skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

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: 97647 Find in a Library
Title: Jurors' Interpretations and Jury Decision Making
Journal: Law and Human Behavior  Volume:9  Issue:1  Dated:(March 1985)  Pages:83-100
Author(s): J A Holstein
Date Published: 1985
Page Count: 28
Type: Report (Study/Research)
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: To examine jury decisionmaking, a mock trial was shown to 48 groups (279 subjects) who then were instructed to deliberate in 5- or 6-member groups until they had reached a unanimous verdict.
Abstract: These deliberations were audiorecorded and transcribed. Analysis of these conversational data indicates that in all 48 mock deliberations a schematic interpretation depicting the central action of the case was articulated. A scenario describing what 'really happened' was prestned at least once in every group discussion, and these interpretations guided decisionmaking and became important in the deliberation process. These interpretations also were used in persuading other jurors. As jurors contributed additional interpretations (more than one interpretation was offered in 75 percent of the mock deliberations) the group-decisionmaking task became more complex, deliberations lasted longer, and they were more difficult to resolve. A significant negative relationship was found between the number of interpretations articulated and the jury's likelihood of reaching a unanimous verdict. Articulating multiple interpretations in support of a candidate appears to militate against its unanimous adoption. Conversational excerpts from deliberations, footnotes, tabular data and 24 references are provided. (Author abstract modified)
Index Term(s): Behavioral science research; Group behavior; History of juvenile justice; Jury decisionmaking; Jury research; Voice communications
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=97647

*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.