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: 201319 Find in a Library
Title: Testing the Story Model of Juror Decisionmaking
Journal: Sex Offender Law Report  Volume:4  Issue:4  Dated:June/July 2003  Pages:53,54,57,58
Author(s): Douglas D. Koski J.D.
Date Published: June 2003
Page Count: 4
Type: Report (Study/Research)
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This document details a study on jury decisionmaking in rape trials.
Abstract: A series of nine jury simulations was conducted in which one dimension of victim legitimacy (prior relationship) was systematically varied. A sample of 108 students was given summary versions of the alleged crime. The manipulation of victim legitimacy involved not what happened but was limited to the nature of the relationship between the victim and the defendant. The cases were identical except for the following variations in the parties’ relationship. Under the first condition, the parties were married but separated. Under the second condition, parties were dating. Under the third condition, the parties were strangers to one another. The hypothesis predicted that individual-level not-guilty votes would be positively related to the victim’s failure to achieve legitimate victim status, as measured by prior relationship. Results show that, even if the majority view predicted verdict perfectly in all cases, deliberation still matters because reaching verdict is only ancillary to the function of deliberation. The decision grounds were consistent with the victim-legitimacy hypothesis, but not entirely explained by it. Jury decisionmaking was clearly not as unlike the decisionmaking processes of the court actors as anticipated. Juries are constrained in their decisionmaking because they are told to decide the case using a standard that is foreign to them. Even when jury decisionmaking is observed, it is not always known if a juror is acting in accordance with reasonable doubt, or simply articulating his or her sentiments in those terms. Jurors are free to select among the evidence, and apply the law in any way they so choose. The most troublesome construction was the “reasonable doubt/insufficient evidence” construction because inferences partially based on juror attitudes about the criminal justice system affect construction of stories.
Main Term(s): Court studies; Jury decisionmaking
Index Term(s): Behavior patterns; Court use of social science data; Decisionmaking; Jury nullification instructions; Reasonable doubt; 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.