A STUDY BY KALVEN AND ZEISEL (1966) SHOWS THAT THE JURY VERDICTS TEND TO REPRESENT THE POSITION THAT WAS INITIALLY FAVORED BY THE MAJORITY. IF THE MAJORITY FAVORED 'GUILTY' ON THE FIRST BALLOT, 86 PERCENT OF THE CASES STUDIED RENDERED A 'GUILTY' VERDICT; IF THE MAJORITY FAVORED 'NOT GUILTY,' 91 PERCENT OF THE CASES RESULTED IN A 'NOT GUILTY' VERDICT. THESE FINDINGS CONFIR TWO ASSUMPTIONS GENERALLY HELD IN A GROUP PROCESS, A MAJORITY IS LIKELY TO BE CORRECT AND DISAPPROVAL AND REJECTION ARE LIKELY TO FOLLOW FROM HOLDING A MINORITY POSITION. MINORITIES HOLDING THE 'NOT GUILTY' POSITION ARE MORE LIKELY TO SWAY THE MAJORITY TO THEIR POSITION THAN ARE MINORITIES HOLDING THE 'GUILTY' POSITION. IT IS APPARENTLY EASIER TO CONVINCE PERSONS THAT THEY HAVE 'REASONABLE DOUBTS' THAN TO CONVINCE THEM BEYOND SUCH DOUBTS. ALSO, MINORITIES HOLDING THE 'NOT GUILTY' POSITION ARE LESS LIKELY TO CAPITULATE, AND THEY DEMONSTRATE CONSISTENCY AND CONFIDENCE, WHICH HAVE PROVEN TO BE EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES FOR MINORITIES. MAINTENANCE OF POSITION, BEHAVIORS INDICATING CONFIDENCE, AND SKILLS OF PERSUASION ARE APPARENTLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE SIZE OF MINORITIES IN DETERMINING THEIR SUCCESS IN PERSUADING MAJORITIES. STUDIES SHOW THAT SUCH SUCCESSFUL PERSUADERS TEND TO BE MALE, HIGHLY EDUCATED, AND FROM HIGH-STATUS OCCUPATIONS. A COMPARISON OF VERDICTS REACHED BY UNANIMOUS JURIES AND TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY JURIES SHOWS THAT VERDICTS RENDERED FOR THE TWO TYPES OF JURIES PARALLELD ONE ANOTHER, EXCEPT THAT THERE WERE MORE HUNG JURIES WHEN UNANIMITY WAS REQUIRED. FOR THE SAKE OF PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE JUSTICE OF THE JURY SYSTEM, HOWEVER, UNANIMITY MAY BE REQUIRED, EVEN THOUGH STUDIES SHOW THE TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY SYSTEM TO BE MORE EFFICIENT AND NO LESS EFFECTIVE IN RENDERING JUSTICE. REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (RCB)