Permitting jury discussions during trial: Impact of the Arizona Reform
| Autor: | Valerie P. Hans, Paula L. Hannaford, G. Thomas Munsterman |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2000 |
| Předmět: |
Jurisprudence
Communication media_common.quotation_subject Decision Making Arizona Public Policy Legal psychology Psychiatry and Mental health Logistic Models Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous) Jury Hung jury Unanimity Law Humans Degree of certainty Empirical legal studies Psychology Social psychology Prejudice General Psychology Prejudice (legal term) media_common |
| Zdroj: | Law and Human Behavior. 24:359-382 |
| ISSN: | 1573-661X 0147-7307 |
| DOI: | 10.1023/a:1005540305832 |
| Popis: | A field experiment tested the effect of an Arizona civil jury reform that allows jurors to discuss evidence among themselves during the trial. Judges, jurors, attorneys, and litigants completed questionnaires in trials randomly assigned to either a Trial Discussions condition, in which jurors were permitted to discuss the evidence during trial, or a No Discussions condition, in which jurors were prohibited from discussing the evidence during trial according to traditional admonitions. Judicial agreement with jury verdicts did not differ between conditions. Permitting jurors to discuss the evidence did affect the degree of certainty that jurors reported about their preferences at the start of jury deliberations, the level of conflict on the jury, and the likelihood of reaching unanimity. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full text from SpringerLink