Showing 1 – 2 of 2 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
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.