nmm 22 4500 ICPSR02791 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130518s2002 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR02791 MiAaI MiAaI Children's Out-of-Court Statements [electronic resource] Effects of Hearsay on Jurors' Decisions in Sacramento County, California, and Maricopa County, Arizona, 1994-1997 Gail S. Goodman , John E.B. Myers 2006-03-30 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2002 ICPSR 2791 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-05-18. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. the respondent supported the death penalty, if the respondent was ever a victim of crime, number of children the respondent had, if the respondent was a United States citizen, if the respondent's native language was English, and if he or she had ever been a police officer, a convicted felon, a lawyer, or a judge. The pre-deliberation questionnaire for Study 1 asked jurors if they felt that the defendant was guilty, and how confident they were of the defendant's guilt or innocence. Jurors were also asked to assess the accuracy of various facts as given in the social worker's interview of the child and the child's statements in the taped interview, and what the likelihood was of the child's being influenced by the social worker, prosecutor, and/or defense attorney. Questions about the trial included the juror's assessment of the defendant, the social worker, and the research assistant. Jurors were also asked about the influence of various factors on their decisions regarding whether to believe the individuals in the case. Jurors' open-ended comments were coded on the most important factors in believing or doubting the child or the social worker, the most important evidence in the case, and whether anything could have been done to make the trial more fair. Post-deliberation questions in Study 1 included whether the defendant was guilty, how confident the juror was of the defendant's guilt or innocence regarding various charges in the case, and the final verdict of the jury. Questions similar to those in Study 1 were asked in the pre-deliberation questionnaire for Study 2, which also included respondents' opinions of the police officer, the mother, the doctor, and the use of anatomical dolls. The Study 2 post-deliberation questionnaire included questions on whether the defendant was guilty, how confident the juror was of the defendant's guilt or innocence, and the juror's assessment of the social worker's videotaped interview and the police officer's testimony. Variables from the Study 3 juror survey include the county/state where the trial was held, the juror's age, gender, ethnic background, and highest grade attained in school, if the juror supported the death penalty, if he or she was ever a victim of crime, and the amount of contact he or she had with children. Questions about the trial include the number of children the defendant was charged with abusing, the main child's age and gender, if a videotape was shown at trial, who interviewed the child on the videotape, the impact of seeing the videotape on the juror's decision to believe the child, the number of children who testified at the trial, and if the child was involved in a custody dispute. Additional questions focused on the defendant's relationship to the main child, who the first person was that the child told about the abuse, if the main child testified in court, the most important evidence in the case in the opinion of the juror, the jury's verdict, and how fair the juror considered the trial. Finally, jurors were asked about the influence of various factors on their decision to believe or doubt the individuals in the case. Data in Study 3 also include coded open-ended responses to several questions. Variables provided for the Study 3 aggregated data consist of the calculated mean values for each of the 42 juries for most of the variables in the Study 3 juror survey data. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02791.v1 child abuse icpsr evidence icpsr hearsay evidence icpsr juries icpsr sexual abuse icpsr testimony icpsr trials icpsr witness credibility icpsr NACJD VI. Criminal Justice System ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System Goodman, Gail S. Myers, John E.B. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 2791 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02791.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR02687 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130518s1999 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR02687 MiAaI MiAaI Juror Discussions About Evidence, 1997-1998 [electronic resource] [Arizona] Paula L. Hannaford , Valerie P. Hans , G. Thomas Munsterman 2006-03-30 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 1999 ICPSR 2687 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-05-18. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. These data were collected in conjunction with an evaluation of the Arizona court reform effective December 1, 1995, to permit jurors in civil cases to discuss the evidence prior to deliberations. The datasets consist of survey responses by judges, jurors, attorneys, and litigants in all civil cases conducted in Maricopa, Pima, Mohave, and Yavapai counties in Arizona between June 15, 1997, and January 31, 1998. Civil cases in the participating courts were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions: (1) jurors were told they could discuss the evidence prior to deliberation according to Rule 39(f) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, or (2) jurors were told they could not discuss the evidence per the previous admonition. The datasets contain survey responses under both conditions. Part 1, Case Characteristics Data, contains information from two questionnaires completed by judges about the lawsuit, the parties, the trial procedures, and the case outcome. The data in Part 2, Juror Questionnaire Data, cover jurors' views regarding the complexity of the case, the importance of witnesses and testimonies, and attorneys' performances. The variables in Part 3, Attorney Questionnaire Data, offer information on attorneys' opinions of the jurors, the opposing counsel, and the verdict. Part 4, Litigant Questionniare Data, consists of litigants' views regarding the jurors and the verdict. Demographic data include respondents' gender, age, race, income, and job status. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02687.v1 attorneys icpsr case processing icpsr court cases icpsr courts icpsr judges icpsr judicial decisions icpsr judicial process icpsr juries icpsr jury deliberations icpsr jury instructions icpsr trial procedures icpsr ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System NACJD V. Courts Hannaford, Paula L. Hans, Valerie P. Munsterman, G. Thomas Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 2687 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02687.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR06232 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130518s1994 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR06232 MiAaI MiAaI Jury Verdicts Database for Cook County, Illinois, and All Counties in California, 1960-1984 [electronic resource] Terence Dunworth , Nicholas Pace 2006-01-12 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 1994 ICPSR 6232 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-05-18. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. This data collection contains information on jury verdict civil cases in Cook County, Illinois, and all counties in California. The RAND Corporation's Institute for Criminal Justice began this study in the early 1980s in response to widespread public interest in the magnitude of dollar verdicts returned in civil cases. The goal was to record salient information found in court reporter publications to allow for a wide range of future research. Two such publications were chosen because of their favorable reputations and because they both dated back to 1960: the "Cook County Jury Verdict Reporter" of Chicago, Illinois, and "Jury Verdicts Weekly" of Santa Rosa, California. The collection of data for this study was conducted in two phases. Phase I included cases from 1960-1979, and Phase II coded cases from 1980-1984, including a small number of cases from 1985. In both phases, only cases in which a jury reached a definitive outcome (including deadlocked or hung juries) were included. In Phase I, only San Francisco County cases from the California reporter publication were included. In Phase II, all California counties were included. For all cases in Phase I, a Main Form was completed that included jurisdiction, court type, dates of incidents and trial, information about parties involved, trial occurrences, outcome of trial, awards, and fees. In addition to this Main Form, at least one of nine different case-type forms was completed: Common Carrier-Passenger Form, Dram Shop Form, Injuries on Property/Attractive Nuisance Form, Malpractice Form, Miscellaneous Form, Products Liability Form, Street Hazards/Highway Construction Form, Traffic/Pedestrian/Rider Form, and Work Injuries and FELA Form. These forms contained questions regarding the behavior of each party in the case and other characteristics and facts relevant to the case. A Jury Verdicts Form was completed for all cases in Phase II. This form picked up general case-level and defendant-specific data such as dates and length of trial, case outcome, original number of parties involved, and collapsing of multiple defendants into one case. For each plaintiff, a Plaintiff Information Form was filled out containing general plaintiff information such as losses claimed and the coder's assessment of the degree of the plaintiff's comparative negligence. This form also indicated which of the loss forms was coded for this plaintiff (only one loss form was completed for each plaintiff): Death Action, Personal Injuries, or Money Damages. Each form contained basic information about the outcome of the case, specific damages claimed by the plaintiff, and loss-specific data. Additionally, an Ancillary Action Form was completed for any associated claims that were adjudicated at the time of the main case, such as counter-suits by defendants. The questions on this form were the same as those on the main Jury Verdicts Form. Finally, this study includes an Integrated Jury Verdicts Database (Part 33) containing data from both phases to permit easier analysis of data from all years. This database contains five sections: (1) the basic trial information, which includes the trial dates and lengths, reporter source, and jurisdiction, (2) the main case information, which includes more detailed data about the case such as number of parties involved, case type, types of losses claimed, and total compensatory and punitive awards, (3) information about the first ancillary action, (4) information about the second ancillary action, and (5) a listing of all the forms used. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06232.v1 civil law icpsr court cases icpsr courts icpsr juries icpsr lawsuits icpsr verdicts icpsr ICPSR XII. Legal Systems NACJD IV. Court Case Processing AHRQMCC I. Multiple Chronic Conditions Dunworth, Terence Pace, Nicholas Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 6232 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06232.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR09030 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130518s1984 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR09030 MiAaI MiAaI Multnomah County [Oregon] Jury Project, 1973-1976 [electronic resource] Bernard Grofman 1992-02-16 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 1984 ICPSR 9030 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-05-18. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. The Multnomah County, Oregon, Jury Project was conducted as part of the Modeling Jury Decision Project funded by the National Science Foundation. These data represent a census of 32 jury panels that served from July 1973 through March 1976 in the Fourth Circuit Court in Multnomah County (Portland), Oregon. Information was obtained for both six-member and twelve-member juries. Data were collected from official court records, monthly juror panel summaries, and self-administered juror demographic data sheets. Information collected includes members of the jury, their votes, the final verdict, the type of case, the name of the judge, and the amount of time taken by the jury to arrive at a decision, as well as each juror's age, occupation, years of residence in Oregon, educational background, family information, and information on past juries and trials they were involved in. The data include both individual-level juror and aggregate jury case data, with information on 6,657 jurors and 1,159 trials. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09030.v1 convictions (law) icpsr courts icpsr criminal justice system icpsr demographic characteristics icpsr judicial decisions icpsr juries icpsr jury deliberations icpsr justice icpsr sentencing icpsr verdicts icpsr ICPSR XII. Legal Systems NACJD V. Courts Grofman, Bernard Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 9030 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09030.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR02854 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130518s2001 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR02854 MiAaI MiAaI State Court Organization, 1998 [electronic resource] [United States] National Center for State Courts 2006-03-30 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2001 ICPSR 2854 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-05-18. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. This data collection provides detailed comparative information about the structure, policies, and procedures of statewide trial and appellate court systems for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico as of July 1, 1998. Information gathered includes the number of courts and judges, judicial selection, governance of court systems, including judicial funding, administration, staffing, and procedures, jury qualifications and verdict rules, and processing and sentencing procedures of criminal cases. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02854.v1 appellate courts icpsr court system icpsr judge selection icpsr judges icpsr juries icpsr state courts icpsr trial courts icpsr verdicts icpsr policies and procedures icpsr ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System NACJD V. Courts National Center for State Courts Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 2854 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02854.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR04575 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130518s2006 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR04575 MiAaI MiAaI State Court Organizations, 2004 [United States] [electronic resource] National Center for State Courts , Conference of State Court Administrators 2006-10-30 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2006 ICPSR 4575 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-05-18. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. This data collection provides detailed comparative information about the structure, policies, and procedures of state-wide trial and appellate court systems for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico in the United States as of June 31, 2004. Information gathered includes: the number of courts and judges, judicial selection, governance of court systems (including judicial funding, administration, staffing, and procedures), jury qualifications and verdict rules, and processing and sentencing procedures of criminal cases. Data collection was carried out by the National Center for State Courts. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR04575.v1 appellate courts icpsr court system icpsr judge selection icpsr judges icpsr juries icpsr policies and procedures icpsr state courts icpsr trial courts icpsr NACJD V. Courts ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System National Center for State Courts Conference of State Court Administrators Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 4575 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR04575.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR04356 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130518s2006 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR04356 MiAaI MiAaI Testing the Effects of Selected Jury Trial Innovations on Juries' Comprehension of DNA Evidence in New Castle County, Delaware, 2003 [electronic resource] B. Michael Dann , Valerie P. Hans , David H. Kaye 2006-01-06 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2006 ICPSR 4356 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-05-18. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. This study tested whether the use of selected jury trial reforms enhanced jurors' understanding of complex and challenging scientific evidence presented during a criminal trial. The study examined the use of several jury reform techniques using a controlled mock jury approach in which mock juries composed of jury pool members watched a videotaped armed robbery trial featuring conflicting expert testimony about mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) evidence. A total of 480 mock jurors were randomly assigned to eight-person juries and to one of the six conditions in the experiment. Ten mock juries were run in each of the six conditions (No Innovations, Note Taking, Question Asking and Note Taking, DNA Checklist and Note Taking, Jury Notebook and Note Taking, and All Innovations). At various points throughout the study (before the trial, after watching the videotaped trial, and after reaching a verdict), mock jurors were asked to complete questionnaires to gauge their understanding of mtDNA and the mtDNA evidence presented during the trial. They were also asked if and how the use of the jury trial innovations helped in their understanding of the mtDNA evidence. Specific variables contained in the study include demographic variables of the mock jurors, including their math and science background, mock jurors' views of science, their understanding of mtDNA, their perceptions of the reliability of different types of evidence, and the credibility of the prosecutor, defense attorney, detective, eyewitness, defendant, and expert witnesses, and whether the mock jurors favor or oppose the various innovations. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR04356.v1 courtroom proceedings icpsr DNA fingerprinting icpsr juries icpsr jury deliberations icpsr jury instructions icpsr reform icpsr trial procedures icpsr NACJD V. Courts ICPSR XII. Legal Systems Dann, B. Michael Hans, Valerie P. Kaye, David H. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 4356 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR04356.v1