Showing 1 – 5 of 5 results.
Curated
Evaluation of Hung Juries in Bronx County, New York, Los Angeles County, California, Maricopa County, Arizona, and Washington, DC, 2000-2001 (ICPSR 3689)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Washington, DC, California, New York (state), Arizona
Time period: 2000-01-01--2001-01-01
This study was undertaken for the purpose of providing an empirical picture of hung juries. Researchers were able to secure the cooperation of four courts: (1) Bronx County Supreme Court in New York, (2) Los Angeles County Superior Court in California, (3) Maricopa County Superior Court in Arizona, and (4) District of Columbia Superior Court in Washington, DC. The four sites were responsible for distributing and collecting questionnaire packets to all courtrooms hearing non-capital felony jury cases. Each packet contained a case data form requesting information about case characteristics (Part 1) and outcomes (Part 2), as well as survey questionnaires for the judges (Part 3), attorneys (Part 4), and jurors (Part 5). The case data form requested type of charge, sentence range, jury's decision, demographic information about the defendant(s) and the victim(s), voir dire (jury selection process), trial evidence and procedures, and jury deliberations. The judge questionnaire probed for evaluation of the evidence, case complexity, attorney skill, likelihood that the jury would hang, reaction to the verdict, opinions regarding the hung jury rate in the jurisdiction, and experience on the bench. The attorney questionnaire requested information assessing the voir dire, case complexity, attorney skill, evaluation of the evidence, reaction to the verdict, opinions regarding the hung jury rate in the jurisdiction, and experience in legal practice. If the jury hung, attorneys also provided their views about why the jury was unable to reach a verdict. Finally, the juror questionnaire requested responses regarding case complexity, attorney skill, evaluation of the evidence, formation of opinions, dynamics of the deliberations including the first and final votes, juror participation, conflict, reaction to the verdict, opinions about applicable law, assessment of criminal justice in the community, and demographic information.
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
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
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.