Showing 1 – 19 of 19 results.
Curated
ABC News Jury Charge Poll, September 1995 (ICPSR 6674)
Released/updated on: 2006-11-14
Geographic coverage: United States
This special topic poll sought respondents' views on the O.J. Simpson murder trial and on the treatment of minorities in the criminal justice system. Those queried were asked for their opinions on the fairness of the Simpson trial, the innocence or guilt of Simpson, media coverage of the Simpson case, and whether there was a police conspiracy to frame Simpson. Respondents were asked whether they believed that Detective Mark Furhman found the bloody glove as he testified. Demographic variables include sex and race.
Curated
ABC News "Nightline" Nanny Poll, November 1997 (ICPSR 2504)
Released/updated on: 2006-11-10
Geographic coverage: United States
This special topic poll, conducted on November 10, 1997, sought respondents' views on the same-day decision by a judge to reverse the jury verdict in the criminal case against British au pair Louise Woodward. Respondents were reminded of the October 1997 verdict in which a jury found Woodward guilty of killing a baby boy who was left in her care by shaking him. They were then asked to give their opinions on the judge's decision to reduce the verdict from murder to manslaughter and to reduce Woodward's sentence to the nine months she had spent in jail awaiting trial. Those queried were asked whether they believed that judges should have the power to change jury verdicts in criminal cases. The results of the poll were announced on the ABC television program "Nightline." Background information on respondents includes sex.
Curated
ABC News/Washington Post Los Angeles Beating Poll, April 1992 (ICPSR 9941)
Released/updated on: 2008-07-31
Geographic coverage: United States
This special topic poll dealt with race relations and the verdict handed down in the Rodney King beating case in Los Angeles. Respondents were asked to describe the state of race relations in the United States, to indicate whether a great deal of prejudice against Blacks was present among whites and vice versa, and to agree or disagree with statements such as "Police in most cities treat Blacks as fairly as they treat whites," and "The only time the federal government really pays attention to Black problems is when Blacks resort to violent demonstrations or riots." Respondents were also asked if Blacks and other minorities received the same treatment as whites in the criminal justice system. Concerning the jury verdict in the Rodney King beating case, respondents were asked if they had heard or read about the verdict, whether they had seen the videotape of the police officers hitting and kicking King, and whether the police officers were guilty of a crime. Those surveyed were also asked if the not-guilty verdict would do major damage to race relations in the United States, if they agreed that the verdict showed that Blacks could not get justice in this country, and if they agreed that the rioting after the King verdict would make whites less sympathetic to the problems of Blacks. In addition, respondents were asked if the United States Justice Department should charge the police officers with the crime of violating Rodney King's civil rights. Background information on respondents includes age, Hispanic origin, race, and sex.
Curated
Can Jury Instructions Have an Impact on Trial Outcomes, California, 2018 (ICPSR 37956)
Released/updated on: 2023-04-13
Geographic coverage: United States, California
Time period: 2018-01-01--2018-12-31
This funded project tested whether "implicit bias" jury instructions can mitigate discrimination by juries. Implicit bias instructions are being used in a small but growing number of jurisdictions, but have not yet been adequately tested for efficacy. The study employed a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design, in which the race of defendant (Black or White), race of informant witness (Black or White), and jury instructions (implicit bias or standard bias instruction) was varied, creating eight experimental conditions. The data in this archive represent 623 participants who were assigned to one of 120 jury groups who viewed a federal drug conspiracy trial, deliberated to a verdict, then completed a series of individual measures.
Curated
CBS News/New York Times Monthly Poll #3 and Call-Back, September 1995 (ICPSR 2150)
Released/updated on: 2010-05-07
Geographic coverage: United States
This poll is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on a range of political and social issues. This survey focused on the O.J. Simpson murder trial, with an initial survey after the closing arguments were concluded and a call-back of some of the respondents after the verdict was announced. Initial questions examined respondents' confidence in the American justice system, their opinions on what they believed were the prosecution's and defense's strongest pieces of evidence, and whether they believed O.J. Simpson to be guilty or not guilty. Respondents were also asked in the initial survey how closely they followed the trial and whether the lawyers and Judge Lance Ito behaved properly during the trial. In the call-back portion of this survey, respondents were queried as to whether they agreed with the not-guilty verdict and whether they believed the jury spent enough time in deliberations. They were also queried as to whether the Simpson trial would make them less or more likely to serve on a jury and whether television had made a difference in the outcome. Respondents were asked for their opinions on the criminal justice system in general and whether it was biased for or against Blacks. Background information on respondents in the initial survey includes voter registration status, political party, political orientation, education, age, sex, race, and family income. Age is the only demographic information provided in the call-back.
Curated
Children's Out-of-Court Statements: Effects of Hearsay on Jurors' Decisions in Sacramento County, California, and Maricopa County, Arizona, 1994-1997 (ICPSR 2791)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, California, Arizona
Time period: 1994-01-01--1997-01-01
The goal of this project was to investigate the effects of children's out-of-court hearsay statements on jurors' perceptions of witness credibility and defendant guilt. To accomplish this goal, three studies were conducted. The studies represented a series of increasingly ecologically valid investigations: mock jurors' perceptions of children's live and hearsay statements about a mock crime (Study 1), mock jurors' perceptions of real child sexual abuse victims' hearsay statements (Study 2), and actual jurors' perceptions of real child sexual abuse victims' hearsay statements (Study 3). In these contexts, "hearsay statements" are the repetition of a child's out-of-court statements in a court trial, either via a videotaped recording of the child's testimony in a forensic interview with a social worker or as described by an adult (the social worker or a police officer) who interviewed the child. The three studies permitted researchers to examine factors that jurors use to evaluate the reliability of children's hearsay evidence. The mock crime in Study 1 was touching the child on the stomach, nose, or neck. Jurors were instructed to consider those acts as if they were battery against a child. In Study 1, elaborate mock trials concerning the above mock crime were conducted under three trial conditions: (1) the child testified live in court, (2) a videotape of a simulated forensic interview with the child was presented, or (3) adult hearsay was presented (i.e., a social worker testified about what the child had said in the simulated forensic interview). A total of 370 mock jurors participated in Study 1, which was conducted in Sacramento County, California. In Study 2, videotapes of actual forensic interviews from real child sexual abuse cases were incorporated into mock trials instead of having live child testimony. The last two trial conditions in Study 2 were the same as those for Study 1, except that a police officer provided the adult hearsay testimony instead of a social worker. For Study 2, 170 mock jurors served on 15 main juries, which were held in Sacramento County, California. For both Studies 1 and 2, pre- and post-deliberation questionnaires were completed by mock jurors to ascertain their views on the credibility of the child and adult testimonies, the importance of various pieces of evidence, and the guilt of the defendant. Demographic questionnaires were also filled out before the mock trials. In Study 3, real jurors from actual child sexual abuse trials were surveyed regarding their judgments of child and adult testimonies. The three trial conditions that were present in Studies 1 and 2 (live child testimony, videotaped testimony, and adult hearsay testimony) were also experienced by the Study 3 participants. These jurors also indicated the importance of various types of evidence and provided demographic data. A total of 248 jurors representing 43 juries from Sacramento County, California, and Maricopa County, Arizona, participated in Study 3. This collection includes aggregated data prepared from the Study 3 data to provide mean values for each of the 42 juries, as calculated from the individual juror responses. Data for one jury were eliminated from the aggregated data by the principal investigators. Variables from the demographic questionnaire for Studies 1 and 2 include trial condition, respondent's age, gender, marital status, occupation, ethnic background, religious orientation, and highest grade attained in school, if 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.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Improving Juror Comprehension of Forensic Testimony and Its Effects on Decision-Making and Evidence Evaluation, United States, 2020 (ICPSR 39002)
Released/updated on: 2025-02-13
Geographic coverage: United States
Forensic science plays a vital role in the prosecution of criminal matters. Jurors, however, struggle with understanding both the science and statistics that underlie such testimony. Prior research on the effectiveness of jury instructions in training jurors to understand science and scientific testimony has been split, with some studies finding a beneficial effect, some finding no effect, and some finding that they cause jurors to be skeptical even of high-quality testimony. Here, investigators sought to empirically test the effectiveness of an instructional video at improving jurors' ability to detect low-quality forensic testimony. For the purposes of this study, testimony quality was defined based on the Department of Justice's Uniform Language for Testimony and Reports (DOJ ULTR).
The Gender Effects Paper Study Data made available through ICPSR includes data from the Main Study and a second pilot study conducted by researchers. These data were compiled to examine the impact of a forensic expert's gender on jurors' assessments of the quality of the expert's testimony.
There are two additional datasets associated with this study:
- Main Study: Dataset contains survey results from a sample of 509 jury-eligible U.S adults who participated in the Main Study.
- Pilot Study: Dataset contains survey results from a sample of 229 jury-eligible university undergraduates who completed the Pilot Study.
Curated
Juror Discussions About Evidence, 1997-1998: [Arizona] (ICPSR 2687)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Arizona
Time period: 1997-06-15--1998-01-31
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.
Curated
Jurors' Judgments About Forensic Identification Evidence, Arizona, 2011-2014 (ICPSR 36169)
Released/updated on: 2021-08-31
Geographic coverage: United States, Arizona
This data file describes three different experiments that were designed to examine how differences in the way forensic scientific evidence is communicated affects jurors.
In each experiment, participants consisted of jury-eligible community members in Maricopa County, Arizona. Groups of participants attended a research session in which they were shown a 35-40-minute videotapes of one of two mock criminal trials (one, a rape case, centers around bitemark evidence, and the other, an attempted murder, centers around fingerprint evidence). Within each trial the content of a forensic scientist's testimony was manipulated. These manipulations involved: 1) whether the technique used by the forensic scientist was "high tech" or "low tech," 2) the amount of experience possessed by the forensic scientist, 3) whether the technique used by the forensic scientist had been scientifically validated, 4) whether the forensic scientist conceded that an error was possible, and 5) whether any exculpatory evidence was present at the crime scene.
Immediately following the trial, each individual participants completed a questionnaire in which they gave their individual impressions of the strength of the case. Following that, the group of participant would deliberate and attempt to reach a unanimous verdict. Finally, each individual participant completed an additional questionnaire that again measured perceptions of the case along with individual difference measures and demographics.
Curated
Jury and Democracy Project (ICPSR 32801)
Released/updated on: 2016-05-11
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Seattle, United States, Texas, Colorado, Louisiana, Ohio, Washington, Nebraska
Time period: 1994-01-01--2004-01-01, 2004-01-01--2005-01-01
The Jury and Democracy Project aims to understand the impact that jury service has on citizens. Until recently, no direct empirical evidence regarding the link between jury service and public engagement existed. The Jury and Democracy Project has produced such data. This study consists of two datasets. Part 1, the National Jury Archival Data, consists of a merger of jury and voting records from 1994-2004 in Boulder County (Colorado), Cumberland and Swain Counties (North Carolina), Douglas County (Nebraska), El Paso County (Texas), Orleans Parish (Louisiana), Summit County (Ohio), and Thurston County (Washington). Part 1 includes information regarding seriousness and type of charges, duration of trial and trial information, county and juror information, juror role and voter information, and basic demographic information such as sex, age, political affiliation, and race. Part 2, the King County Survey Data, includes three waves of panel survey data collected from Washington state's King County Court and the Seattle Municipal Courthouse during 2004-2005. In Wave 1 all jurors in King County Court and Seattle Municipal Courthouse received the same survey which collected data on pre-service attitudes, demographics, and past jury duty service and behavior characteristics. Wave 2 consisted of two surveys: (1) King County Court jurors were surveyed on jury duty service experience and treatment, as well as jury selection, court and government efficacy, and citizen responsibility; (2) Seattle Municipal Courthouse jurors were surveyed on the same variables as the King County juror survey, as well as jury deliberation issues. Wave 3 also consisted of two surveys: (1) King County and Seattle Municipal Court jurors were surveyed on their involvement in politics and public affairs, participation in the local community, reflections on jury service, and political views; (2) an additional Wave 3 survey was given to a control replacement sample, which collected data on politics and public life, as well as involvement in politics and public affairs, participation in the local community, the political process, jury service, and demographic characteristics such as sex, race, age, and education level.
Curated
Jury Verdicts Database for Cook County, Illinois, and All Counties in California, 1960-1984 (ICPSR 6232)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
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.
Curated
Multnomah County [Oregon] Jury Project, 1973-1976 (ICPSR 9030)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, Portland (Oregon)
Time period: 1973-07-01--1976-03-01
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.
Curated
State Court Organization, 1998: [United States] (ICPSR 2854)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
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.
Curated
State Court Organizations, 2004 [United States] (ICPSR 4575)
Released/updated on: 2006-10-30
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, United States
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.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
State Court Organization Trends, United States, 1980-2011 (ICPSR 37196)
Released/updated on: 2019-04-22
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1980-01-01--2011-01-01
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 and the District of Columbia within the United States for the years 1980, 1987, 1993, 1998, 2004, and 2011. 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.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
State Court Organization, United States, 2011 (ICPSR 37195)
Released/updated on: 2019-04-22
Geographic coverage: United States
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 and the District of Columbia in the United States for 2011. 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. These data are part of a related collection from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and U.S. Virgin Islands in the United States for the years 1980, 1987, 1993, 1998, and 2004.
In 2011, State Court Organization added new variables to the data collection process. The State Court Organization 2011 file contains the historical variables for 2011, as well as the new variables that were introduced in the 2004 collection. The new variables included data about the courts' information technology systems, including the functions of the court's IT staff, e-filing procedures, accessibility of court information through online systems, and the implementation of case management systems as a means of organizing and managing a court's caseload. The data are reported for trial and appellate courts.
The SCO Trial Court Level Data 2011 file includes a subset of the State Court Organization 2011 file, but only for trial level courts. Some variables in the State Court Organization 2011 file were recoded in the Trial Court Level Data 2011 file.
Curated
Testing the Effects of Selected Jury Trial Innovations on Juries' Comprehension of DNA Evidence in New Castle County, Delaware, 2003 (ICPSR 4356)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-06
Geographic coverage: United States, Delaware
Time period: 2003-10-14--2003-12-16
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.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Washington Post Mayor Barry Verdict Poll, August 1990 (ICPSR 9555)
Released/updated on: 2015-05-05
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States
This data collection focuses on issues related to the verdict in District of Columbia's mayor Marion Barry's trial. Respondents were asked if they thought Barry had received a fair trial, if the jury had done a good job, and if the federal government's investigation that led to Barry's indictment was racially motivated. They were also asked if they thought the news coverage of the Barry case had been generally fair, if the trial increased or decreased racial tensions in the District, and if Barry should have to serve some time in jail. Other questions investigated opinions on whether Barry should run for mayor or city council, whether he should be re-tried on some of the charges that the jury could not reach a verdict on, whether he should resign, and whether United States Attorney Jay Stephens should resign. Demographic variables include information on respondents' registered voter status, section of residence in the District, age, education, race, sex, and income.
Curated
Washington Post O.J. Simpson Verdict Poll, October 1995 (ICPSR 6679)
Released/updated on: 1998-05-20
Geographic coverage: United States
This special topic poll sought respondents' views on the O.J. Simpson murder trial verdict and its effect on race relations in the United States. Respondents were asked for their opinions regarding the trial's verdict, the guilt or innocence of Simpson, whether justice was served in the case, and the treatment of minorities in the criminal justice system. Those queried were asked to comment on how the trial's verdict had affected race relations in the United States and the respondents' confidence in the justice system. Questions were also posed regarding the composition of the jury, specifically the aptitude of the jury and how the verdict would change if the demographics of the jury were altered. Other topics covered current racism versus ten years ago, race and the police, the role of Detective Mark Furhman in the Simpson case, the existence of a white establishment, and the possibility that Black jurors used Simpson's race as a justification for acquittal. Demographic variables include age, race, sex, education, family income, and social class.