Tinkering with the Machinery of Death: An Analysis of Juror Decision-Making in Texas Death Penalty Trials During Two Statutory Eras

The Texas death penalty statute originally approved by the United States Supreme Court in Jurek v. Texas (1976) was legislatively amended as a result of the Court’s decision in Penry v. Lynaugh (1989). The changes were intended to focus on increasing jurors’ ability to give mitigating effect to evidence in sentencing. Using data from the Capital Jury Project, we compared juror comprehension of sentencing guidelines, punishment responsibility, and deliberations in sentencing among a sample of 123 Texas jurors who deliberated under the Jurek and Penry statutes. In each area, we found that the amended statute failed to guide capital juror decision-making as intended.     

Death penalty beliefs and jurors' responses to aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials

Two studies explored the relationship between attitudes toward the death penalty and support for or rejection of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in a capital trial. Jurors serving on jury duty voluntarily completed questionnaires in the jury lounge. In Study 1, jurors strongly opposed to the death penalty were significantly more receptive to mitigating circumstances than were the remaining jurors. In Study 2, jurors who would have been excluded for their opposition to the death penalty under theWitherspoon standard were significantly less receptive to aggravating circumstances than were the other jurors. It is suggested that the present system of death qualification in capital cases results in biases against the interest of the defendant at all stages of the trial process—jury selection, determination of guilt, and sentencing.     

Alcohol and Drug Mitigation in Capital Murder Trials: Implications for Sentencing Decisions

Analyses of the impact on sentencing when alcohol and drug‐related mitigation is used in the sentencing phases of capital murder trials is virtually absent from the existing literature. The present study addresses this by exploring the effect of having mitigation with alcohol and drug themes accepted in a large sample (n = 804) of capital murder trials in North Carolina. Logistic regression analyses that include a number of relevant control variables reveal no substantive impacts of having alcohol mitigation accepted by capital murder juries, but drug mitigators that were either accepted or rejected by juries were associated with an increased risk of receiving a death sentence. Possible reasons for the results and their implications are discussed and suggestions are made for further study of the effects of alcohol/drug mitigation in capital trials.     

Predictors of Death Sentencing for Minority,Equal, and Majority Female Juries in Capital Murder Trials

The relatively small body of prior research investigating whether the sex composition of juries impacts sentencing decisions has produced equivocal results. Exploring this topic further, the current study used a large sample of capital cases from North Carolina (n = 675) to examine (a) whether jury sex composition predicted jury capital punishment sentencing decisions; and (b) whether there were different models of sentencing for male-majority, equal male-female, and female-majority juries. When we controlled for a number of legal and extralegal factors, our findings indicated that jury sex composition was independently related to sentencing outcomes. Specifically, equal male-female juries were significantly more likely and female-majority juries were significantly less likely to choose the death penalty versus a sentence of life in prison. In addition, different models (predictors) of sentencing were revealed for each of the jury sex compositions. Implications for future research and policy are discussed.     

Emotion,Authority, and Death: (Raced) Negotiations in Mock Capital Jury Deliberations

This article explores the role of emotion in the capital penalty‐phase jury deliberations process. It is based on the qualitative analysis of data from ninety video‐recorded four to seven person simulated jury deliberations that examined the influence of race on death sentencing outcomes. The analysis explores when and how emotions are expressed, integrated into the jury's sentencing process, and deployed in penalty‐phase decision making. The findings offer critical new insights into the role that emotion plays in influencing these legal judgments by revealing how jurors strategically and explicitly employ emotion in the course of deliberation, both to support their own positions and neutralize or rebut the opposing positions of others. The findings also shed light on the various ways that white male capital jurors utilize a panoply of powerful emotion‐based tactics to sway others to their position in a manner that often contributes to racially biased outcomes.     

Life or death decisions

The penalty phase deliberation experiences of capital jurors guided by the “special issues” sentencing instructions were investigated. These instructions ask jurors to consider three specific issues to determine whether a defendant should receive a sentence of life imprisonment or the death penalty: whether the crime was committed deliberately; whether there is a probability that the defendant would pose a continuing threat to society; and whether the conduct of the defendant was unreasonable in light of any provocation on the part of the victim. In-depth interviews with 27 jurors explored the organization of the penalty deliberation, the topics discussed, influential factors in the decision-making process, the impact of sentencing instructions, the importance of the possibility of parole, and the stress associated with capital jury service. Jurors relied heavily on sentencing instructions to guide their deliberations and to determine their responsibilities. Future dangerousness and the possibility of parole were critical considerations in deciding between life and death. Although jurors found the capital trial to be stressful, most believed that the life or death decision should be made by jurors. Findings are discussed in light of constitutional concerns about the administration of the death penalty.     

Defining determinacy: Components of the sentencing process ensuring equity and release certainty

Determinate sentencing has gained in popularity in recent years, yet the specific meaning of determinacy is not universally accepted. Determinacy is viewed as a means for providing prisoners with release certainty, a mechanism for increasing fairness in the sentencing process, or both. The purpose of this paper is to define the components of determinacy and to articulate the conditions of the sentencing and post-adjudication process necessary to fulfill these criteria. The discussion of fairness in sentencing is restricted to issues of procedural equity, or the degree to which sentencing decisions are made reliably. Release predictability involves providing inmates early in their prison stays with knowledge concerning their release dates. Sentencing equity and predictability depend on how the sentencing model is structured to deal with a series of discretionary decisions affecting criminal defendants throughout the judicial and correctional process. Six choice points are considered, three pertaining to the adjudication process and three to the post-adjudication period. Relevant to the adjudication process are: (1) the decision to incarcerate; (2) characteristics of the penalty scaling system, including numbers of penalty ranges and offense categories, and overlap among penalty ranges; and (3) other mechanisms, including aggravating and mitigating circumstances and concurrent and consecutive sentences. The following post-adjudication processes were addressed: (4) the parole review process; (5) the use of good time; and (6) revocation from supervised release. Explication of the criteria for procedural equity and predictability should aid in defining parameters necessary for effective reform.     

An Examination of Defendant Sex Disparity in Capital Sentencing: A Propensity Score Matching Approach

Although much prior work has examined the influence of extralegal factors on jury capital sentencing decision-making, the influence of defendant sex has been largely omitted from previous investigations. Using propensity score matching methods, the current study analyzes data from the North Carolina Capital Sentencing Project to examine whether “sex matters” in capital sentencing. Findings demonstrated that prior to matching there was a significant difference in the likelihood of receiving the death penalty for female and male defendant cases; however, after matching cases on an array of legal and extralegal case characteristics, these differences were no longer significant. Further results revealed that male defendants’ cases included different aggravating and mitigating factors than female defendants’ cases and that female defendants had limited “paths” to capital trials. Findings suggest that any apparent sex effects that are observed in capital sentencing stem from real differences in the case characteristics found in female and male defendants’ cases rather than any direct effects of defendant sex on jury decision-making. Study limitations and implications for death penalty research are also discussed.     

Comprehending life and death matters

Modern capital jurisprudence places special significance on judicial instructions to guide the discretion of the capital jury in reaching a penalty phase decision. Yet, previous social science research has raised doubts about the extent to which judicial instructions are generally understood by jurors and questioned their utility in producing intended effects. The present study measured the comprehension of the capital sentencing instruction employed in California. Data suggest widespread inability to define accurately the central concepts of aggravation and mitigation in use in virtually every state that currently has a death penalty statute, as well as the inability to distinguish properly the sentencing significance of the enumerated factors jurors are directed to use in reaching their life and death verdicts. In addition, an inordinate focus on the circumstances of the crime—to the exclusion of other potentially important factors—was identified, as well as special problems in comprehending the crucial concept of mitigation in constitutionally required ways.We would like to thank Suzanne Ban, Cori Nardello, and Maryanne Tagavilla for assistance in transcribing and content-analyzing the data.     

Gender differences in the evaluation of aggravating and mitigating circumstances: the mediating role of attributional complexity*

At the penalty phase of a capital trial, jurors endorse and weigh aggravators and mitigators. The purpose of the current studies was to examine how gender differences in attributional complexity relate to endorsements of aggravators and mitigators. In Study 1, undergraduate participants read definitions of aggravators and mitigators and rated the extent to which circumstances were aggravating or mitigating. In Study 2, a death qualified community sample read a trial summary, rated the extent to which aggravators and mitigators were present in the case, reported whether mitigators outweighed aggravators, and rendered a sentence. Results indicated that gender differences in mitigator endorsement were mediated by attributional complexity, and that gender differences in sentencing decisions were serially mediated by attributional complexity, mitigator endorsement, and aggravator and mitigator weighing.     

Comprehension of judges' instructions in the penalty phase of a capital trial

Comprehension of two sets of judges' penalty phase instructions for a capital trial was examined. The 115 subjects, recruited from jury lists, viewed one of two 20-min videotapes, prepared either from the instructions given in a specific North Carolina capital trial several years ago or from the present North Carolina pattern instructions. After viewing the tape, subjects responded to a series of eight questions, which probed their understanding of the legal issues presented in the instructions. Compared to the subjects exposed to the present pattern instructions, those exposed to the instructions from the specific trial displayed significantly inferior understanding of the legal criteria to be used in deciding the existence of mitigating circumstances and for incorporating mitigating circumstances into the final jury recommendation of life imprisonment or the death penalty. The results of the experiment are relevant to appeals beyond the specific appeal that prompted the research, and the methodology is applicable to a range of issues.     

A Comparison of Retained and Appointed Counsel in Cases of Capital Murder

We examined the role of counsel as a source of arbitrary and capricious sentencing in cases of capital murder. The method is a reanalysis of the data of Baldus, Woodworth, & Pulaski (1990) on 606 cases of capital murder in Georgia in the 1970s. Controlling for variables describing the character of the defendant and the circumstances of the crime, a death sentence was more likely when defense counsel was appointed rather than retained privately. This was a consequence primarily of the prosecutor's decision to seek a death sentence rather than jury bias in sentencing. Our data support the conclusion that sentencing under the Georgia statute was in the 1970s, and is today to some degree, arbitrary and capricious.     

Criminal defense and judicial sentencing in China's death penalty cases

Drawing upon 503 cases of violent and drug crimes involving the death penalty from three intermediate courts in China, this study explores various defense arguments, their acceptance rates, and factors that influence judicial sentencing. Our findings reveal that offenders’ post-crime good behaviors are most likely to be accepted by the court, thus helping offenders obtain suspended death penalty. In contrast, being charged with multiple violent crimes and the weight of narcotics in drug crimes are two significant factors related to an increased likelihood of receiving immediate death penalty. This article provides more empirical evidence about mitigating and aggravating circumstances considered in capital sentencing, and supports that private lawyers are not different from court appointed lawyers in China's capital defense. China's current system seemingly leaves little room for defense lawyers to make creative contributions.     

THE APPRENDI‐BLAKELY CASES: SENTENCING REFORM COUNTER REVOLUTION?

Recent Supreme Court decisions have extended jury trial rights and beyond‐reasonable‐doubt proof standards to certain sentence‐enhancement facts. The first two cases, Apprendi v. New Jersey and Ring v. Arizona, were narrow in scope and relatively uncontroversial. But Blakely v. Washington marked a substantial expansion of the rationale and scope of Apprendi, and threatened to invalidate entire sentencing reform systems, both legally‐binding guidelines of the type at issue in Blakely and it's sequel, Booker v. United States, and statutory determinate sentence systems like the one invalidated in Cunningham v. California. Each of these decisions has potential effects not only on sentencing severity and disparity in the cases controlled by that decision, but also on prosecutorial, legislative, and sentencing commission measures designed to comply with the decision, avoid it, and/or mitigate its impact. Field resistance and avoidance measures are likely to be stronger in jurisdictions where the existing sentencing system enjoyed broad support; in such jurisdictions, resistance may be particularly strong to the more controversial Blakely ruling. Impact assessments must therefore carefully distinguish the separate impacts of Apprendi and Blakely in each jurisdiction being studied, and the extent of support for the existing sentencing system. Such assessments should also examine pre‐existing trends and other independent sources of change; leadership by sentencing commissions or other officials in crafting responsive measures; structural and other features of the sentencing system which render compliance more or less difficult; and second‐stage effects, on sentencing, prosecutorial, or sentencing policy decisions, that reflect the prior compliance, avoidance, and mitigation measures adopted in that jurisdiction. The greatest long‐term effects may be on prosecutorial, legislative, and commission decisions, rather than on sentencing outcomes.     

Mapping the Racial Bias of the White Male Capital Juror: Jury Composition and the “Empathic Divide”

This article examines the nature of racial bias in the death sentencing process. After reviewing the various general explanations for the continued significance of race in capital cases, we report the results of an empirical study in which some aspects of racially biased death sentencing are examined in depth. Specifically, in a simulated capital penalty‐phase trial setting where participants were assigned to small group “juries” and given an opportunity to deliberate, white male jurors were significantly more likely to sentence black defendants to death than were women and nonwhite jurors. This racialized pattern was explained in part by the differential evaluation of the case facts and the perceptions of the defendant that were made by the white male jurors. We discuss these findings in light of social psychological theories of contemporary racism, and we conclude that the demonstrated bias in capital jury settings should be understood as an interaction of several factors, including individual juror characteristics, group‐level demographic composition, and group deliberation processes.     

Victim age and capital sentencing outcomes in North Carolina (1977–2009)

Age is prominent among theories of criminology and victimology. It is less conspicuous in punishment theory, despite its emphasis in retributive theory and lawmaking. The present study evaluated competing ‘years of life lost’ and ‘vulnerable victim’ hypotheses to examine the influence of victim age in capital sentencing decisions. Using case file data on the population of capital murder trials in the State of North Carolina (1977–2009), our findings produce mixed results. Our quantitative analyses suggest that death sentences are significantly less likely in direct proportion to victim age. Killers of elderly victims are less likely to receive the death penalty; conversely, the odds of a death sentences are slightly greater for killers of child victims. Supplementary qualitative analyses suggest that while many child and elderly victims were not per se ‘vulnerable,’ a substantial subset of each clearly were treated as such. We discuss implications for vulnerable victim research and the role of quasi-legal factors in case outcomes.     

Capital Jury Deliberation: Effects on Death Sentencing,Comprehension, and Discrimination

This study focused on whether and how deliberations affected the comprehension of capital penalty phase jury instructions and patterns of racially discriminatory death sentencing. Jury-eligible subjects were randomly assigned to view one of four versions of a simulated capital penalty trial in which the race of defendant (Black or White) and the race of victim (Black or White) were varied orthogonally. The participants provided their initial “straw” sentencing verdicts individually and then deliberated in simulated 4–7 person “juries.” Results indicated that deliberation created a punitive rather than lenient shift in the jurors’ death sentencing behavior, failed to improve characteristically poor instructional comprehension, did not reduce the tendency for jurors to misuse penalty phase evidence (especially, mitigation), and exacerbated the tendency among White mock jurors to sentence Black defendants to death more often than White defendants.     

Prosecutorial discretion in seeking death: An analysis of racial disparity in the pretrial stages of case processing in a midwestern county

In the 1987 case of McCleskey v. Kemp, the U.S. Supreme Court appeared to foreclose the possibility of challenging racial bias in capital sentencing by using statistically based claims of discrimination. McCleskey, however, does not prevent a challenge to decisions made by particular individuals during the capital punishment process. In this study we examined pretrial decisions made by, or under the direction of, one prosecutor to determine whether those decisions had been influenced by race. We found that homicide cases involving black defendants and white victims fared worse than other racial combinations in all of the pretrial decisions made: They were more likely to result in first-degree murder charges, to be served notice of aggravating circumstances, and to proceed to capital trial.     

The Role of Death Qualification in Venirepersons' Evaluations of Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances in Capital Trials

Previous research has found that death qualification impacts jurors' receptiveness to aggravating and mitigating circumstances (e.g., J. Luginbuhl & K. Middendorf, 1988). However, the purpose of this study was to investigate whether death qualification affects jurors' endorsements of aggravating and mitigating circumstances when Witt, rather than Witherspoon, is the legal standard for death qualification. Four hundred and fifty venirepersons from the 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami, Florida completed a booklet of stimulus materials that contained the following: two death qualification questions; a case scenario that included a summary of the guilt and penalty phases of a capital case; a 26-item measure that required participants to endorse aggravators, nonstatutory mitigators, and statutory mitigators on a 6-point Likert scale; and standard demographic questions. Results indicated that death-qualified venirepersons, when compared to excludables, were more likely to endorse aggravating circumstances. Excludable participants, when compared to death-qualified venirepersons, were more likely to endorse nonstatutory mitigators. There was no significant difference between death-qualified and excludable venirepersons with respect to their endorsement of 6 out of 7 statutory mitigators. It would appear that the Gregg v. Georgia (1976) decision to declare the death penalty unconstitutional is frustrated by the Lockhart v. McCree (1986) affirmation of death qualification.     

The Impact of the Rape/Sexual Assault Statutory Aggravating Factor on Death Sentencing Decision Making in Capital Murder Trials in North Carolina (1977–2009): A Propensity Score Matching Approach

It was not too many decades ago that rape was a crime for which the death penalty was a permissible punishment in the United States, particularly in death penalty states in the South. Relatedly, historical and contemporary death penalty research almost always focuses on the role of the race of the defendant and, more recently, the race of the victim and defendant–victim racial dyads as being relevant factors in death penalty decision making. As such, the current study employs data from official court records for the population of capital trials (n = 954) in the state of North Carolina (1977–2009) to evaluate the effect of the rape/sexual assault statutory aggravating factor on jurors’ decision to recommend the death penalty. Results suggest that cases in which rape is an aggravating factor had a significantly greater odds of receiving a death penalty recommendation, and these results are robust after also considering the independent effects of defendant–victim racial dyads, even following the application of propensity score matching to equate cases on a host of defendant and victim characteristics, legal and extralegal confounders, and case characteristics. Study limitations and implications are discussed.