"Shouldn't we consider...?": Jury discussions of forbidden topics and effects on damage awards.

The Federal Rules of Evidence prohibit disclosure to civil jurors of information that is arguably related to their decision-making (e.g., that either party is insured). The basis for so-called "blindfolding" is that a jury might be biased by this information to alter its appraisal of the evidence to reach a desired verdict. The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which mock juries in an automobile negligence case discuss several "silent factors" during deliberation (viz., insurance carried by the parties, the payment of attorneys' fees, and previous settlements between the plaintiff and other defendants) and the effects of such discussion on their compensatory damage award. We presented summaries of the evidence that varied in the severity of the plaintiff's injuries and the reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct. These variables influenced judgments of liability and damage awards. Analysis of the content of jury deliberations regarding damages showed that, although nearly all juries talked about silent factors, the size of their damage awards was unrelated to the frequency of these discussions and that such discussion accounted for only a very small portion of the variance in awards. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Jurors’ discussions of a defendant’s history of child abuse and alcohol abuse in capital sentencing deliberations.

We tested a novel theoretical model explaining the psychological processes underlying jurors’ discussions about a defendant’s history of child abuse and alcohol abuse in a capital case. We coded the extent to which jurors used child abuse and alcohol abuse as mitigating factors, as aggravating factors, or argued that they should be ignored. Relying on attribution theory, we coded the extent to which jurors rendered controllable or uncontrollable and stable or unstable attributions regarding the defendant’s history of child abuse and alcohol abuse. Jurors were more likely to argue that child abuse and alcohol abuse should not be used as mitigators or to even use them against the defendant as aggravators than they were to use them as mitigators. Jurors made more controllable than uncontrollable attributions regarding child abuse and more stable than unstable attributions regarding both child abuse and alcohol abuse. The more jurors supported the death penalty, the more they argued to discount child abuse and alcohol abuse as mitigators or use them as aggravators and the more controllable and stable attributions they made. Political orientation predicted discussions and attributions about alcohol abuse, but not child abuse. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Juror comprehension and public policy: Perceived problems and proposed solutions.

Laypersons, the media, and many legal scholars tend to attribute problems in the jury system to the dispositions of individual jurors and to recommend reforms in jury selection procedures and relaxation of the unanimity rule. Social scientists view problems as a consequence of the structure of the jurors' task and recommend reforms in trial procedures. After years of apathy, the legal system has proposed, and in some jurisdictions implemented, a variety of reforms, most of which are based on the social science perspective that the problem is not due to bad jurors but to unnecessary procedural obstacles to high-quality decision making. These reforms are described in the final section of the article. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The Impact of Complainant Sexual History Evidence on Jurors' Decisions: Considerations From a Psychological Perspective.

Although Canada's sexual assault laws have undergone considerable modification and revision since the late 1970s and early 1980s, it has only been within the past decade that a "rape shield" protection has applied to the complainant's prior sexual conduct with the defendant. Although the admission of evidence concerning the complainant's prior sexual conduct with the defendant now receives legislative protection, it can still, under some circumstances, be admitted at trial. Specifically, if the trial judge determines that the evidence pertaining to the complainant's prior sexual conduct with the defendant is of significant probative value to a fact at issue (other than the complainant's consent or credibility) and that this value is not outweighed by any potential prejudicial effects, it may be admitted at trial. Drawing on psychological research investigating the role played by complainant/defendant relational history in people's evaluations of sexual assault, the current article critically examines the potential impact that this evidence may have on jurors' decisions in sexual assault trials. This review suggests that significant dangers are associated with its introduction at trial and also includes a discussion of the legal implications of these research findings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Mediation and mini-trial of construction disputes

Addressed in the paper are specific attitudes and experiences of construction lawyers using mediation and mini-trial techniques. The paper represents one of the first empirical investigations of non-binding dispute resolution in the construction field.     

Guided Jury Discretion in Capital Murder Cases: The Role of Declarative and Procedural Knowledge.

This article analyzes whether state-approved jury instructions adequately guide jury discretion in the penalty phase of first-degree murder trials. It examines Eighth Amendment jurisprudence regarding guided jury discretion, emphasizing the use of "empirical factors" to examine the quality of state-approved instructions. Psychological research and testimony on the topic of the comprehensibility of jury logical instructions are reviewed. Data from a recently completed simulation with 80 deliberating juries showed that current instructions do not adequately convey the concepts and processes essential to guiding penalty phase judgments. An additional simulation with 20 deliberating juries demonstrated that deliberation alone does not correct for jurors' errors in comprehension. The article concludes with recommendations for policy and future research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Sound quality analysis of slide adjuster for automotive power seat using stepwise regression

This study has analyzed the effect of noise sources of power seat slide adjuster on sound quality and human sensitivity through statistical methods. First, sound quality analysis using sound quality metrics was performed to analyze objective data. Next, the subjective evaluation of sound quality was performed by a jury test. There were two types of sound sources used for the jury test; one was two original sounds measured in the operating test and the other one was eight virtual sound sources that were produced by amplifying a specific frequency of original sounds. It was designed to derive the causal relationship between each noise source and human sensitivity. Thirdly, we analyzed the correlation between the sound quality metrics and the sound pressure level of the noise source through the factor analysis. As a result, four independent variables were derived. Lastly, stepwise regression analysis was performed using four independent variables and the results of the jury test. The derived regression models had considerable explanatory power. From this, it was possible to understand the influence of the noise source of the seat slide adjuster on the sound quality and human sensitivity.     

Flexible corrections of juror judgments: Implications for jury instructions.

The Flexible Correction Model (FCM, D. T. Wegener & R. E. Petty, 1997; D. T. Wegener, R. E. Petty, & M. Dunn, 1998) conceptualizes efforts at bias correction (i.e., attempts to remove influences that are perceived as illegitimate or unwanted) as guided by people's naive theories (perceptions) of the influences at work in that judgment setting. In this article, the authors present this model, discuss the general support for this model outside of courtroom judgment, and discuss a variety of implications of this model for courtroom judgment in general and for the impact of judges' instructions to juries in particular. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

论人民陪审制度在新形势下的价值

本文首先结合各地人民法院实施人民陪审制度的实际情况,分析在新形势下人民陪审制度的作用,并理论联系实际地论述了现阶段人民陪审制度的价值,驳斥了人民陪审制度无用论。     

When principles collide in hard cases: A commonsense moral analysis.

Justice Holmes (Northern Securities Company v. United States, 1904, p. 197) noted that "great cases, like hard cases, make bad law." In a within-subject design, college participants rated the strength of the plaintiffs and defendant's claims, rendered a verdict, and gave their determinative reasons for their decision in each of 45 "hard cases." They subsequently made two modifications to the original vignette, such that their initial verdict would swing the other way or swing further in their initial direction, and gave their cutting-edge reasons for their verdict shifts. Although the cases were judged to be hard overall, variance was evident, including variance with Supreme Court decisions in some of the same cases. In the participants' analyses, rights and duties, qualified by factors relating to the legitimacy of their reach and their underlying motives, were central, but these were understood in a moral rather than legal way. In their moral analysis, perceptions of unfairness triggered a search for a fair solution, as the process revealed instrumental, constitutive, and ethical dimensions to fairness. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)