Blindfolding the Jury to Verdict Consequences
Damages, Experts, and the Civil Jury
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4085354 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Shari Seidman Diamond, Jonathan D Casper (0009-0009-5722-1916) |
| Year | 1992 |
| Volume | 26 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 513-563 |
| Publication date | 1992-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Law & Society Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0023-9216 • E-ISSN: 1540-5893 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.2307/3053737 |
| OpenAlex | W2323231227 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 30 |
| References cited | 28 |
This research examines the behavior of jurors as active information processors. Our experimental examination of the performance of the civil jury in response to a complex price-fixing case varies the information provided to jurors about the consequences of their damage award decisions (i.e., the treble damage rule) and the type of expert testimony (statistical models vs. concrete yardstick models). We find, consistent with a picture of the jury as active rather than passive, that jurors are more likely to follow judicial instructions when they are given explanations rather than bald admonitions. In addition, complex expert testimony neither overpowers the jurors nor is dismissed by them. The expert presenting a statistical model is viewed as having higher expertise but lower clarity; as a result the statistical expert and the expert presenting a more concrete model are not significantly different in their persuasiveness. Finally, in contrast to most research on the criminal jury, we find that deliberations do affect jury awards
Damages · Hung jury · Jury · Political science · Verdict · Jury Decision Making Processes · Law · Legal Education and Practice Innovations
What social science teaches us about the jury instruction process
Law
Scientific literacy and the jury
Lifting the Veil
Reconciling Experimental Incoherence with Real-World Coherence in Punitive Damages
Adversarial Forensic Science Experts
Jury Deliberation
The Influence of Liability Information, Severity of Injury, and Attitudes toward Vengeance on Damage Awards
Instructing on death
Confidence in criminal justice and judgments of guilt in criminal trials
Brain imaging and courtroom evidence
Real Juries
The Contemporary American Jury
Jurors’ Responses to Expert Witness Testimony
Inequality in talk and group size effects
Precious little guidance
The Impact of Complainant Sexual History Evidence on Jurors' Decisions
The effect of liability stipulation on damage awards in a personal injury case
Jurors' Evaluations of Expert Testimony
Deciding without Deliberating
Jurors'Evaluations of Expert Testimony
Who Is Afraid of the Pink Elephant? Evidence on (Not) Ignoring Inadmissible Evidence and Debiasing Interventions
Expert Evidence, the Adversary System, and the Jury
Precious little guidance
Instructing jurors on general damages in personal injury cases
Jury decision making
"The conflict between precision and flexibility in explaining "beyond a reasonable doubt
The subtle effects of implicit bias instructions
Representation through Participation
VAM on trial
Communication and Persuasion
Advances In Experimental Social Psychology
Inside the Jury
Stalking the elusive "vividness" effect.
Trial by Mathematics
The American jury
Group polarization
Biasing effects of pretrial publicity on judicial decisions
Risky and cautious shifts in group decisions
The effects of base rates and individuating information on judgments about another person
Psychological status of the script concept
Handbook of social psychology
Group decision making and normative versus informational influence
Becoming first among equals
Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation
Effect of stimulus inconsistency and discounting instructions in personality impression formation
Evidence evaluation in complex decision making
Judgmental biases resulting from differing availabilities of arguments
The decision processes of 6- and 12-person mock juries assigned unanimous and two-thirds majority rules
Are Twelve Heads Better than One
Human Information Processing and Adjudication
Social Status in Jury Deliberations
Law Reform by Courts, Legislatures, and Commissions Following Empirical Research on Jury Instructions
| Unique citing works | 30 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,91 |
| Citation span | 1993 - 2026 (34) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 29 |