW REVIEW.-
97. "The Civil Petitioner's Right to Representative Grand
Juries and a Statistical Method of Showing Discrimination in
Jury Selection Cases Generally." by William George Prahl.
.'
''','~ ·1 ......
-'
UCLA L'ii'l REVIE",f.
0~1"i t
.-
tion~
Febru3.::-y lQ?'3; 20(3)z52·1-6Sh.
7he ar-ti.cle die' ~:J~sed +,he ap~r:::-n,:"in t"'r!':1'·S c ... whp
icm-. r-c:. 9<ou:' r l ;)l' allo'.'/,:d t'J ch3.11enr~e :~r3.r.tj j11r:':,,9.~
crj!":1'~:11
da!'cnd2.~ltc-;
.:;~ekL,g
r'-:Ver~.;::.~.l
o.:~
3.
:~cr civl1
s"~l(.'c.~­
ver(11ct.
,~
1~·~ r~!':3r.(1juror8 i.n ,\Larneda -::ount.i ",r~~.~ ·,. . :-·:'llyzecl ar<'
found tTro~.;::: ~l!":de;:-rc 'j?:'esen ....,a t.:.or amonr; cer'.:.a i:-: .:;f":' .;;er: t~> 0 f ~ht.'
nJ:->'.llat~.r)!",. "f +..he county.
This was att1 ihut&d 1..( :l1e tmc'I-Jt:ckE.',l
:::;mrl'ple of
1
(~iscretir_)T! of the judt:('~ who selecten potential ~r:::·~d jurors.
'I ~I'? art i c 1(' ~ll;;-!Te steel tha t basic ~oci o-ecol1omie C' l~l. ~ ~ if: C=1 ,;;i ')11 ::'
te d.elineat.ed \~{th st:1r.:i:1rds set to insure adecua+,e rE-Dn~'3er:tt'~on 07 t!1e::.:e P.TOUPS; ttF1.t SO~H';!eS for .iuror' self'!c7ic;l 1:L~1tG
~ e eXpclrlded to provl'le a tr'o3.dc:r base than i~ currently T'o~:r.;':':)l('
'~sin~ V0"t'''r registraticn listsJ and that fir.9~ci3.1 securi;;y h~
insured for l0...,er-inc~me people servin~ as grancl j'.lrcrs ..
2
9 8 • ";;r.·'md Juries l'-~:?y Inquire Into Foli tical Belie ~s Only
in :!arrov.' Cir::,umstance:; (Bl:.rSey v. United S~1.tes, .!.It.'; F .2d
1059 (9th Ci:-cuit 1972))." CCLm.~BIA LA'il REVIEW. April 19':"3;
7 J ( 4 ) , 867 - 8 81.
The issue in ~u'!:"Re~ concerns the balance between the f::'r·~-+:
amenn~ent rights of a w~tn~~3 in a erand jury proceedi~s anG
the scope of questioning uermitted a grand jury investigatio~.
In ~uch ~ situation, the Government must show (1) an intere;,t
in the s~o ject ~a tter of the subject \meier investiga "':.ion th1. t
is "imne~iate, subst~ntial. and subordinating"; (2) a "substan tial '~0nnectior.n bet\,'een the inforrna tion sot;.,.h t and the
p;overnmen tr.l..l interest I and (3) that th e inforrna t::':m sought
cannot be ottained through means less destructive of first
ame~~Ment liberties.
99. "Constitutional Law - First and Fifth Amendrnen"ts - Grand
Jury Witnesses l";lay Assert First Amendment Rir;hts of' Press Cl.'1d
A~sociati()(1 as a Basis for Re~llsinp: To Answer Que:=:tions I~munity Extends Only to Subjects ~pAcifically.Me~ticned i~ a
Grant of Imrr.u'i i ty - Bursey v. t!ni ted States." rrE"/l YCRl( Vt;IVERVERSITY :,AW REVIEW. April 197J~ 48(1)1171-196.
Tho? Bl.lrs~ Court rulei on thA conflicti!1g values b~twes:1
the Gover;~ment ts in t.erest in obtainin,,,:, i-nform3. t i on and tr. e
citizen's ri~h~ under the fifth amendment to remain silent
and under the first amen~lent ri~ht to freedom of associ~tion
and of the press. The decision in this case reflects the
change in nature of the ~rand jury - from that of an ind~rend­
ent, investigatory body to one dominated by the prosecution.
The Bursey dec~sion is seen as another step toward lind ting
the unrestricted investigational power of the grand jury.
-
100. "Constitutional Rights of Witnesses in Federal Grand
Jury Proceedings. Bursey v. United States." UNIVERSITY OF
PENNSYLVANIA U;'{ REVIEW. AprIl 1973; 12I(4).900-920.
A balance test, betwe~n society's need for effective
grand juries, and "the infringement of witnesses' first amendment rights was formulated in Bursey. It is argued that a
"j
,;
I:...>-i
v;i tr~':·=~::.: sr!ol;l.-J
,-
~.t::: ;~1"'~-J~,·~- j'_~r~! tf'st.j~orl.Y -~ ::~S .:~
'1Ic"+l'l)p;n'
pr',-)·~,.~
t .A.,.. \ ... • . .... ..: '. , "!"'J
., .
'.-'''l''~'~CtV
4. \:
. . . . . \ . l. ...
in tr~1!1s('ri~'''",]')r'., ~it'cj as ..;.,r: 21.. ~~0"' !:c'(~r:lriYJ.'" 8. po.;~.:;ib:'8 1'utu!"e ,~e:~r,~e. Tn ~ .first ~:N, r" ~7j~r:t • S :T1J.aruy; fee oJ.' +.he ri (~h~~~
(i:13:~,oc3.::iti\.~n an:! t!~E:, p:.-'·:::~:.~ ...·~;r~ protecl.<',.:' h:: ~_[.9 ':;O;lrt'!1 ::- .. '~n··
T.h::-:-- .•~~.,.. ,.~ ;U~·,(
;-,[,""".1-.'
'r·-l';()·n~ m"~~ r!e .1Lj'."d't·.·>
+'0
+.1.-('
"','!'!~...
,1
......
.....
....
...'
_I
vI I..
..,) '""" ",..
~·,·",tprtl···''''·'
~ ... i. .....
~
'...... '
.. '"
j,...
,~<:C't
i-.i ~
......
......
'
.
o·
~:J."'!,r~
-~;
_......
J _I.,
_
••
.-
(",;O~::'l
!.=:
; .... -..., -"',
t,f'.
O·;:,·~iT.;"."
~
'_..
41'
_
...
_
I ) ...
·,
.".....
rr.~t~er o:"re i:Ly~st~.P'.~+~('!'l.
'tIlt: ~1)'!~!:i!.?:,3 of a !"'e ..... sp,a.p2r.
...:"
,
............
.,J....
r~~.ther
.J::han b:~O:ld inquid.E";
flG-:-J.i'lG ,j!"lry Secr~cYI
SLo\lld Wi tne~~e,,:, l~(} If':' .\ccss.! ·~o
Gl·~ .. ,ld ~~\)yy Testi:-ror.J as:i r~htter of Ri.:-ht'?"
·,;'1.1i18rn
. . !',.,l(~..
USLA 1A~.'l R~!IE·.'/.
At)!'1l
20(4) ,'':>·04-''3;.:5.
'TI}.(
'.
+~
"'-1''''_ ....Q ',tr"_ys
'(:\
t'r.",'
.'<,' 1 ......""""n7
t'~·
.... ."r
' .•. , ... J
~-,'r'"
.'.;:"'"
.... 1 .
ar
... ,.
"._ q,\e_Cl!_,
g;
.., 0 f
,"~
A.,Y
. ..•.
t.:,~_.
:ei:-
·
1973;
"'y,'"
~ t3 r·~J.lc of S€'cr'~c~".
h yro;Jc:~~ll is m2de to ~!"ovide a tr3.!~3"­
c~ipt o~ testimony to Wi~n€2~~~ to protec~ the witnesS~8 and
~i!'E·ven-t ".h~7'" !'rom r.nki!':'; :nisl;:::.cHng publ:c E:tate:r;ents.
1':)2.
nElimi;-~a tB the Gr::ln: .jUl~y" 'by Wi lliam J. Carr:ubc 11.
JOURI·:AL O? CRlrt.n.AL LAW MiD CRIMINOLOGY, June 1973; 64(2) &1':'L~1 ,=j~ •
C2mpc.ell araues ~O:" abolishir.:~ 'the grand jury anr~ using
':':1 i ts ~tp.ad an infoI"'!'ilation file~i by the prosecutor an~ rev!~e'.'i€'d ir. a
viE'win~~ th.e
probable cause heqringby'a m8.gis~r",.te. Af"!-';? t't:"evoluti'J:r. of the gr3.n:i jury. Campbell ar~C:1E s ·~iL·.;'
<""'''''h''',,.r. lL~
··,c:-ot·1'.1.4.1.\.>'11._·
... ·t· . . · .~,.."
, - Vl?
. bI e .1..1
~ ..
:::t
~,', ........ ~1; . . .,.1·~
, ... ~'-'\..
,10 :.c,r.,.?;eJ.
.. ....i..J.l<.,:.--0
. . ~ \AI
ba .. soc iety. T'1e unskilled 2.nC u:",tr:!inedr.e:nbers of th'-' "r'!::ci
jur~t h~_:.vp oecon:e the stamp o~ approval upon the efforts of
~.;
,,,J;?
m l...' n17.
.
"e.~'
"" t;.,C
.... ...
'+·T
'
1'·0'
p~ose~;l"'''''~
f'~"".~,
1.'r
.....,·- .'. +~,"".
'~"f. <~U
•• '_
JJ. l' ..:n
.1<.> t~-()
.1.,
. . . . .- ' v'.,
_J.
u.
r~s~on~i~::'l~ +.y for his c()n,iuc·~.
An infcrrnaticr. f51e rl bJ the
~!·o."ecut')r
wC)·:ld placo responsibility where i t belcn~3, .2..nd
:o::.us~ J:earing would S9r:e 'tr..e }:'Jrpo~e 0:' t1;e
f!r;.~.::d jury in ,;~t~rmiqs if there is 3'J:f!"icient evidence: to
9rOct;;ed "i ~ trl ~.!'o8ecutior:.
:":.,? "Drcba~le.
: :n.'fC::~i~lr',3.1 Pro~edure - Grand Juries -Sxclusio~3.r'r Rule
in'Se~rc~ and ~eizure Case~ Docs Not Apply to Gl~nd Z~ry iroceedin~s." "!AimERBILT I .."..';{ rt.~"IE;I.
197 Js.; 27:5(0-574.
In rni~~d St~te~ v. Cql~~dra, the Court ruled thqt extendinG ~h.e e:{cl,;;ionar~i rule to grand jury proceedinGs \'~()ulci
substantially impede th~ ,ole of the grand jury; Vfhil~ p:-ovidin?' only a minimal deterl'~nt to police misconduct. Thus
a wi tness before a grand j'..lry may not refuse to answer questions which are based or) illegally seized evidence. The function of the exclusionary rule has been interpreted in two v,-nY'21
as a deterrent to law enforcp.rnent officers from engaging in
illegal behavior; and in the judicial integrity doctrine which
views the exclusionary rule as a remedy de3igned to safe~uard
fourth amend~ent rights. The deterr~nce theory is a auestionable ration~le for this vital constitutional doctrine,
for the entire exclusionary rule may be brought down if and
wher. it is proven that deterrence is not a significant effect
of the exclusionary rule.
lCh..
"The Fourth kne:·d;r.c:"li:
~,r._, ~+l·r'. .:!.·
~
--
-
•
r
U:';n"A~'T)'
.i(~,a..· r\.J.L
F.xclu8irn~1.ry R. . llc
in the r.rr.1 .d
. . ;. .
JL~r''y
;: ......~ .••
c. ..:. ..J
~I"'"
"c> V ....~
,"~
1.,,..,,:·,..·.·"
......
/ '_.j
. . "·'·r·I.;a"\
"'-v'r'
~ •
V -.......
--'.
1;- ~ "II
I.. "- .. -\''' 1 .....
'-4
l.".'
•• ,1 ~ ....
~J.
~
~ '..:1. '. J •
'''I·I'"'-'--t-:':·;-:-'''''''.·i:'--:--r'~·V-L·
" ":";···.'R·r'TJ..'<...:· ,yr.Vl'7"'1
1\'.aY.L"7I!""';
1(""
,'..,'
\"
6...)
.l.. .• J. 4, '.J
'JJ. . .l ... ..... '4..;)~ ........ ~~ _"......
_..
j'~." c~
\".
J
..
-..
4
:
)?0-6?J.
The 8.rti I;le eX~filines tk~ Ccurt' s rulir::."; h. C';, Jclnd ra,
c oncernirl ..~ :h ,: ~)::.:: 111 sicnar~l ru Ie. Th e -:r-:UJ 1 :: i ·In?~.i :i.r, te:' p~1~_
t~ tion of ~h," :"ur+h ~1.:ne:·ldmfr,t iR !ier~:-p.d wi th ~~ blla.ncin~
anr: l.ysi.:; t;:) ~'1. \'C the exclus.J. "nary rul€ it 3 ::;rea te ~::t dete;Y'~rr~.
e (feet.
j'ho.? 3.rticle :4u~gest strategies for lLni -::i~t; Co. J 3.ndr3.
•
: (} s. "~he Grand Zurv - Pro~ec L< torial Ab:Jsr: of the In~ ictroen t
i:'rucess" by R'.)bert Gil~,"!rt J~hnsvn. JCGR1'1'AL Or' ;;RIMI:;Al J.A''f
4.t.!) c~rn:~;0J.k·r}y.
Jurl~' :';~74; (,5(2).157-169.
ThE a~{thu:' counters th~ ar~ument th.:1t the grand .i1..i.[~: 1.~:
2... rubbe,' st~~l;)" of t!1e pros!'::C'utor.
sta tint!, that tr.e ~ol ice
present only those ~a~es where -chere is su"b~t2.nt;ial Enirle;nce
of a cri:.:e. -t:~e hi~h rate of iniictments retl1rnej are ~yide!1cr­
~h<.:. t th~ pros'=:cu tor .is doing a good job, and not necessa!'ily.
f~3 na.:; b~~n interpret~d, that the gt':lnd jury reflects th~ \1.~ll
of the prosecutor. In c~ses of prosecutorial misconduct, ~~er~
the pr-osecutor has p~ejudiced or IJ:anip~lated tl1e ~rand jury,
the courts have nismissed the re€ulting indictmen~8. The
author CI.dvoCa1;€S gr.J.nting th~ defendant more leeway in est.:t blishi~. ~ p~osecutoria,l miscor.duct, and prompting the cour'~,::
to be mare active in the indictment process to assu~e prcp?r
functioning o:~ ~r.e grand jury.
106. "Acr,inis tr-a tive Access to Grand Jury Ma te:-ials." CCI,tr:.,3IA
L4..W REVIEW. J~nuary 1975; 75(1):162-189.
A concgrn for defendants has led to a softenine of the
o':\rrier of secrf'cy ~urro"',lndine IZrandjury testimony. State arid
federal agencies are drawin~ upon the grand jury c.isclosures in
ir.vestip::at.i.ons of c:ivil pr~deedings. As such, the £;ra.111 jury
is bein~ iivcrted frOM iss hi~torie role a.s a ~afeeuard of
liberty to a ~ew role as an inquisitorial tool of the executive
branch.
107.
"The B&havior of Grar:d oJ'urias I
b,}' Robert Ca:-p.
Acquiescence or Justice'?"
March 1975; 55(4) z
SOCIAL SCI?J-:CE QUARTERLY.
853-870.
Grand
jUl~
behavior is characterized by a rapid process-
ing of case3 with Ii t-tle deliberation, by low internal cor.fllet
in reachine decisions, and by overwhelming approval ot' th3 district attorney's recommendations. $ome factor!=; explaining
these behavior patterns arel the kind of people who beccme
grand jurors, the inade~uacy ~f the grand jury pr.eparation
process, a heavy caselcad demanding speedy processing of cases,
and the manipulative nature of the district attorney's Office.
More research i8 needed on grand jurors, their selection, and
decision-making processes.
"
.
108.
"The
I't~ t'<::~ and ~,:: SUS"" by J.. ynn Cotden.
A"9ril 1·')7(; 22(2):1'~9-:r~.
'I'he articlE tr::cec.: the hi3tor'Y of the Fr:u;~: jlAT'Y, foll:)we-1
Gr~:!,;Jd.
Jury -
Crtli:i'E AND L.cJ ...iTQUEriC'i.
,by a description of it3 make-ury, functio~3t and ~roceedir~~.
Pell tical use of tt.e gr;-ind .1ury in the past :-It::cHle is documented wi th C'-lses concernin,j unpopular, dis2er; tin_.' 02 r2.dic'll
groups. A criticism of the present. system is pr~3e~ted, alon~
wi th reccmr.wnda tions for ch~nge and reform. The author coJ:~C" ludes tht~ rrr3.::d jury shouL! be retained but refor:'led, by
curbinp; t~e ir.fluence of the prosecutor a!ld building into the
system a mechanism of checks and balances :0 ~u~rd against
ni~use of the grand jury.
XI.
CHA1LEma:-;G JURY
DISCRJ!.~:;;.ATICN
109. "St2.te Court Juries, We Don't Need Federal Intervention"
by Hicks Ep";on and Earl Q. Gray. AfI'lERlCAN BAR ASSOCIATION.
June 19(-8; 54,579-582.
The Jury Discrimination Act (S. 1313), still in co~~ittee,
w0uld sad11e state or local officials with the burden of proc!
when a df:'fendc:.!1.t charges discrimination in the make-up ('If t~le
jury panel. If' this law were passed, defendants Vlould b~ able
to take their chances with·a trial, and if they lost, to th.::>n
challenge the jury on the b~sis o~ unequal repre~entaticn.
MDr. Speck and the Case of the Vanishing Women Jurcrs M
by Rans Zeisel. urUVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAfi FL.l;'VTSW. Fall 19c:h
37 (1) .1-13.
In the trial of Dr. Benjamin Spock, there were only nine
women out of a v.::>nire of one h~~dred. Statistical 2nalysis
showed that past venires had all systematically excluded female
jurors. Public law 90-274 has set federal guidelines for juror
selection and expanded jury service.to the total eligible popula tion.
110.
111. MJuror Seleetion, The Law, A f'athematical ~,~E:thod of
Analy:;i s. and a Case St'ldy·A hy Da.vid Kairys. Ai-lERICAN CRI:U:,{AL
LA'II REVIE~II.
Summer 1972, 10(4)t771-806.
This article traces the historical background of the juror
selection cases, s~marizes the present state of ~he law. and
discusses the standing of a grand jury witness to raise the
issue of unconstitutional representation. The mathematics of
juror selection are considered, and using Philadelphia as an
example, the methodology and results of applying a matherr.a tical
analysis is done on that city's juror selection system.
112. MT~e Civil Petitioner's Right to Representative GranQ
Juries and a Statistical Method o'f Showing Di!Jcrimination in
Jury Sele·~tion Cases Generally" by William George Prahl.
UCLA LA, 'S RE') :'Ei'I.
'!'he t1~~~;:,Cl.~
Fe brlY'. Y'y J, <!7 3; 20 ( J) 19" 1 -t:, 5L4. •
rlL~ ,u=~nd tj,C ap'~ro:J!'icl-::(.;n,:--";~ of wi c)-r~er \~ ... l L.1 T~~:: ~~:. :; -~ .'»~ ~~ '.'-'5 .sh 0 f.~ ~ -~ b(~ ;:. 1..!.. .. \'ll-;~ i: 0 ~ h:' 1 l. c. · r"e t::r . .=1. :", d. j t.4J"'V
~jc.:~(:! t].r:,r!·~-) ~ ..~.. cri:'~::1al dc:~~!r.I.~-.3.(lt~ t~eel~i;'i~- i~v·('r"~;ll l l f Pi \~ ~(j '; (,.
t..
() f 209 Dr"~nd j:"'trcJr:, in AlwI1'?ci:..: CChLty \V.l~ :~n3.1.:/7.p','1.
;J. t"i
fCJ'.: ,d :',ro '3~"'; unne l"re pr'= .:::c:>:""! t '. ti or~ arnon7 C~ :r':, ~ i ~ S€f';f.12n :f, c:
',h: pC;H.i.1.l.tl~n of the cou~,ty. "l.'his w'as ilttri'buted f,) th,:, ULd'''';clced .j i ~n 'c!tion of the jtlcl~f~S who sel ~cted 7)oten-da l,;Y""nd
,;:.1r'()rs. : ...\::, l.r'ticle sU:-".Ge~,ter! tInt basic ~ocj O-~cc!:.c:-r.i;::.
c lassific-'1 t :rj~lS be ddlinea'ted wi th standa rds Sf't "to InsurA
. .:13q:ld. t::: rer-~'e;]ent&tior:.:3 of the~~e groups, -:ha1;~()Ur(;es for
J ~r')r s-:"!.i.ec :ion list~; t<) exrC'.nderl to nrovid(~ a :1rO:'F3.er 1)'1 Se
~bJ.!'l i:~ c'lrr€-'ntly pos~ible u!Jhv~ voter r~gistr8.T:'cr.. li~')t~_;
-:nd. t~;'~t
fi!"~'..r!cial s~:('uri tv 'oe insur~d f';)r lower-i.;·";:'~';'':; Jeo~11"o
.
.
'"
~
se~v1n~ ~2 gran~ Jurors.
,;
.
~'~rl;:'lc
11;. "stat:' st1.c~1 Evi~er.ce in .Jury' Dis~rim,;,~tion C~iS8S" by
J Glln S. DeC::~~i. "TCUHNAJ .. CF' C!iD.lIliAL LA~I AND GRnln~OLCGY.
Jur.e 1971l ; 65(2),234-238.
To Drove ~ury di<:::crimL~ation, a petitioner must S:'lOW tha+
his jury wa::;. !'lot. dra\-:rl from a. re-p!"esentative ct"oss-sec:io:", of
th~ coru.muni ty and eha t ·tha opportunl ty for eli -::crimin:-. ti on W'1 s
present. The ro2.e of the st:ltisti~iat, i~o assj st iYl 8!1O''"/in~~
tha ~ th( ~1;-:,s9 or mcl'; ~f the peti tiorl'3t" •. .'3.S nr,;~ r'e:pr-':)~Ar.-l:erl
Jr, the ~~·fj;.HJ frorr. whlt:h the jury Vi"?S chosen. Thr; articl~
j~mO!'lstr~'~es !1'.)'.'1 to make a 'C'z-ir:::-;. f"lclc- case, u~:ing statis'tlC8.1
aQ:ul'1ents, ',:iL. t the venire "":tro!:1 ..,mich the jury i:1 ChC3C'1 ::'s
n'Jurepref:l"';!1T? ti ve of the p&ti tioner' s class. ThE author coneludes tJ'.;.j,: 'J i scr bli~a ticn will bec:Jme less bl3. ta~t 3.8 S~3. t i 3-tiCRl ar~.L"1'~I:~,S become accerted by the courts.
114.
"The l\t-:ica C~sesr A Succossful Jury Challenge ir. a
r'()rthern City" by Pa'.ll '}. Chevlg;1Y. CRIrJIINAL L.~,:!' Bl!LL~:,rr~.
:.!arch/;'r:l'j.l 1975; 1:(2) s15 7 -1'/2 ..
Through strttistical an"lysis. a challenge to the .Jury
~-;;election '9rO~G3S it1 tIle Attica case tl(Cl~S mount:::i.
l)i.~crl~.i::2."
+;io;;~ 'ra~ all'.:-;ec wi'th !'"e':2.l'u$ to r:;.'Ce, sex. anc o.~~. ant"! sOnJf:
2.1 V, OO,} jurv!,3 "1:1"'9 subsE-qusntly <.)xcluded. P'H'manor:t ;jurj
'poo13 aY"~ ':>t:"t \.~p so 3.S "t:J 'J.iscrirn5.n~,te n.c;::\inst :voun~ pH'·)r1e
C!.nd etr..l'1.ic G'roun~); and war.~-::n and ethnic groups are syst!"xa tically underr~preser.te0.
XII.
CIVIl. JURY TRIALS
115.
"Civil Jury Backlogs. Should We Amend the Constitution?"
A1riERlCAN :9AR ASSOCIATION JOUP.NAL. July 1967,
by Benjamin Wham.
53.6 4 3-6 4 5.
Deficiencies in the civil jury system ar& partially responsi ble for b8.cldog3 in the courts. New methuds of nonjury
se~tlements are being t~ied, but what is re~~ly needed is a
••
~.,
oJ •
28
ohange in the constitution to permit civil cases to be tried
to a magistrate.
«
•
116. -Frocedural Ra:Corm and the Right to Jury Trial: A Study
of Beacon Theatre, I~c, v. ~eptover." by John C. McCoid II.
UNIVERSITY OP PEimSYLVAl"IA LAW HEVIEW. November 1967, 116(1}.
1-2.4.
Tho Beacon decision broadens the right to jury trial in
eivil cases. New procedural devices have enlarged the scope
of the seventh amendment right to jury trial - the question of
jurisdiction has moved toward u~e of' a leeal remedy. B,nd a\vav
from equity or admiralty jurisdiction. The article examines
the practices of merg~r, interpleader, the deolaratory judge~ent, and the shar~holder'n derivative suit in light of Beacon's
enlargement or the juriadiction of law.
l17., :-R1g11t to Jury', Trial': t,lru!er· i'j,;tle VII of the 1964 Civil
Rights Aet." tffllVERSITY OF' CHICAGO LAW REVIEW. Fall 1969,
37(1).167-180.
'
Legislative intent in creating Title VII cannot be interpreted to mean that civil suits ~~der this statute have the
right to jury trial. However. when mon.tary damages for discriminatory employment practice are sought, there is a question
as to the right o~ ju.-y t~lal. Case law in the ar~a of civil
actions iscontusing when it com~s to jury trials, althouRh similar past trials indicate that jury trial under ~1tl.VII is inconsistent wi -"Ii the purpose or the act.
118. -JurJ Trials and the Delay o~ Justice- by Benjamin L!!lndi~.
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION JOURNAL. October 1970, 561950-952.
The jury in"·civl1 eaoes is not an essential element of
jUStiC8, and in the interest or eX~8diency and economy, an
amendment to the Constitution ~bolishin~ civil jury trials
should be carried through. The United Kingdom 1".1\3 already
aholished civil jury trials in most eases, and the findin~ or
truth could be justa~ fairly (a.1'ld more econor.lics.lly e3.rri~d
o~t) ; w1 tha "oompe~en1; Oud~.· ~si~1tlg-. over an adversary system
of li tigaticn.
- .
,
119. -Where Jury Trial Palls~ by Herb&rt Harley. JUDICA~URE.
October 1971; 55(3).94-95.
l.his article is a reprint or on. written for the Octobor,
1925 issue of Judie~tllre. Recognizing three distinct classes
ot jury trials .; crIuiIiiil trials, trials in tort actions, and
trials in contract ae~lona - the author states that jury trials
in the ease of contract actions are an unneeessary hindrance to
adjudioation o~ business disputes.
120.
YALE
-ROSD Y.
B~rnhardl
LAv.1J'bUiJtAt.
m
R08~
v,
The Uncertain Future
or
Nmmber 1971 t 81( 1) .112-1)3.
B.rnhgr~.
the
Saventh.~
a stookholder derivative suit which
29
would normally hava come undl!r!!quity jurisdiction, was ruled
to CONe under lecal j~risdictjon with the con~n~ita~t rirht
to jury trial. ?ut the €X~;.':'!'1~ion of: jl:ry trial 23 rul~d' in
Ros~~ brings with it a signific;:l.nt delny in the ad:1:inlstra~.io;l
'O'fl'ustic ... which may in efft"ct be a denial of justi,=e in itself. The tri part! te tent formulated in Ross to det'.H'Mine
the Hlp-gal" nR.ture of an issue c~n be interprt!ted to serve as
a limit on the expansion of civil jury trials •
•
-The Fetish of Jury Trial in Civil Cases: Co~ent on
v. Hill." by David L. Shapiro and Daniel R. Coquielette.
HARVARD L.-\'/i R:::VIEW.
December 1971; 85( 2) :442-4')8.
An examination of previous related cases an~ the dev~lop­
m~nt of civil jury trial in re~nrds to R~chal lead the authors
to beli~ve that the jury trial was not a constitutional ria,ht
in this case. It i:: questionable whether civil .jury trial is
so often nccc~sary and indeed T.andated by common law as lately
interpreted by the Supreme Court.
121.
R~chal
122. "Ne'r,ligence Law. No-Fault, and Jury Tria~ - I" by Leon
Green and Allen Smith. TEXAS LAW REVIEW. August 1972; 50(6):
1093-1131.
The sUbmission o~ the oontrolline issues in ne~ligenc.
ca~es has p;iv~m the .jury nc, adequate b:!~is on which to come to
a decision. As a consequence, jury verdicts are likely to be
oTerthrown by appellate courts. The instructiQ~s given to the
jury do not include the possible ef~ects of their verdict. i.e ••
wh~t penalty will be assessed upon their decision, anj tr.us
juries are forced to ~ind facts in a vacuum - an unrealistic
situation in which consequences are not taken into account.
123. -Negligence Law, No-Fault, and Jury Trial -III" by Leon
Green and Allern E. Smith. TEXAS LAW REVIEW. January 1973;
51(2) &207-2)8.
Certain basic issues and special issues ir. negligence
eases can be manipulated so as to invalidate a jury's verdict.
In effeet, tl:le special issult practice. has been used to nullit'y
the f~~ction of the jury.
.
124. "The Con~tltutional History or the Seventh Amendment" by
Charles \1 .. Wolfram. MINNESOTA LAW REVIES. March 1973. 57(4):
639-747.
Tha article attepmts to eluoidate the intent or the ~eventh
amendment as it was written into the Bill of Ri~hts. Interpretation of the seventh amendment has been based on the historical test, i.e •• in determining whether a jury was required by
the seventh amendment had to be based on the practice of En~lish
courts at the time the Bill of Rights became effective in 1791.
After an extensive revi.~ or the origin of the seventh amendment, the author Buggests a new interpretation of the seventh
amendment. instead of an historical interpretation • a dynamic
reading of the seventh would be more fitting, recognizing it
a8 flexible and changing.
30
125. -Monetary Clai~s Und~r SectIon 198), The ~ight tc Trial
by Jury· by R~bert J. Brookhiser. HARVARD CIVIL RIGHTS - CIVl~
LIBER'l'I~S
RI.r:IEw.
:.~~y
1973. 8(),61)-6)1.
The seventh amondment Dr~~erves the right of jury trial hi
civil cases. The te~t conntructed in Ross v. B~rnha~d indicate~
tha t any ac ti~!1 for monetary re l.ief nresent3 1 c,t';'7~·i .1 S O"'ues trirl ~le
by juri- Fears about jurJ bias in the vin~icgtio~ of un~opular
ri~hts are exa~~eratedt
the voir dire acts to insure an
unprejudiced jury.
126. "Ne.gllgence Law, ~o-Fault. and Jury Trial - IV· by 1,eon
Green and Allen E. SJlith. TEllS LAW REVIEW. 1-~ay 1973: 51(5),
825-851.
.
Jury trial ae a means of adjudioating negli~ence cas~s
shl')uld be preserved. Deterni . ...atiQt1
.
of fault of a del"endant.
resolution of di-sputes r(!lf;'lrd1n,g th".· i1;ems of injury. and determination of compara..1i.i:Y'Ot-{aui"t een be beet performed by a
jury. The function or assessing damage. should be lert to
judges who are qualified to do so. ' In this way. jury trial
can be preserved in negligence cases.
127. "The Seventh Ar3endment and ·Civil Ri~ht9 statutes: History
Adrift in a Maelstrom." NOn~HaES~ERN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIE~.
July-August 197Jr 68(J)r50)-5k 3.
.
Many st3tutes contain ampi·guous lan~uage and. can be in.
terpreted as either. "legal· or "equitable" claims for relief'.
An historical interpretation of the seventh a~endment would
require jury trials for legal matterSJ jury trials are unnecessary in equity cases. The article traces the development
01" Court cases related to the civil jury trial issue, and
discusses the determining factors in legal or equity eases.
128. ·Con~ressional Provieicn for Nonjury Trial Under the
Seventh Am~ndment.- YALE LAW JOURNAL. December 1973. 83(2),
401-423.
'l1h.e C1v.:!,·i.e>!e
'Civi-l
tkia.l-:J.~ ~nd
l"e;f'i.we~.Jwt·l~ y,e~~nl8
:t-Ae l'ripartit..
equity
dlmen~ions
"'est:rormulat~d
in
aT
~·v.
WlftIn &p1l1ied ~t" 'Soot!",ns VIt· and'''VlII" o:f the di v11
Ac"ts (1964 and 1968 z"~3neetivel,) it is concluded that
B-ernns;rd.
RIghts
Congress did not intend to ~roY1de for.jumy trials in suits
brought under these provlaions.
129.
·Pederal CIvil Jury Trials Should be Abolished- by Edward
AMERICAN BAR ASSOc.IA-rION JOURNAL. May 1974. 60.
J. Devitt.
570-574.
Civil jury trials are an unn.oessary strain on the administration of justice in the o~t$. S~ort of a constitutional
amendment modifying the aevGntft aNendmant right of civil jury
trial, the article suggests tn~•• altern~tlv •• to improve
efficiency in civil ca~esl (1) enoourage liti~antB and counsel
to waive Jury trial. (2)charge tees to the party demanding the
..
.,.~
'
....... -.,-.'...
.
31
jury trial, to defray juror costs, and (3) increase arbitration
and mediatio~ as m~thodg of settline disputes.
1)0. "Chanc~ry Procedure and the Seventh AmA.ndment. Jury
Trial of Issues 1n Equity Cases Before 1791" by H~rold Chesnin
2nd Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. YALE LAW JOURNAl,. April 19741
83(5).999-1021.
There is evidence to suggest that courts of equity in the
eightteenth century and before. relied on jury ~rial procedures
to determine que~tlons of fact. At the time o~ the adoption
of the seventh amenciment in 1791, the English Court of Chancery
w:1S in transition from a rule that disputl!r.l fac.o:- issues werl!
g(merally subrni tted to juries to one that :nade ~uch ~ubrnissions
diacretionary.
131. "'Federal Civil 3ury Trials Should Not be Abolished" by
Rudolph Janata. AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION JOURNAL. August 197LJ,;
601934-936.
The jury in the civil trial is the only safeguard against
an arbitrary judge. The 1ispensation of justice is the important value in a trial court. the civil juror is the best guarantor of justice. Costs and delays in the jury system are
minimal, and are the prioe paid for quality justice.
1)2.
"The Imposi ti-on of Ad1'!linlstra tlve Penal tias' B.nd the Right
to Trial by ,:1.lry - An Unheralded Expansion of Criminal Law?-
JOURNAL OF CRIrtlU1AL LAW f CRL\1INOLOGY
~
POLICE SCIENCE.
Sep-
tember 1974, 65().)45-300.
In the int~rest9 of efficiency and expedience, Constitutional ri,ghts to trial by jury are being ignored in the potentially cricinal penalties imposed by administrative agencies.
Ad~inistrative ~rocedures are considered civil in natu~ef and
the sixth amendment guarantee to jury trial is thus not ;1.ppli-,
cable. But the author argues that incre~8ingly s.v~re monetary
fines are be~in~ing to resemble oriBinal sanctions rather tnan
compens~tory civil-fInes.
A'more bread interpretation of the
sixth al'1end'm~nt t'igl1t 'to trial 'by jUry has been given to cont~mpt ~na denaturali~at1on ~roe&~dings. the author believes
this broad~ned interpreta+.ion should be extend&d to allow a
jury trial in certain administr'1.tlve proceedings. A "pri!p.ary
nature" test would be used to determine if the sanotion is
primarily civil or oriminal. if crininal. a jury trial would
be constitutionally required to deteraine guilt or innocence.
1)3. ·Presumptions in Texas. A Study in Irrational Jury Control" by Ann Lents. TEXAS LAW REVIEW, November 1974, 52(7).
1329-1382.
A variety of tactice have been used to limit the freedOM
of the jury in Texas. the special issue aystea, directing of
Terdicts, and pyramiding of inferences. A related tool of jury
control i . the presumption - an area of judicial encroachment
on the jury'rJ p'~~Yinee. Presumption, however. can be used as
J2
• r:ational tool for jury control without the sid" effect~ or
incomprehensible ins7.ruction~ nn1 undue judicial mp.0dling.
•
1)h. -Jury Trial in Employment Discrimination Cases Conatitutionally Mandated?" by Stephen F. Lazor. TEXAS LAW REVIEW. March 1975. 5J(3),483-508.
The Congre~s, in Title VII. did not provide ~or jury trials
in civil 3uit~ for racially discri=inato~y employment practices.
:~o...,ev.~r, Con(:ress parr.:i ~ted the individual bringing the civil
action the legal right to recover hia lost wap,es in the period
he remained unemployed. In 150 doin~, the seventh amendment's
~uarantee to trial by jury comes into play.
1J5. "Seventh Amendment Right to Jury Trial. A Study in the
Irrationali t:! of Rational Decision-Making- by Martin H. Redish.
NOHTH",IfESTERN UfUVERSITY LAW REVIEW. July-August 1975J 70( J) z
486-531.
In interpreting a constitutional amendment, th~ Court
must consider the effects their decision will have en the dayto-day workings of the courts. A "rational- lnternretation o~
the seventh amendment would take into account. chan~in~ condi tions and would provid.e a JlorfJtflexible basis upon which to
decide if a jury trial is necessary in civil ease3. This
rational approach has the er~ect of widoning tho scope of
cases triable by jury - ~ioh is challenged as an inefficient
and incom~etent method of determininv. a case. The article advocates a' strictly historical interpretation of the seventh
amendl'!!ent. which 1s ccnstitutionally acceptable and would
limit the use of the jury tial in civil cases.
XIII.
JURY INSTRUCTIONS
1J6. "Jury Instructions in Aidin~ and Abetting Ca8~s.·
COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW. April 1968, 68(4).774-784.
The article suggested jury instructions that might be
.!l;iven in eases of aidinl~ and abettin;;.' Among the guidelines
sU.\7,gested are: knowlc.!.<;e ot' . the rosul t. the importance of' the
aid, the time and place th~ aid is given, and the defendant's
stake in the crime. The author suggest that a 801ution to the
problem r.n~s in modifying the rule that the aider and abetter
of a crime 1s guil~r as a principal.
.8.
1J7. ·Orthodoxy
Retormation in the Jury System. Pattern
Instructions - A Resolution- by George P. Smith II. JUDICATURE.
April 19681 51(9).)44-346.
The author presents a rationale ror the use of pattern
instructions to the jury, arguing that a copy ot those instructions be given the jury in their deliberations. the author
also advocates that juries be given ba~io instructions berore
they hear testimony, to further .rficient use ot the jury.
)J
1)8.
"On Ir!structing De:ld10cked Juries."
YALE LAW .JOURNAL.
1968; 78(1):100-142.
SuppleMentary in~~~uctinn~. such as the Allen charfe.
are becoming n~g'l ti ve ly vie.;ect due to the f~ct that they are
believed too "coercive". the judge is pressurlnt; jurors in
the minority to a~re~ with the Majority to pr~vent a hung jury.
Two persuasion m~chanism3 in jury deliberations ar~ coalition
prl!~mure and verbal pressure.
When these two mechanisms are
operatinR efficiently and jury members still cannot reach an
agreement. the ,jurJ may be de1"ir.~j as .. proparly" hune. When
these t~o mechanism3 Rre not r,mctioning adequately, it is the
responsibility of the judge to !'nake them .function as they
ahould through ~upplem~ntal instructions.
Novftmb~r
139. "Pattern Jury Infltruetion~t
Questions" by Susan A. Henderson'.
52(8).
Answers to Some Common
JUDICATURE. Ma:rch 1969;
Pattern jury instructions. also known as uniform or
standardized instructions are guidelines used by judges in
preparing jury instructlon~. Tho~ have the advanta~es or
eavings in trial preparation time. greater accuracy. impartiality, uniformity and concisenes9.·alon~ with increased intelligi bili ty. The 5lrticle dieotlsses relevant questions cO!1cerniJ-,g
various aspects of pattern jury instructions.
140. -Questions Juries Ask. Untapped Springs of Insight- by
Bernard S. Mej'Ar Jtnd ~aurioe Rosenberg. JUDICATUHE. October
1911r 55(3),105-109.
The article exa~ines an inoffensive method of monitoring
the deliberativ~ prooesses of the jury by analyzing the questions judtses are asked by jurors. A questionnaire was st!nt to
jud~es and clerks of courts holding jury tials, and the return
questionnaires analyzed. The jurors questions wore catQ~ori7.ed
as: (1). forgotten or not clearly understood instructions, (2)
instructions omitted by the judge, and () instructions which
the jurJ hav~ troublft aocepting as the law. Analyzin~ th~ CC!leerns of th~, jury in this '-~n~er would be an acceptable method
ror improving the judge's" instruotions to the ju-ry.•
141. -fhe Allen Charge. Recurring Problems and Reeent Developments. - NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW. May 19"'2, 47(2) ,296)19.
The Allen charge has been used since 1896 to bring deadlocked juries to a verdict and avoid mistrials. However, the
charge i . viewed as coercive. and comprOMising a defendant'.
right to an impartial jury and a verdict based on proof of
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Th~erioan Bar Association
formulated a supplomental charge whioh avoids the coeroive
elements O.r the Allen charge but urges reevaluation of opinions
held by all members ot the jury.
;0
J4·
142.
Z\lppll~mental Jury Char~"B Urging a Verdict - The A:'1SW9r
is Yet to be Found." MINNESO':'A J~\}i filiVIE~'. Jun& 1972, 56(6),
of
1199-1213.
-
When a.1t:.;".dlock in jury dellb~ra t Ions ::\ ppl.ars evident,
h.;J.s the oo."er to i~Mfle !3uprlement~l tnstrl:cti(\~;:;.
urging the jury to come to an a.~reemp.nt. 'fhe two mo£t fr~­
the
.iude~
qucntly used c:,arges ar9 the !:l~.~ charge (th~ tradi tional
f~deral char~~), and tha A~eric~n Ear Association char~e.
The
article comJX~!"es the two charl!.es with regard to five factors:
coerciveness of wordi~g. vulner~bility to additions and del~­
tiona, timing of' issuanc'!', constitutionality, and r-!viewability.
l:non analysi~, both ch3rges could be cons!'!ered ingerently coercive, al thou,::sh the ;".1:1871 charr~e in\.·olves a sUbstantial ri:;k
ot coercing ~he minori~y-rn , jury deadlock.
14). .. Inf~rld.n~ the J •.try of t~e ~f'feftt 'pf it Answftr~ to Special
V~rdict Qu~stion8 - The ttlinne!lota Experienco".
frJIreH~SOTA LAW
April 1974; ~8(5)l903-932.
..
In sp~oial verdictD, the jury, is given to decide questions
of fact, l~a·.~ing tho judr.;e 1:0 apply the law to the 1"acts. The
question address~d in thi3 article is whether or not the jury
should be infC'ntftd 01' th __ e:f".fect. o'f a special verdict, thuB
p03sibly influenoi~ the verdict. The amftndment of the
Mi!lllesoPl Rules of Civil Procedure a.llowing instruction and
argument to the jury in sp~olal verdiet eases has been ambiguously interpr~te~, and a discussion of procedural reform 1n
thi~ area is inol~ded.·
REVIE~.
144. -A Jury Instruction t~ Disreg~rd a Co-defendant's Outof-Court Tosti!:J. '''Y in Determinin.~ the Guilt or Defendant is In8utficient to Cure Error Resulting From the Denial of Det"endanttE Const.itutional Right ot Cross-Examination". Brutc!1 v.
United St~tA9 391 U.S. 123 (1968). TEXAS LAW REVIEW. D6cember
19"611 J 47(11.143-147.
In cases where the jury is instructed to di~regard a
conf8ssion. there is evidenee that such ltmitinrr lnstrueticns
may actually produce the ODPosite result from that intended.
I.f instructi'ons to the ;ury ~r8 not SU:t:rid::~ht there .are two
altenlative ~~tho~s or iryin~~two eo-defendants - by separate
trials or throa~h a joint trial properly condueted AO as not
to"prejudice the chances of the defendant who has not cOlltessed
to the crime.
145. -Jury Contusion. A Threat to Justice- by David U. strawn
and Raymond W. Buchanon. JUDICATURE. May 1976, 59(10).47848).
A group o'f Plorida yeniremen were used as research subJects ~or mock juries. Participants were divided into two
groups. a control group receiving no instructions and an experimental p,roup reoeiving pattern instructions. Predictably,
the .~rim~ntal group scored much higher than the control
group on a measure of eomprehension. However comprehension
35
-
even in the experimental ~roup only reached 70% of the mat~rial,
and the article argu~s that in3tructions to juries should be
cou~h·,!j in mnr'e familiar, ever~'day lar,.~uage to enhance juror
understanding.
~!V;
•
JUROR
SEI~CTION
AND MANAGEtreNT
146. ·Modernization of Juror Selection Procedures: A Court8
Commission Roco[ftflendation- by C.E. Hinsdale. POPULAR GOVERNY2NT. March 1967: 33.7-10.
The article di~cusses two ~jor shortcoming~ of our p~es­
ent jury system. the proeedure ~or prepa~ation of jury list3,
and the large number of exemption. from jury service. Sug~~s­
tiona for efficient and fair jury selection. for excusing pronpectlve jurors trom jury serviee. and for drawing grand jurors
are discussed.
,~~"147. -The S8lection of Federal Jurors" by Philip A. Hart and
SaM J. Ervin. AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIAtION JOUR~AL. February 196~,
53.128-135.
The atiole presents two 8enators'
dif~ering views on Title
I of the Civil Rights Bill of 1966. dealing w1~h ~he selection
of juries. Senator Hart of MichiGan argues that uni~orm standards set forth in this bill be accepted, to insure that a representatiYe cross-section of the Dopulation is in1eed ohosen
for jury du~. Senator Ervin of N~rth Carolina art~es that th~
proposals are awkward and unworkable, ~nd that it is imnossible
to achieve a jury representing a cross-ceetion of the community.
lb8. -Effective Jury ~anagementR by Alvin L. Short. JUDICAflJRB.' April 1967, 50( 8) 1265 ... 261.
The author opens by statinp, the reasons for retaining trial
by jury in the face of prossure to abolish this ri~ht. Effective jury management can become a strong argument for retention. ot jury trial. The author believes a grell-ter list of
jurors, shor.ter length of' juror ifdtJllnelmen't ... jurnr -charaeteristics matching charaet.rieties·'frc-!i1 th~ ~opulation. 'arid
rotation of jury panels ~revents ~rotessionalism. ~he author
advocates use of computeps, an .r~~tive personal interview,
and eonsolidation of-'all jurors for oourts of record into a
common pool.
1.9. -A Fair Jury - The Eosenoe of Justice- by Irving R.
Kaufman. JUDICATURE. Ootober 1967, 51(3).88-92.
In this artiele, Kaut.an argues for legislation pending
1n Congress which would improve the aethad of Jury selection.
The -key man· system, challenged in $~ith v. Texas, and the
blue ribbon jury are cited as contrast3 to the proposed system ot random selection of' jurors. Jury service .uat not be
4enied to anyone qualified, argues KaufMan, to preserve the
t.partiality of th. jury •
• , t'
• f
!, I
/
•
.~.
•
;.
•
.....
"',1
.
"
"'".'., ...
I ... ~'
."
,!
.~.
." ..
• . 'I .
...
:, ,
.-
. I,
.,
,
~
.
:'
';','
"
.
·Co!lputf')rs for Jury
l~O.
JUDICATURE.
':'h~
down 6n
FeDruar~
Select~o::ln" by Robert
1969r 5?(7).290-292 •.
C~
Wagner.
ulIIe of' da.tE'. P';"'~'c~~!Jint'; ha~ bcaen dtlt~on8trated to cut
len,::th of til'lie re:.!uired to select j1JrOr3 in Gnic:'1
th~
i'f~w
County,
Jerfley. The article describes the nl'!'w computerized proee33 for selecting juri~8 and printing ~ubpo~nas and
juror t'oI'1':1s.
151. "A Jury Assembl~ Room Sy~tem~ by George H. Barnett •
JUDICA?tfHE:. April 1967: 50(8).275-277.
A .iury assembly rC\cm syst~lI has been succf!ssrully use1 by
the :3u~rior Court tn f~nt3. Clu;:"Q County. Calilt}!."nia, for the
J4\st· five yearg. It hns nrov~d to b~'.tn effec'tive method for
sUJlmordflg uul tiple-}:&r,el jl.irles. has proved economieally
efficient by snvi~~ 'thous~nds of dollars in court operation,
and acts ns 1";ood publie rel~<t:,inn8·~rl)cedu:re by mininizing eo!'lfUsion and discom:fort. amol~.. jur01~~.i.
•
152. "Jury Selection. The H~ed P6r st'a+.utory Reform in
Minneso'ta". Mlf:rJESO'rA LA'of REYIEW. April 1969, 5J( 5) 1977-1003
Adherence .to ecn~titutlonal provisions for the selection
ot jurors d.o not t~ini:r;i~e the opportunity tor discrimination
and prejudioe i~ thlt 8electitv.."l of jurors. The jr'ederal Jury
Selee~icn and Servlc& Act of 1968 draws guidelines for f~~~l
cou~s in selnctin~ a representative eross-seetion of jurors
fro" the cO!L't!llni ty ~. statutory provision8 in Minnesota conc"rnln~ ,itlr('r s<!rlection should be lXl.'tterned after the Jury
Selection ar.d Service Aet, t:> elirainate the inadequacies of'
the pr8~entselee~1on sy.tem.
t.
153.
"The Cas~~for Black Juries."
1910, 79(3)'5Jl~550.
!ALB LAW JOURnAL.
January
The tradition~l,jury ha~ been middle-class and all-whito.
In 1 ts eXClusion ot blac/:8. juries are net ther 11!;~1tlt:.ate nor
qualified in iheb." fact-find!n&!: function.
Swain ...y.
Alp.tl.',\r;a
'" .....
....... _.....-..- and ..)!'~tV'
.,.- .. ,. ~. ·r
. -. . rf y"t'''': hav~
._
--_
Court d{'cisicns in
to
}xn:·::,~tc.ate
. .
the sJ~t'~;.~.a·i..l~ c:'(clmu~;::-l t>i' i;i./,:.:k.s ..L·!'or.t"~1urieG. ' -1'!,:",·'t:!.'oc"
lems of dra\'lin!j ·;t.n adeqtm~a.·an4 r\!..~Il"(:lb6ntati~1· $i~~'\}I\le of·
blacks for .i'J.!"Y· duty could be solved by rf!dr.H'ftng ;Jury r.!i~­
-~
tricts to
each
154.
tn~ur.
vi~1naGa~
a
-~----.-
propor~lonat.
t~nd.d
representation ot
bl~c~3
from
-Jury Seleotion tor the Seyenties· by Benjaain S. Mackoft.
JUDIC."~t.15::1..
Oetobor· 1971 J ~5(.9 ).• 100-104.
tit':Ifl..~~od8 of lieleotin~ proapeotive
juror. will b8
ialtlated in the new decade due to Su~re.e Court deciRions.
the increased "caa:an4 tor: -JurGrJI. court reorp..atliution. and
the emerg~noe~ot modern data processing teel~lque.. The
Rrtic11!t.ol1tline.~ ttl" 'pro.ceM o-E jury sctleotion, dl"eussin~
ttoast!jiutiona.l· :l·tandarct.,tt.7clh't~· <tt,. .. source ot prospective
jurorn. ncreaning and BWl~~~g proBpecti~ejurors. and providing
incentiv.a Zor ~ur.1 .ervice.
.
...
:.~.'."
155. "Jut"y ~:!::litl::1g Ti~·! C.]n Be ihimlnated" ,by William C.
Kandt .. JUDIGA'r'JfiE. Oetob~~r 1.971, 55()).11t::-U.?
':hE" Distrtct C1urts of ~·:chita. Kanf~~. h~tVp- ell~jnated
much of +.h~ J,~]-ay~~ .lnd wrti ti n,'7 time for juro:'s h.Y do5np; aW"~y
with jury pools. instead, Jurors are calJ~d to try only one
case. 'l'he- new procedure has r(l;versed the eorr.!r.unlty· a formerly unfc:.V'orable atJ..:itud" tow:lr1 jury duty, spr!"ad the burden of
j urJ se:-v i~9 ~.mong a largeJ:' n'..lr:::~~r o! people. and h.as disposed
of mor.e jury
•
1S6.
ea~e5 t~~n
the former
~ethod
-The Ensrllsh Jl:..ry" by- W.R •. Cornish.
of jury pools •
NEW SOCIETY.
Nov-
~mber 1971J 1~(4).670-812.
':rhe :;ngll~h jury has been eharncteri~ed as "mal-e. middlea~od, mi1dl~-r. dndt:!d, and miodle -olans" .
~h{' history of j'lry
trial is trae~d, frot'! th~ time when jurorn were as much witnesses a~ judg~s of fac~. thr~u~h the mod~rn techniquee of
rules of evidenoe, to the . .nre-sent jury ·inequi tit'!sl.'equlring
property o\mer-ship. The.jury in En~land is T'reeently ;in institution with so~ewhat controversial selection procedures.
151. -An Bnd to Juror Waiting- by WIlliam R. Pabst. JUDICATu.ffi.
March 1972, 55(7).277-281.
.
Lack of good manage~ent in jury seleotion has resulted
in an overnupply ot jurors (with a c:oncoll!itant over-expenditure
ot p~bltc runds), and h~s h~~pered jury efficiency and public
wlllingness to sel""Ve. A.T1aly:ds of data from the District
Court in the ~iqtriet 01' Columbia showed the ~ffioieney of
juror U:le to be :abo'lt 50". . If daily demands for juror!] could
be aore clcsely adjugt~d to the juror su~ply, andthe de~nd
for jurors mere.- ~ontrolled, the size of jury tmne1s could be
cut and thus more efficiently used. Us1n~ this a,proach. the
author .atjaa'ied « 50~ 88.vingS, or a pOSl!Sible total savings 01
$100 million in juror costs per year.
158. -Juror Selection. The Law, a Mathematioal Method of
Analysis, and a Case St"<i)," b~' David.Kairys. AAlERICAN CRIMINAL
LAW REVIEW •. SODler 1972;.10(J~-}.~/71-806 .. ,·
-,rhis artl'3le trae~1J the his-torioal baok.~ound-of the ,juror
seleotion casea, su~~~ri~-'8 tn~ present state of tho l.w. and
disousses the atandin~ or It grand jury wi t.."'l8S~ to raise the
issue o~ unconstitutional representation the mathematic~ ot
juror selection are considered, and us:i.ng Philadelphia a~ ;tn
example, the methodology and result8 of applying a mathematical
analysis is done on that city's Juror selection system.
159.
"the Wasted Juror" by Irving R. KautlHtn.
JUDICATURE.
1912. 56(2).
The problem of oTercalling jurors 1s reviewed in thll!S
article. The waste of money and human resources calls for
speedy eorrectiy~ aotions. Some SUR~ested selutions to the
problem are reduoing the daily call-in and panel size o~ jur~rs,
Institut~ six-member jurie. in eivil cases, and staggering
scheduled trial timee.
August-S~ptember
)8
160. -Are Juries Repres~nt~tiT~?" by Edward N. Bolser.
JUDICATURE. ;)ece:Jib~!' 1973; 5'7(5)11911-199.
'rhe artlc:e docu~ent9 t}~-: ~lirf~rence between ('hara~teris­
tics of the ~~neral population and those of persons on voter
re~istration li3te.
(lata p:at~ered in th~ juri:Jdiction of the
Rhode ;Isle.T!d District Court de.-;onstrate the dif!'~rences between char~cteristics of the v~nires and of th~ populations
vf'nires are disproportionately male, lIliddl,,-alSed. eduoa~ed. and
employed. I~plied in these findings is the belief tha~ vc~er
rer,istration l!.3ts, from which venires are o!ten dra\\i"l, do
not provide a represent~~~e croes-section of the Dopulation.
"-
161. -Juror ~anagement in a Netropolttnn Trial C~urt· by Leon
S. Lasdon. Allan D. ~~ren, Steven J. Madson. JUDICATURE. Anril
1974, 57(9).402-409.
Effioient management of Jttrora~C3n b8!!t 'be-,achievQQ .by
consi;ant lIon1 toring ot' d3.ily",iu1".ot",.'Utl1tza tion •. ' The art iel~
describes the ~anagement program 'used by,~tbe Cuyaho.q;a' County
courts in Ohio. By eo~pa~ing d~ily juror pool size with peak
use o~ jurors, and obserYing fluctuations in juror use on
varIous days of the week, the authors wer9 able to make recoJ'll.lJlendations f"or more efficient .use of jurors, resulting in
an estimated savings of 28~ of the previous year's juror costs.
162. ,-Twelve Good Persona and True.
Healy v.
'1'~lor v. Louigi~,l'ialt by Kinlberly Homan-Clark.
F.dw~rds
and
h~\:tVX?D CIVIL
CIV~:-LIB?RTIes REVISd.
Kay 1974: 9(3):5 61-597.
The article dlecusses the denial of equal protection to
FrOntS -
women lit1g4nts by the exclusion of women a3 jurors. Pouraodes of ~r.alys.J are exaMined. The systematic exclusion
theory, rational basis analysis, suspect classification scru~
tihy, and fundaMental intere8t scrutiny. Sexual stereo~ype8
which type women as incapable o~ jury duty will apparently
-no longer be given legal recognition.
16). ·Co~,unieation Variable in Jury· Selection- by Eugene
Tate,yErne9t Hawrish. and~t"tnl~-Clark'.... JOUR!UL OP'-C(l~MUNI.
CATION. SU:tlmer 1914, 24(),1"30-139. '
En~lish and Ameriean jury selection is similar up to the
point whero juror's na~ea are randomly drawn. Fr~m he~. the
American system proceeds to the x~ir di~~. while English law
i . based on the prinol~le of impersonai ad7ooaoy - lawyers
are not allowed to speak with jurors. A study o~ SO Canadian
lawyers explored the effects of aex, age, 8oeio~eeonouic status
and appearance on the lawyers' .election of jurors ror rour
different trials. rape, murder, fraud, and issuing a ralse
prospectus. The rindin~. indicated that men were preferred
over women (exoept in the murder case), a~8 was a significant
racto~ only in the rape C~8e with the pr.~erred age bracket
listed as 20-30. and prospeotive jurors in the case ot ls8uin;
• ral •• prospectu8 were reJeoted on the basis or rebellious '
dre •••
".,..,
---
164. "Jury S(!l'!etiont S(')ciF.,J. S('i.f1ntt~ts Gqmb'~ in ~~n AlreadyLoa~ed Game" by Dl!bor~lh Sk.l.pley.
SCIENCE. S0p~t":nbar" 1974 ;
185 ( 4 1 5(,) • 1 GJ J -10 3: ~ •
A r~cent furor over ~over'l"'l11lent cO!'t:1pira(.::y C~Sl'l~ has
accu3ed ~ocial s~i0ntist of !tacking the jury. ~oweve~. it 13
eountererl by ZeiGt"l, SC".ulJ'!'ltl.n. a.nd others s~'J(~y i:1c, jur~l se lc~­
tion precesses that the governr.:ent had little try !i1:aad on in
the conspiracy cases, and the noajority of' ca:.;:os are won or. t~G
~vldcn~e
r&. ther t~.nn on who was on th~· jury. U:11'.:i of' sci~nti f5_.~
jury selectiun l!!ethclds would be more .,qui ~bl~ -i.n jurifldictions
trilere juries lire not represl:,nta·tive of a ero8s-_-'J~cti(ln of th~
population.
165. "The Attil!a CtJge~t A Successful Jury Chc.ll~nge in a
Northel'\n City" b;y Paul Cheyi~y. CRlftIINAL LA."!I BULLETIN. f.1art.:h··
Apr il 1975, 11 ( 2) s 15 '1-17 2.·
_
Through statistical analysie.:.a ohallenge to.. the jury
aele<:ticon process in ~h~ Attic(iL Case· was mounted. Dific:::,!.min:,·~
tinn ~2 alle~ed withre~rd3 to raC~t a~x, and a~e, 2nd Eome
110,000 jurors wo)re subsequently excluded. Penmnent jury
pools are net un so as to discriminate
a~ainst yo~~g poople
sys"temai;i~­
and ethnic Rrowp.,J,'_~nd WOllen and. ethnic groups are
ally und.rrepresented.
166. "~he Notion of Conupiracy in not Taety to Americans" by
Gordon Bormant. PSYCHOLOGY TODAY, May 1975, 8(12)160-67.
June L. ..'app is a psy::bologis'\ who was employed by the
d&fcnse to plck a ~urJ for th. Woundad Kn~e t~ial. In t~i~
interview, she e~r'lain!'l how-she used her kno~ledge of bl':)havinr.1 science to s~:eot an i~partial jury for the ease. Psychological research into authcritari~ni~m. Mnchi~vellianis~,
legal socialization, and ths totalitarian li~eral were utilized in ;'l.nalyzing the· 'r~8-ponses or jurors questioned in the
voir di:e.
167. ·So~ial Soientists Can't Rig JurieH M by Michael J. SakR.
PSYCHOLOGY TODAY. J~warv i9?hf 9(8),46-50.55-51.
Soientific jury sel(\~tlon ca..'1 'ta.ice into account ·attitudes
and personali ty eharacteri~;ties. but all these r~_ctoro are
basod on probabilities an'l do not by th~m8elves tlrediot the
outoome of jury deliber£ticne. !he intent to iBpanel an iapartial jury rests on the beli.~ that jury mecbers can G~lib­
erate on the evidence, i.e •• not on ~rsonal biases. The
goal of sooial science jury selection i . to enable oounsel tor
both sides to exclude biased jurors until the final panel consist. of neutral jurors - those most competent to reach an impartial Yerdlot.
.-
XV.
1
JURY DECISIONMAKIKG
168. ·Porensio Psyohology. !he Jud~e and the JuryM by Robert
I. Gordon and Maurice K. T...rlln. JUDlCA~URE. March 1969.
52(8)_328-))3.
.(.0
The artiole provi~es a c~';lIpari30n sr.d ecntrast betwot~n
p8ychology ».net Iallf. Psycholt'J7ical "f(Jriabl~~ in the !':elC'c1~i['n
an1 bp.h?l..,io~ of ju!"i~.s era di:,'(!u:13ed, mrch as the pre3tige or
app~ara~cc of wjtne~Bes, emotions, and social p~rceptions n/
the jurors.
'
.-
169.
-Th~
Influence of the Character ot the Criminal and
1113 Victim on the Decisions of Siroulated Jurors- by David
•
Landy and Elli:Jt Aronoon. JOuRNAL OF EXPERI~tENTAIJ SOCIAL
PSYCliOLOny. '~pril 1909s 5(2).141-152.
In two ~eoorate ey.Derin:ents .. the authors manipulated thr;.
attractivenea:., ot" t~9 de1"ent1:mt and the attM!(niven~ss of a
vlcttm in a nee:ligent ~111tc:!lobi Ie hO!1icide. l"hl! circums"t6.n,':es
of the crime were identical in all conditions, and subjects
we!''! requested to sentence the defendant. In hoth exp~r.i~e:nt~,
subjects ~entenced the d~j"~ndant ,to Q lone;er t~rm 01' irw!)risonm~~t in the p.ttraotiYe vietia condition~ in the cecond ex~r~­
ilHtnt f the dt!f~ndl'lnt ell: more 8eY~rely sentenced in t!1e:tmat tractive defendant con1ition.
110. ~·~h. Jury Method. How the Persuader Persuade~" by
Harvey London, Philip J. B.ldllan', and A. Van C. la.nckton.
PUBLIC OPINI01 QUAF.~ERLY. Sumaer 1970, 34(2).171-18) •.
In studying the prooess o-r persuasion, eightteen rairs cf
8ubjf!cts ?fere matehed on the basis of age, height, w~ight. and
bIrth order, 2t'ld fd.?t!n a SU1I...ury 0'1 a dispute betwf!en a plaintiff and def~I!d:int to r~ad. Each pair also reee1ved dif'fer~nt
.legal analyccs of the came, 80 that the two 8ubjects~ task
was to r.eonaile the opposing viewpoints. ~h. results 3uggest
that oxpressed ~;ftrldenoe leads to persua.ton.
171. aRe_oving Another S.t o~ Judicial Blinders. Th~ Ca~e
for !nerflased Information to the Criminal Jury in S~ntenee Delibaration 4 by R. Jack Ayres. Jr. BAYLOR LAW REVIEW. Pall 1970,
22 ( ,. }t 544- 55J.
Under ~exas law. the court, may not. 1nterm the jury of th~
possible outoc~e of its Terdiel-- ~robation. parol~~ or ex~eutiye
cl••umey. Jury del1beratioll· 5.hrouded in 8ueh~·igrli)rtlnO$ or, the
possible o~toom. of a verdiot ?recludea a ~ir and lnform$d santence. Procedural reform ahoald b~ implemented, allowing information coneerning the sentence to be given to the jury.
172. ·Sex Role Dirterentiat10n and Juror Decialons· by Eloise
C. Snyder. SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIAL RESEAR~~. Jull 1971, 55(4).442448.
A comparison ot de01.10na reached by all-male and aixed
(male-female) juries found that juries containing women .ere
more likoly than an all-male jury to deoide tor aliti~ant of
superior .tatus. Male-remal. juries howeyer awarded proportionatel, 1•• 8 money than did al1-male juri... Women's behavior on
juries has important implications tor a soci.ty 1n ~ioh women
ar. playing a ~ore 81snitlcant role.
11J.
.-
·?ffectCl of Ddcisi0n
A:!.ter:~:!.tl"H;J.I C'rl
ci,~l P"",rc~~?tinn~ c'L'·:i.'~M')l:l.tp.d .Ii;.ro~:"!;f
01" P:;'R~;~)l'Aj.l·i'~ A"'~:J SCCIAL fSI~~;:jl,(;~:;Y.
th'.;! '~fI;!'0.~ets ~flJ :'i~­
by N~d,l lidM":~r.
,;iJ:O!H:;,';:'
rl~~.'.Y
1(,'12, ?:->[~:}1:~11-.::~1
(1e':cript.iGn of' ~ln :;\tt,-~",;nt(!d 1:'r,t,.b~'.",!'
SilT'uJa t~'1 jurC'rs read 4!.
~urdH" Ri'ld. we1'. lisK'4!d 'to ;:"eturn a verc'i.ct.
£:~'1;"
cone\! ti or'. !J - en., r.r::nt!"<:)l End Sf-ven \"hic!1 ,·arie .. :. thlf 1,\... rrl~~!' t\~~,
s~"f'ri ty of al t~rnn.t1yes - Wl'"re- set up.
Su?jec-~s ~!1o,:,:::lng b~·­
tw~~n a severe p~nal~y (first-d&~ree Murder) a~d not ,~ilty r~­
tnrne1 r!ot f~ldlty verdict<l ~~re o.fu:.n.t~.km :Juo.j~cts .dth a
and
su~s~qt\f}n't
:C"rea1:.~r ntl~b{'r of a)_t~rnr:tiveA or 1l1t~rn~tives pt~"Yidin{! l~~n
ze".~r@l p'!'l~ltia3.
Suhjt;l'=!t~ r&t.ioMli:~ed the~,r d~ei:ii~r.~ in
a':'cordanc~! wi t!'\ dissor.arce thecr'y.
thO~f) rotur.1Jng .a guil ty
YArdict r~ported the d~r~ndant t~ b~~arc guilty and mora de~~rvi"g of h~r~h punishm~Mt.
174. "EffectFl of the D4!fend~nt' ~ Character and o:>uf'ferine, or!.
Juridic Judp,err-~nt I A Re pli~~ t ien and ·Clarifien tion" 'by H'u~ol:!
SifP.ll and David landy.
1972,
8B(1)Jl~9-1S0.
Using 104 Btude~ts
JOUrmAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHO:SOCY.
as simulated jurors., the
October
exp~riment
st.udied ttke cr:rects of def'~rdant attraetivenel'rs and suff~rin.6<." on
verdict outcome. the attI'£~tive' ·a~fendant w::i '3 p.:ivon. on 'th<!-averap.;s, a significantly lig:-t~er centence than his unatt!'~ct~ve
counter.p1rt. 1'hs ~rfect 01' ~.::~ta thy aroused by the de fencl:?nt' ~
suffering appeared
u~important
in the puniehment
QS3i~~ed.
·Se% and th! Unbiased Jury· by Stuart Nagel and Lenors
JUDICATU2~.
October 19;2. 55(3),108-111.
The artic)~ exalDine~ pO:1e o~ the hYr'oth~l'Ies nn1 studies
done eoncernin5( 1.0--- the sex of he juror at'.fecta the verdict.
The studies cited suo:port th~ equality hy~oth~sis ~hich suyu
men favor neither 3ex and women ~vor neither sex. Dirferenccs
b~~w~en m~n and wo~en in the amount or da~~ges a~~rded a~~esr
to be related to the sex of the jurors, and ~r,~~pt3 a call for
more equal represent~ticn o~ ~le9 and females as jurors to
assure more .,qual tre3.t~ent of male and female de.fendants a.nd
175.
Weitzm~n.
and
persor~l,injury ~laintirfs.
176. "Latitude and Stv~rity or Sentencing Options, nae~ ot the
Victim, and Doeiuions or S:.~ulated Jurors, Som" Iacues Aris1n~
From the "Al,7iers ~iot·el" Trinl" by Kal!l!a.n J •. Kanlan and rto.cser i.
Simon. LAW AND SOCIETY REVIEW. Fall 1972, 7(1),37-98.
The oollceman charged with the murder o~ a black man receiYed a Ch&n~8 or Ventte - to an all-white rural community - and
his jury 88 li.ited in choic .. between verdicts o't innocent or
guilty or first degree murder. Examinin~ these two issues,
this study found that race had little, 1~ any effect, on the
)01 simula'ted jurors. In aROS where the lJimula ted jurors ware
orrer8d the two extreme op~ion8 as verdicts, more innoesnt verdlot. were r.turn~d. The authors conclude that extreme verdict-.'
choices force juror~ to chooee between ~~O unsatisfactory alternatives. A range or a.lternative. JIlU8t be offered to the jury
to aake the verdiot compatible with the crime.
177. "'i'hfl D(!fendantfm Dilefr.tJ.l. E1'fect3 of. ,Jurors' Attltu~~~
and Authol' i tar ian! 3!li1 "n ':ud ioi31 D~clr.lons" by Her~an i~i tchel~.
~i~!"~'·!·H"'.
and Donn
In'.T~N~ r~ O~
.';,:::;:,' :;O~~Ar,J':Y k"llD SOCL\L PSYCH;)l,O\:Y.
Jar.uary lS7JJ 25(1):12J-l~9.
In a ~lmul~t~d jury 8it~~tlon. 139 suhj~cts who were eith~~
ranked hllTh or lO?t in Ruthari't..'2.ri:ani31h l'eturned a verd ict and
pun15h.m~nt on ~rl aecu:led dofen.!u11:t whose etti't1A.dt.!s on flv!!"
irrele~~nt
ia3ueB.w~re
either
~icl1ar
or
dissi~ilar
to the
juro~at.
yari~bles (aut~oritari~ni~ and attitude similarity)
t~~eth~r ~ho,.ed R. eignlf'1~a~lt i!',teraction on r:.termining gui:' t
The two
and severity ot punl~hment. ThQ8ft jurors ranted low in ~uthor·
i tari~nl~3 we:-e ltor ire.:;:n.'!'l~ to 2 t,;·'.ally irrelt!vant inl'orraa tion
thnn thei..l'4
autnorii:·~rhtT. ~~ur'te!'~rts.
Hfrl:'01'TT") v. ~(,.l"'r':'~~~t'alth'
';he Court Balks on Quotient Ver. • •',"",~
• ')'''' , L •
1973 , 2
6 (1) , ..........
., "3 2 .~~J~ •.
C1;R. .. ---::;r:,·~v"'·'7'O'V'
1),,=~,:·Lv~.;'.,:, "4....t.,."
.Jl1,,!\.:"h
A quotient verdict is on~ wheroin the 'jury, ~fter having
detflMi~f!d gu.tlt, detcr~ines the sentence • .fine or'llw;:,rd by
avera~ing the' individ~al calC'lL'"lti~ns of' @3ch juror.
As suc~.
a quotier.~ Yordiet is a poor ~ubstitute for careful consideratj~n
of tn,idcnce and testi'!ltmy. and more progressi YC juris:iict1ons
178.
di
have dOT!.e away wi th 1 t completQly.•
~?9.
-The
E~f.ct
Guilt Att.ributiona
LLoyd K.· Stir0n.
or Pretrial Publicity on th~
Simolated Jurors" by B!"t:.ce C. Hoiberg and
..TOUR'lAL OF APPI.IEC SOCraL PSYCHOLOGY. Julyof
S~ve~31 ~,.s
01'
Septorober 197J; (3),267-275.
A st~dy of 337 hl~r. schoQl students tested th~ r81ationships bet*eenp~a-trial :oublieity. attribution or guilt. sex.
and IQ on
si;~1Jla
_.-:d j,i.r.'or yerdlets in a
r~pe-nul"der
case&
Neither type ot pr~-t~ial publicity Qff~oted male~· verdicts:
however r",:I~les 1n th~ low IQ condi ticn had more ot a tendenoy
to g,ttributA ~tlilY to the de!4!trd.'int when exnosed to ure-trial
publicity tha~*d!"ima.ti~ed the he1nOllan~8S of the crime. Sev"!'al
explanations for the d!.fterentia.l efreet of sex on yerdicts
'Were offered.
180. • Ii Simulate1 JurY.,3tt.tdy. ·Ch.ractt'!rl~tic9 0.'£, the Defendant and the J~rcr~· bY' Yh,rlan Iiemeth and ·'uth RY~".nd 30s.is.
JOUffiiJ\!, C:P SOCIAL PSYCHOLCGY.· A~.t 197), 90(2) .Z21-229.
h'b sR~?le8 of S1..~bjeot3, di!:r~rimr, in class «nd ~li tic~l
or1.ntatlon. ~~re u~B1 in a study to detarmine the effeots or
defendant attrae~iyeneS8 and ~etend.nt raes. Defendant attract-
ivene38
~aB
tne central variable, a.verity of
sent~nce ~_s
in-
versely r-ela'UH1' to how a ttractlve the defendant fts •. Race
ap~ar.d·to 1id~e~no signiric~nt efr.at on verdicts.
The interaction3 betw~on B~yerity of sMltence and characteristics ot the
juror
are
explored.
If,socjJll IHmenalons o~ Jury Decision Naklng lt by S.C. Hat\dell.
Iln'ERNATi~;'AL JOtmNAL OP CRIRINOlJOGY AND PZl'OLOilY.
Nov ••ber 197 J •
181.
1(3).269..217.
•
..,.....,,.. •• "1"
..... ,'
-.'
The article examine~ the quft3tio~ ot how a jury, given
oontllotinv, evidence. dete~Nines a verdict. It is the autho~s
cont~ntion tt.at jurors are active agents in the construction of
30cialre~11ty.
They
ba~e th~i~ determinati~nB
not on the iSGues
of guilt orinnooence, but on the symbolic repre~entation of tha
defendant in the reality eonstructlone of the prosecution and
the defen.e. rhe defendant is -typed" as a certnin kind of person. Jurors base their decisions on their everyday conceptions of these ·ty~.s".
182. "The Relation of Cognitive and Memorial Processes to Persuasion in a Simulated Jury Trial" by Bobby J. Calder, Chester
A. Insko, and Ben Yandell. JCURNAL OF APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY.
January-;Jarch 197/}. 4{ 1) ,62-93.
A series of four experiments used 795 subj~ets as oirnula.
ted jurors to Inv~BtiP.:'ate the (\.e-oendanee ot persuasion on CQgnitive f~ctor~. The n~ber of ~raseeution ar~~~nis and t~e
number of defens. areument8 had a po~1tive effect ~n p~r~uasion
- juror judgemsnts were directly i~rluenced by the number of arguMents for each side. The tl •• allowed ror deliberation also
affected determination of hUil t or innooence. An investiga tio, i
of the cognitive proceese~by wnioh jurors det~rmined verdicts
suggested use ot' an infor:tation-prooeselng theory for f'urther
researoh.
183. -Etfects of Labell!ng and ot Theoretical E%9lanations of
Juror AttituQ~31 An Ex~loratory InYestigation- by R.F. Kidd
and N.A. 5ieveking. JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOtoGY. April 1974,
2(2}.187-191.
Persons ~ ing served ~revlously •• jurors were used in a
atudy of the influence of p=ychiatrio testimony on the j~rors'
attitudes toward hypothetical de:rendant •• , It was :round th.at the
label of -mentally 1ll~ hed no signifioant effect on jurcr
attitudee in and of itself. although this may be ascribed to t~D
fact that labelling oocured in the context of e~en~ive tostimony. 'Jurors judg;ed the defendant who cO!lD!itted a erill4!' a~inst
property to be more insane and nonrespa.sibl. than ~h4 do~end­
ant who cozmitted manslaughte~.
184.
-Toward Principles of Ju.ry Bqui tY'-.
YALE LA" JOUR:tAL.
April 1974. 83(5)ll02J-10~.
The jury's role in aod&rn soaiety is viewed in two contradictory ways, in the demand for general rules or 1&_. and
for justice in each indlyldual case. Soolal p3ychology ~\eorie.
of equity can partially explain prinoiples ot juror ,determinations and insights into the .rfects of jury inatruetione.
185. Mlnforalng the Jury of the Effect ot ita Answers to
Speoial Verdict Qf.lestions - The Minnesota Exporience" •
• INKKSO~A LAW REVIEW. April 1914. S8(5).90)-932.
~
"
a
• •_
................._
• • , . " . . ... ~~
.~ _ _ ,.~
.......,~..,.
...,..
, . . , . . _ . . . . . . . . . . ..,....~-. . . . . . . . . .
th~ jl~Y is given to decide questions
the .1udp;e t,) apply the law to the .facts. The
questio.n a~dr~3s~j in this artl cle Is ~h"ther or not ti1~ jury
should be infor~ed of the effect of a sp~cial verdict, thu~
possibly influencin,q; the verdict.. The a~endment o-f" the Minnft~~")­
ta Rules of Civil Prooedure allowing ln3tructio~D Qnd argument
to the jury in spacial yerdict case. has been am~ihuously int~rpreted •. and a discussion ~! proce~ural reform Ul this ar~a is
included •
In special verdicts,
of fact,
•
leavin~
185. ftEmpathy as a Factor in Determining Jury Verdicts ft by
Freda Adler. CRININOLOGY. May 1974, 12(1).127-128.
Th~ study utilized 100 ~tched eases (50 guilty, 50 notguilty) In aS3essing the importance of sooioeoonomic level on
jury decision-making. It ~d8 fcund that juri~s rinding defendants ~~ilty we~~ rat~d siu.nificantly hi~her on a ~restiae t.est,
that sooioeconomic di3crepaney between jury and d6fendant was
more pronou..,eed in cnse~ ~wh~r. tne .det'Gndant was -round ~uil ty;
and that occupational status disorepancy between defendant ~l~
jury was greater among those convicted.
181. "Leanin~ Over Backwardsl Jurors' Responses to Defendants'
Attractiveness ft by Ronald M. Friend and Michael Y!neent.
JOURNA'L OF COMMUNICATION. SU'mer 1974, 24(3).124.-129.
The rese~rohers hypothesiEed that under conditions in
which no attemDt to be imnartial ~~e made, the attractive det~ndant would ~.: tree. ted more leniently r while under conditions
1n whieh the attractive der~dant would be judged more ha~shly
than the unattractive defendant. Using 102 male colle~~ studonts as sir.lulat . .;a jurors, both h~rJ>OthosAs were confirmed. The
study alao found that high Authoritarians gave si&nifica~tly
harsher sentences thsn low Authoritarians. while aware of their
own feelings toward the erime and the sentence.
188. -~rreet. of the SeriOU3n8SU o~ Charge and Pcnishment
Severity on the Judgements or Sireulated Jurore" by ~illiam c.
MoComas and Mark B. Noll. PSYCHOLOGIC.\L RE~D. Fall' 1974· •
A study o~ 99 oollege .t~dent. inveetit~ted the.~~lation­
ship between ra~ing of guilt. a~verity ofpunis~~nt, and s~rious­
ness ot charge. The reeult" supported Vid.mar's data. indic2ting
that the lower the charge. the greater the guilt ratin~B tend to
be. However, previous experiment. along thia line have eontoundsd th9 severity ot punishment with the seriousness of the
charge. In this study, only seriousness of charge ahowed a .igni:floant af'tect on guilt rating~.
189. -Juror Judgeaent as Intormation Integration. Combing
Evidential and Nonevidential Inroraation R by Martin p. Kaplan.
JOURNAL OP PERSONALITY ANL. ~QCIAL PSYCHOLOGY. October 1974,
)0(4) ,493-499 •
. 8iaulated jurors gaye guiltiness and punishment ratings
tor eight traffie telony ca.es that yaried 1n level or incriMination depictecl b.r the eyidence and characteristios ot the "
def~ndant.
Information ir.t~p,ration the~ry explains that jurcrs'
jud~ement inte~rates both relevant and irrelcv~nt factor~ into
the - eV&.l U...'l ti 0:1. Previous ..!Xl)()!" iI...,,:,mtal arld obs~rva tional 38 ttin~;s
have confirmed the flndin~ that a defendant's attribu~es ctffect
guilt and punishment.
190.
-Effects of Inadmi9sible Evidence on the Decisions of
Jurors. A Moral Dilem~" by Stanley Sue, Ronald E.
.
Smith, and Cathy Caldwell. JOURNAL OF APPLIED SOCJAL ~SYCH010GY.
Ootober-December 197J; 3(4),)45-55) ••
In a two by three de8i~n. 107 simulated jurors received
either strong or weak evidence ah<1inst a defend&nt 5.n a murder
cage. Within each condition, sabjects were giv~n either additional evidence ruled admissible, additional evidence ruled inadmissible, or no additional evidsnce. A~ expected, stron~
evidence. resul t~d in !!lor~ guil"'.;y veFsiC!te. ane) confic.enee -in
verdict was influenced by "the ati"6Rgtl\ etf'!tll~ ev'i,~e~t~~e. 'Inadmissible evidence had mQr& of a biaein~ ~f1'~t en the .~ak~
evidence condition, i.e., inadmissible evidence produced More
guilty verdicts in this condition.
Si~ulated
191. -Group Discussion and the Ih~luence o~ Defendant Characteristics in a Simulated Juror Setting- by Richard R. Izzett
and Walter Leginaki. JOURNAL OP SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY. AU~lst 1974,
93(2).271 .. 279.
A aimulate4 jury situation using 50 college students
corroborated ~ e findings of other researchers ind1cating unattrictive defendants are ''Iore harshly sentencedt!1an attractive
defendants. However. group d1~cussion ap~ar~d t~ have an effeet
on jurors' sentt., .:inR' therl!t, was a, sit;ni:ficant shift towards
leniency in the unattractive'defendant treatment, and lX"St discussion sentenoes of jurors in the unattractive defendant category approached sentences by jurors in the attractive defendant
t.reatment.
192. ~Sex Prejudice in ~ury Seleotion~ by Cookie stephan.
IOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY. Nev~f!'toer' 1914,88(2'). 305-,12.
An experiment study e~ 195 eetl.~ ~tud~~8 ,(~ male, lot
female) rendered verdicts on male or !e~Ale aefendants in a
murder trial. The findings showed a same-sex favoritism. males
favored the male defendant ~ld females ~avored the female defendant 1n both verdict and sentence.
-Televi.ad !rial., How Do Juries React?- by GeraLd.iller.
Dec_ber 1914, .58(5).242-246.
A study ot ~be.r~.ot8 on jurors of viewing a l1Ye trial
as opposed to a videotaped trial showed no significant di~fer­
ences between the two ~QUp~. Videotape 1s suggested as •
. . thod of strea.llning.the Judicial system a8 well a8 studying
jury decision-making processee.
193.
JUDICATURE.
-
19 l 1.. .. P.eana:ysis or Vi(!r,!ar t s D;~ tn on the Effects of De~inion
Altern·;?tiv"!s on Vcrd!cts o"f. Simulat~d JUt"ors" by Killley Lnr-..1.tz ..
JOUkNAL CF P~RSOhALITY. Janu~~v 1975: J!(!::123-12S.
The art!clc, throu~h p~Ohlbility theory, prcp08~s a rnodcl
explaini~g juror deeision-Ma\i~~ un~er c~nditi~n8 with lirult~i
decision alternatives. '!his m0del holds thFt "the large m;mber
of not guilty verdicts in n. r~strj('t,:!d-~_}~.~rnS1;';~_vt'! ~ituati)n
is a fu.~eticn or the number or re5ponses available and ~ot to
any psychological processes· or the juror.
195. "Pnychological .... specr;s of Jury PerrOl:"~nce" by Jacqueline
Goldman. Kar.e~ A. Mal tlan1, and Pen."-de L. Nc;rton. JOUR!1AL OF
PSYCHIA!~Y A~D
LAW. 1975J J~J67-379.
A study of forty ut~ulat;d jurors exaruin~d the effects of
jury deliberation, iI.ffectivf! ~rousal. and levels of moral judgement amon€: the jurors. A ctm~d 2tent affec:;.1 ve re~H)OnSe was
found generally among all ~~C!c~a~ ~tir9r,S ~~a,-,...e /r1lr8 anxious
but less hoe-tile as li. re;;dj.J.:'t ,,1 the trial.. tiowt'tftli'. s~vt!.·i 1;;:1
of
v~rdlct
appears rel:'lted tc affective
aro~sal,
f'~r
subjf':cts
assigninq; the most severe rero.alty.showed heightflned .feelin~s of
anxi~ty, depression. and host.lllty.
'l'he second rr.ajor f'indinn;
of this stl.:dy was thatt Ruh.jacts whose verdtcts were consistent
throughout· rated significantly higher
a measure of moral
judgement.
on
196. "Beautiful But Dan~erOUSt Effects of Offender Attraetivenees and 1'., . Pl!'e of the Crime 0" Juridic Juda,sment!9 l)y
Harold Si~all and Nancy Os trctve. JOURNAL OF PERSOtiALITX AND
SOCIAL PS';CiWLOGY. March 19?-5, Jl{ 3) :lHO-414.
Subjects w" 'e asked to e!'!!1tence a defendant to a term of
imprisonment after ~~din~ a case study. The predictedhyp('thesis ~s con~irrned by the findings 1 when the crime was un-
related to kttractiveness (bur~larY)f attractive d~fendants
were Riv~n more lenient 3f!n"tenc"s than vn3.~tr~ctj_ve defendants;
when the offense was attractiveness-rela~ed (Bwind~8). the
attraeti7~ d~f~dant was meted out h~rsh~r punishment.
197 _ 1IEffect o~ Defendant Attt'icitiyeness ... M:e. anc:- ire,l\!ry C)l\
Severi ty of Sentence Givi31'1 by Sim"illate-d·- Juror'S·' by :!)avid E.
Reyn()l·d~and MarK S. Snnc:ers.
JOUFJfAL OF SCCli·ltL. PSYCHOLOGY.
June 1915; 90(1).149-150.
In a critique of an experia~t by J£ndy·anu Aronson, this
study d.~m.or:.strat.s thz.t a@:e and' extent o:f in.1ury su!'fered 'by
the def&ndant are ·impo~tant variables affecting social attraatlvem~ss •. Using 144 pS~leholo~y students, the study suggests
that:simula"ted jurors opftra'te within a.hierarchy of eues. The
most important variable (as found by Landy and Aronson) was
the defendant-s social attractiveness, but when this variable
was ambi~uou8, subj~s c~~.:l on tit. de:fendant' sage_
-
198.
"Effects of Victim
Co~~~t~nce
and Defendant Opportunism
on th~ Declsior..s of ;:;imula t~d Juror.~H by Myr(,rl 'E~or. ,JOURNAL
OF SOCIAL PSYC110I,OGY. Aup;uat 1975. 90(2) !)01-J-2.
In a s!mulntej juror~ettjng, 56 colle~a students were
usnd to study th~~ eftec tu or ~ymna -+;hv ror the victim. especially when the defend~nt h~s taken o?nortu~istlc advantage
of th~ ·.,lctimts frailtier,. T}~e results ~~owed thrlt. while the
sbmlatE!d jurors were more svm~thetic tow3.rd incompetent victills who had b~en un.fairlv taken ~dvant~<~e of, t;',ey did not
.sGi~n more severe sentences to t~ese cefendants than did those
in the competent victim condition.
199.
"Differential Effects
or
Jury SIze on Vt'lrdlcts
F'o11owin~
Deliberation as a Function of the Apparen~ Guilt of a Defendant"
by Angell') C. Valenti Q,nd Leslie L. Dotming. JOURNAl.. OF ?2RSONALITY ANDSOCIAL PSYCHOLOay,; Ot'l1;~b1!rl19?6r }'?(~)'!655.,.,6<S~,.
'JIhe Will j :?.1'I'iS v. Flor!d~ ~fle L'j,~b~ :-r.9t"1Ia t.!.~lh~ atx""'lJr<-~
jurie~ rar;;;rn nu~btlr of' :TJes~ions a.-s-'- t6- ,il~'i!--''!!:~;c-~~j1!I;r ~1.ze
has on verdicts. Accordin~ to this 8t~dy, jury size had no
effect on the verdict when apparent guilt was low; but when
high, six-member juries were mor~ likely
juries to convict. 'l'welve-me~ber juries
appar~nt guilt was
than t\1felve-m~rllber
were rOl ..nd to be more advant~eouR to the defer.dant I the absolute siz. or a minority in the larger jury was more likely to
cause a hung jury (r~ther than a guilty vardict).
200.
"The bt ')2,ct of an Aggressive Juror in Slx-l4ember and
Jeff S. K'lein, and
'l'welve-~~mber Ju!'"ie~a
by John R. Snortum,
Wynn A. Sher~an. CRIMINAL-JUSTICE AND
BEHAVIOi. September
1976, J( 3).255-,' ;2.
Using high school seniors as simul~ted juror8~'thls ~tudy
assigned 177 students to five .1uries consist1~ 01'. six members. twelve members, five members plus eonf~erate. or elnven,'
membel*s J,lus eonfedera te. The resul to inclica ted tha, t the
juriee prompted by confederates who ar~ued assertively ror the
guilt of the defendant yieldad in th~ direotion of the as~ertiv~
eon fed e ra. te • This fin d i nl~ "It1l1!1 Iftl)f,'e pl"l:mn,\1need in tt~ !-'itV,&J!1eruber plus' confederate ;t'Jri.el!.ffhenryntnrrl.s (3i:x;- ~d t~lv...
member juries) did not di"H"tj'!' 1ft "'h<e ~ropoMiorr o.'f ~ui!l~Y'
verdicts 8asigned. The rea~lts suggest that the tw~lve-member
jury may still be the moat reliable scr.en for de~ecting
-reasonable doubt- in protecting the rights or the accused.
,
~<
'{
.. ...
~
~"'. ~ ,.-~,
. -.
.,"
". + . . '.. .
S; ...• .. '11:,.,..·
r
A-""
INDEX TO AUTHORS
•
Adler, Freda 186
Arnolds. Edwc:trd B. 32
Arthur, Mar.tin G. 1
Atkins, Robert S. 72, 84
Ayres, R. J&ck, Jr. 171
Babcock, Barbara Allen 65
Barnett, George H. 151
Beiser, E~ard. 83.160
BeIdman, Phi1ip J. 170
Bermant, Gordon t66
Bertoch, MarTin. J. 42
Bloom, r4ur.ray Teigh 80
Bloomstein, Morris J. 41
Boor. Myron 198
Brookhisor, Robert J. 12S
BrooKs, Neil )3
Buchanon. Raymond W. 145
Byrne, Donn 177
Calder, Bobby J. 182
Caldwell, Cathy 190
Campbell. William J. 102
Cannady, Cynthia C. 104
Carp, Robert .27
Cheanin, Harold 45. 130
CheTigny. paul 114, 165
Christie, G~orL: . G. 31
Clark, Kigb~rly Homan 162
Clark,Stanley 16)
Cobden, l~ynn 108
Cornis~ w.n.
1~. 156
Coquielette. Daniel R. 121
Dash, Samuel 9-
Davis, James H. 12, 84
DeCani, John S. 11,
Devitt, Edward J. ?5, 129
Diamond. S~ar1 Seidman 81
Doob, Anthony N. 32
Down1n«, Leslie L. 85, 199
Ellice, Gilbert 35
Blliot, Aronson 169
Epton, Hicks, 109
Erlanger. Howard S. 8
Irvin, Sa. J. 141
Pine, David J. 90
Finz, Leonard Leigh 18
Friend, Ronald M. 187
-
.... ,..... '!i""~"" ...
-~
. . . . . . . . - .....
~.---..'I,.l', .. ~ ........... .
Garland, Norman P. 32
Se~'m:')ur 89
Gibbons, David J. 77
Goldberg. Paye 56
GoldiiI3n~ Jacquclin~ 195
Gordon, Robert I. 168
Grant, Alan 12
Gray, Earl Q. 109
Green, Leon 122, 123. 126
Green. ·Thomas A. 46
GelbE::r.
.
Hadden, S.C. 181
Hannah, Harry I. 63, 130
Harley, Hsrbsrt 119
Harris, B.T. 28
Hart, Philip A. 147
Hawrish. Ernest 16)
Ha.zard, Geoffrey C. Jr. ~5
Healy, E. Patrick 40
Helwig, Gilbert J. 13
HenderSQ1:'l, Susan A. 139
Hlnadale, C.K. 146
HolberR. Bruce C. 179
Holt, Robert 72, 84
Insko, Chester A. 182
Izzett, Rieh~rd R. 191
Janata, .Rudolph 131
~ohnson. Robert Gilbert 105
Jurow, George ~. 58, 60
ladlsh, MortimerK. 29. 30
Kadish, Sanford H. 29, )0
Kairys. David 111. 158
Kalven. Harry Jr. :3
Kandt, William C. 155
Kaplan, Kal.man ..r. 176
Kaplan, Martin F. 189
Kaufman. Irving R. 16, 149. 159
Ketcham, Ormgn w. 51
Kerr, Norbert L. 72, 84
Kidd. R.F. 183
Kimble, William K. 53
~lein, Jetr s. 86, 200
Klosik.Frank 2
Lancktan. '- Van 04 110
Landis, Benja.min 118
Landrith, Kris ,
Landy. David 169, 1~
Larntz, Kinley 19~
Lasd.on. Leon S. 161
Lazor, Stephen P. 1~
.,,~. r"""I • • _
......
,.. ... "
Leginski,
Wal~er
191
, Len:'pcll't r Richard 0., 82
Lents, Arm 133
London, Harvey 170
•
Mackoff, Benjamin S. 154
Madison, Steven J. 161
~~itland, Karen A. 195
Martin, Donald L.' 17
Masinter, Michael 70
Maxwell, Robert F. 61
lI!eCs. be. Sarah 24
McCon~s. ~illiam C. 188
Meek, David 72, 84
Miller. Gerald 193
Mi tcfieil. Herman 171
Munsterma.n, G. Theus .39'
Nagel, Stuart 175
Nanes, Allan S. 10
Nemeth, Charl~n 180
Noll. Mark E. 188
Norton, Pennie L. 195
Oatrave, Nancy 196
Pabst, Wi.lli£:.- R. 39. 78, 151
Alice M. 64
Postal, Andrew 92
Prahl, Wliliam ('Aorge 91, 112
Padawer-Sln~er,
Redish. ~artin H. 13~
Reynolds, David E. 197
Reynolds" Harold J. 5
Rlef. JaI:'leS 95
Robertson, G. 19
Rolphe, C..H. 23
Rooks, James E. Jr. 26
Rosenber9;:, Bernard S. 140
Rosenberg, laurlce 140
saari. Ds,vid J. 71, 79
Saka, Michael S. 161
Sanders Mark S. 197
Schwartz, Helene E. 43. 9)
Shapiro DaTid L. 121
Shapley, Deborah 164
Shernan. Wynn A. 86, 200
Short, Alvin J. 148
Sieveking-. R.A. 18)
Sigall, Harold 174, 196
S1mon, Caroline K. )8
Simon Rog.r I. 116
~
•
.
..,...... '
,
~."""-,,.Jt.r·
.~"" .•. ,
_."
."l"'f"' .........
"' _ _ ..... ..,' . . . . . .
Sl~pson.
Gary J. 34
64
64
Smitb, Allen 122, 123. 126
~in~er, An~~ew
Sin~er, Rickie
P. II 137
Ronald E. 190
Snnrtum. John R. 86, 200
Jnyder, Eloise C. 172
Scroky. ffilliam 101
Soals. Ruth Hyland 180
Smith,
Geor~e
S~ith,
•
. Spears, Jay M. 66
Steph~n. Cookie 192
$tiros, Lloyd K. 179
stricker, George 60
Sue. Stanley 190
I
Eugen~ 163
Temerlin, Maurice K. 168
Tate,
Valenti, Angelo C. 85. 199
Van Loan, Eugene M. 15
Varrin. Rene 8)
Vidmar. Neil 173
Vincent, Michael 187
Wagn~r,
Robert C. 150
W$\rnick, Doro"t.hy Brant 4
Waren, Allen .. '. 161
Weisaan. P~tp,r 92
Lenore 175
Wham, Benjamin 4~5
White, Wel.h S. 59
Wolfram, Charles F. 44, 124
Weitz~~n.
randell, :Sen 182
Youtt. Harry E. 62
Zeiael, Hans, J. 74, 76. 8..1 t 1'10
.~.
•
""', -""r:'t ...,.~.
"
~.