Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-68ccn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T21:26:07.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Partial Juror: Correlates and Causes of Prejudgment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2024

Edmond Costantini  and
Joel King
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Data from two 1979 potential juror surveys concerning three criminal cases in Yolo County, California, form the basis for an analysis of opinions indicative of prejudgment in those cases. Strong bivariate relationships are demonstrated between knowledge about a specific case, general attitudes on crime, gender, and education level, on the one hand, and two measures of propensity to prejudge a defendant's guilt, on the other. Further, multivariate discriminant function analysis is used to show that these four independent variables taken together are able to produce significant increases in the ability to make predictions of prejudging opinions on the part of the respondents and that knowledge about a specific case is by far the most important variable in determining such predictions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , 1981 , pp. 9 - 40
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 The Law and Society Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The authors wish to acknowledge the advice and assistance of Richard L. Gilbert, District Attorney of Yolo County, California, and Professors Floyd Feeney, School of Law, and Clyde Jacobs, Department of Political Science, University of California at Davis. We also appreciate the support of The Yolo County Board of Supervisors.

References

References

ADLER, Freda (1973) “Socioeconomic Factors Influencing Jury Verdicts,” 3 New York University Review of Law and Social Change 1 (Winter).Google Scholar
ALDRICH, John and Charles, CNUDDE (1975) “Probing the Bounds of Conventional Wisdom: A Comparison of Regression, Probit, and Discriminant Analysis,” 19 American Journal of Political Science 571.Google Scholar
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION PROJECT ON MINIMAL STANDARDS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE (1968) Standards Relating to Fair Trial and Free Press. Washington, D.C.: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
BLAUNER, Robert (1975) “The Sociology of Jury Selection,” in Ginger, Ann (ed.), Jury Selection in Criminal Trials: New Techniques and Concepts. Tiburon, California: California Lawpress.Google Scholar
BOEHM, Virginia (1968) “Mr. Prejudice, Miss Sympathy, and the Authoritarian Personality: An Application of Psychological Measuring Techniques to the Problem of Jury Bias,” 1968 Wisconsin Law Review 734.Google Scholar
BONORA, Beth and Elissa, KRAUSS, eds. (1979) Jurywork: Systematic Techniques. Berkeley: National Jury Project.Google Scholar
BROEDER, Dale (1959) “The University of Chicago Jury Project,” 38 Nebraska Law Review 744.Google Scholar
BRONSON, Edward (1970) “On the Conviction Proneness and Representativeness of the Death-Qualified Jury; An Empirical Study of Colorado Veniremen,” 42 University of Colorado Law Review 1 (May).Google Scholar
COSTNER, Herbert (1965) “Criteria for Measures of Association,” 30 American Sociological Review 341.Google Scholar
DAVIS, James, KERR, Norbert, STASSER, Garold, MEEK, David, and Robert, HOLT (1977) “Victim Consequences, Sentence Severity, and Decision Processes in Mock Juries,” 18 Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 346.Google Scholar
ERLANGER, Howard (1970) “Jury Research in America: Its Past and Future,” 4 Law and Society Review 345.Google Scholar
GOGGIN, Terrence and George, HANOVER (1965) “Fair Trial v. Free Press: The Psychological Effect of Pre-Trial Publicity on the Juror's Ability to be Impartial: A Plea for Reform,” 38 Southern California Law Review 672.Google Scholar
GRABER, Doris (1980) Mass Media and American Politics. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
HERMANN, Philip (1970) “Occupations of Jurors as an Influence on their Verdict,” 5 The Forum 150.Google Scholar
JAMES, Rita (1959) “Status and Competence of Jurors,” 64 American Journal of Sociology 563.Google Scholar
JOHNSTON, John (1972) Econometric Methods (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
JOINER, Charles (1975) “From the Bench,” in Simon, Rita (ed.), The Jury System in America: A Critical Overview. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
JUROW, George (1971) “New Data on the Effect of a ‘Death-Qualified’ Jury on the Guilt Determination Process,” 84 Harvard Law Review 567.Google Scholar
KAIRYS, David (1975) The Jury System: New Methods for Reducing Prejudice. Cambridge Mass.: National Jury Project and the National Lawyers Guild.Google Scholar
KALLEN, Laurence (1970) “Peremptory Challenges Based Upon Juror Background—A Rational Use?” in Kennelly, J. and Chapman, J. (eds.), Trial Lawyers Guide: 1969 Annual. Mundelein, Illinois: Callagan.Google Scholar
KESSLER, Joan (1975) “The Social Psychology of Jury Deliberations,” in Simon, Rita (ed.), The Jury System in America: A Critical Overview. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
KLINE, F. Gerald and Paul, JESS (1966) “Prejudicial Publicity: Its Effect on Law School Mock Juries,” 43 Journalism Quarterly 113.Google Scholar
KORT, Fred (1973) “Regression Analysis and Discriminant Analysis: An Application of R.A. Fisher's Theorem to Data in Political Science,” 67 American Political Science Review 555.Google Scholar
McCONAHAY, John, Courtney, MULLIN, and Jeffrey, FREDERICK (1977) “The Uses of Social Science in Trials with Political and Racial Overtones: the Trial of Joan Little,” 41 Law and Contemporary Problems 205.Google Scholar
MORRISON, Donald (1969) “On the Interpretation of Discriminant Analysis,” 6 Journal of Marketing Research 156.Google Scholar
NIE, Norman, HULL, C. Hadlai, JENKINS, Jean, STEINBRENNER, Karin, and Dale, BENT (1970) The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
PADAWER-SINGER, Alice, and Allen, BARTON (1975) “The Impact of Pretrial Publicity on Jurors' Verdicts,” in Simon, Rita (ed.), The Jury System in America: A Critical Overview. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
REED, John (1975) “Jury Deliberations, Voting, and Verdict Trends,” 45 Southwestern Social Science Quarterly 361.Google Scholar
RUMSEY, Michael and Judith, RUMSEY (1977) “A Case of Rape: Sentencing Judgments of Males and Females,” 41 Psychological Reports 459.Google Scholar
SAKS, Michael (1976) “The Limits of Scientific Jury Selection: Ethical and Empirical,” 17 Jurimetrics Journal 3.Google Scholar
SCHULMAN, Jay, SHAVER, Phillip, COLMAN, Robert, EMRICH, Barbara, and Richard, CHRISTIE (1973) “Recipe for a Jury,” 6 Psychology Today 37 (May).Google Scholar
SIMON, Rita (1966) “Murder, Juries and the Press,” 3 Transaction 40 (May-June).Google Scholar
SONAIKE, S. Femi (1978) “The Influence of Jury Deliberation on Juror Perception of Trial, Credibility, and Damage Awards,” 1978 Brigham Young University Law Review 889.Google Scholar
STEPHAN, Cookie (1975) “Selective Characteristics of Jurors and Litigants: Their Influences on Juries' Verdicts,” in Simon, R. (ed.), The Jury System in America: A Critical Overview. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
STRODTBECK, Fred, Rita, JAMES, and Charles, HAWKINS (1957) “Social Status in Jury Deliberations,” 22 American Sociological Review 713.Google Scholar
TANS, Mary and Steven, CHAFFEE (1966) “Pretrial Publicity and Juror Prejudice,” 43 Journalism Quarterly 647.Google Scholar
TWAIN, Mark (1901) Roughing It and The Innocents at Home. London: Chatto and Windus.Google Scholar
VAN DYKE, Jon (1977a) “Selecting a Jury in Political Trials,” 27 Case Western Reserve Law Review 609.Google Scholar
VAN DYKE, Jon (1977b) Jury Selection Procedures: Our Uncertain Commitment to Representative Panels. Cambridge: Ballinger.Google Scholar
ZEISEL, Hans (1960) “The Uniqueness of Survey Evidence,” 45 Cornell Law Quarterly 322.Google Scholar
ZEISEL, Hans (1973) “Reflections on Experimental Techniques in The Law,” 2 Journal of Legal Studies 107.Google Scholar
ZEISEL, Hans and Shari Seidman, DIAMOND (1976) “The Jury Selection in the Mitchell-Stans Conspiracy Trial,” 1976 American Bar Foundation Research Journal 151.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier v. Superior Court, 486 P.2d 694, Cal. 1971.Google Scholar
Gannett Co. Inc. v. DePasquale, 47 LW 4902, 1979.Google Scholar
Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 1961.Google Scholar
Maine v. Superior Court, 438 P2d 372, Cal. 1968.Google Scholar
Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 1976.Google Scholar
Philadelphia Newspaper Inc. v. Jerome, 434 U.S. 241, 1978.Google Scholar
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 1878.Google Scholar
Richmond Newspapers Inc. v. Virginia, 48 LW 3549, 1980.Google Scholar
Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723, 1963.Google Scholar
Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 1966.Google Scholar
Sigma Delta Chi v. Martin, 434 U.S. 1022, 1978.Google Scholar
United States v. Burr, 25 Fed. Cas. 49, 1807.Google Scholar
United States v. Butera, 420 F2d 564 (1st Cir.), 1970.Google Scholar
United States v. Dellinger, 472 F2d 340, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar