skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 118371 Find in a Library
Title: Jury Coercion in Capital Cases: How Much Risk Are We Willing To Take?
Journal: University of Cincinnati Law Review  Volume:57  Issue:3  Dated:(1989)  Pages:1073-1100
Author(s): M J Crowley
Date Published: 1989
Page Count: 28
Type: Issue Overview
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: Capital cases have clearly required heightened procedural safeguards in the history of the jurisprudence, but it is not clear which safeguards must be present in the rendering of a death sentence for that sentence to pass constitutional muster.
Abstract: One remaining problem area is in the communications between the trial court and the deadlocked jury. The Supreme Court continues to be dangerously unclear as to the constitutional parameters within which such communications must operate. These communications most often take the form of supplemental charges to the jury and inquiries into the numerical breakdown of a divided sentencing jury. These practices raise concern in capital cases because of the potential risk of jury coercion that they create. The history and development of the Supreme Court's treatment of the death penalty, the development of procedural parameters necessary to avoid the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment, and the emphasis on individualization in capital sentencing are discussed. Also examined is the role of the jury in capital cases including the effects of both supplemental jury charges and inquiries into the numerical division of a jury. 202 footnotes.
Main Term(s): Jury decisionmaking
Index Term(s): Attorney-jury interaction; Capital punishment; Jury instructions; Verdicts
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.