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: 200836 Find in a Library
Title: Narrative Relevance, Imagined Juries, and a Supreme Court Inspired Agenda for Jury Research
Journal: International Review of Penal Law  Volume:72  Issue:1-2  Dated:2001  Pages:405-413
Author(s): Richard O. Lempert
Date Published: 2001
Page Count: 9
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: France
Annotation: This article discusses the implications of one case for the Supreme Court’s conception of the jury, and examines the agenda drawn from it for empirical jury research.
Abstract: In the case Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997), evidence of the defendant’s prior conviction would have been inadmissible had he been charged only on two counts and not as a “felon in possession.” The defense offered to stipulate to the fact that the defendant was a convicted felon and so would have violated the felon in possession law if the jury found that he had possessed a gun. The prosecutor rejected the stipulation and argued that he had a right to prove this case with whatever relevant evidence he wished. The Supreme Court held that, despite the broad discretion that Federal Rule 403 gives trial judges in deciding whether to exclude evidence because its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect, the trial judge could not reasonably have admitted this evidence given the availability of the stipulation. The stipulation would have given the jury all the information it would have been authorized to draw from evidence of the conviction. The other information that the prosecutor got before the jury by presenting the conviction, the nature of the prior offense, could only have prejudiced the jury by leading it to believe that the defendant was a violent person. The Supreme Court recognized a sense in which evidence can be relevant that does not fit within the Federal Rule’s core definition of relevant evidence. The justification for admitting such evidence, despite the possibility that it might inappropriately sway jurors as it engages their emotions, is that the evidence is needed to place more factually probative or less prejudicial evidence in the context of a convincing narrative about what happened. Research has shown that the order in which evidence is presented affects the degree to which juries are persuaded by it. Also, research shows that jurors that hear a large portion of a familiar story, but not its entirety, may recall story-consistent information that was not presented to them. 26 footnotes
Main Term(s): Prior act evidence; Rules of evidence
Index Term(s): Court standards; Evidence; Exceptions to exclusionary rule; Exclusionary rule; Jury research; Trial procedures
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.