Changing views of jury power

This article highlights the major events and empirical research in the continuing debate over the power and competence of the jury in civil and criminal trials. The concept ofjury nullification, the power of the jury to return a verdict based upon their moral conscience despite the evidence and the law, is used as a convenient filter to discuss the legal and behavioral assumptions about jury power and performance. The legal, historical, and even behavioral contexts reflect a bipolar theme in the level of trust Americans have exhibited towards the jury system. One pole reflects the notion that juries lack predictability and rationality in their verdicts and are moved by emotional concerns. Antipodally, juries have been thought to reflect an historical competence at applying common sense notions of equity and rationality to conflicted and ambiguous cases. This article traces the history of these two views of jury power and competence. A critical review of the empirical research that may inform the debate about the jury's competence in both criminal and civil arenas is provided.     

Effects of notetaking on verdicts and evidence processing in a civil trial

Examined the effect of notetaking on juror decision making and cognitive processing of evidence in a complex tort trial. Jury eligible participants either took notes during the trial and had access to those notes during decision making, took notes without access, or did not take notes. Those who took notes during the trial performed more competently than did nonnotetakers. Notetakers made correct distinctions in assigning liability and compensatory awards among four differentially worthy plaintiffs and recalled significantly more probative evidence than nonnotetakers. The almost identical performance of the notes-access group and the notes without access group suggests that notetaking had its impact at the encoding stage rather than at retrieval. We discuss possible motivational differences that may account for the results and constraints on generalizing the findings.This research was supported by National Science Foundation under grant No. SBR 9311922 awarded to Irwin A. Horowitz.     

Capacity for Self-Control and Individuals' Interest in Exercising Self-Control

We identify and elaborate a conceptual distinction between capability for self-control and the desire to exercise it, and employ data from a city survey to explore the empirical viability of such a differentiation. Separate scales measuring ability and desire to exercise self-control both prove to be significant and moderately strong predictors of several measures of criminal/deviant behavior, showing independent, cumulative, and interactive relationships with each other. For some measures of crime/deviance, self-control capability is most effective when the individual's interest in exercising self-control is low but its effect is greatly reduced or eliminated when desire to exercise self-control desire is high. Combinations of capability for self-control and interest in exercising it prove to be particularly good predictors of the absolute level of misbehavior.