Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Questions About the Jury: What Trial Consultants Should Know About Jury Decision Making

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Trial Consulting

Abstract

The jury is one of the most widely studied areas within the psycholegal discipline. Dating from the time of Hugo Munsterberg in 1908, when he provided one of the first critical reflections on the jury in his book On the Witness Stand, the sheer volume of jury research produced in the USA and around the world has provided great insight into the means by which jurors make decisions. Researchers have conducted studies on such diverse topics as jurors’ use of inadmissible evidence (Cook, Arndt, & Lieberman, 2004; Kassin & Sommers, 1997; London & Nunez, 2000), the influence of complex trial testimony (Horowitz, ForsterLee, & Brolly, 1996; Worthington, Stallard, Price, & Goss, 2002), the impact of expert witnesses on jury verdicts (Cooper, Bennett, & Sukel, 1996; Kovera, McAuliff, & Hebert, 1999; Shuller, Terry, & McKimmie, 2005), and the role that victims play in swaying jury sentiments (ForsterLee, Fox, ForsterLee, & Ho, 2004; Myers & Greene, 2004), to name but a few research areas. Devine, Clayton, Dunford, Seying, and Pryce (2001) recently reviewed 206 distinguishable psycholegal studies that focused solely on deliberating mock jurors, covering areas like jury nullification, “juror-friendly” instructions, decision rules (whether jurors are allowed to reach a verdict without a group consensus), trial structure variations, and jury members’ personality traits, attitudes, and prior experiences. Although this chapter cannot possibly delve into all of the research devoted to the jury, we would like to highlight some of the useful knowledge gathered during the course of psycholegal research that has a direct bearing on trial consulting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. (1993). 24.1(c)(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldus, D., Pulasi, C., & Woodworth, G. (1983). Comparative review of death sentences: An empirical study of the Georgia experience. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 74, 661–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batson v. Kentucky. (1986). 476 U.S. 79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein, B. H. (1998). From compassion to compensation: The effect of injury severity on mock jurors’ liability judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1477–1502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein, B. H., & McCabe, S. G. (2005). Jurors of the absurd? The role of consequentiality in jury simulation research. Florida State University Law Review, 32, 443–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovbjerg, R., Sloan, F. A., & Blumstein, J. (1989). Valuing life and limb in tort: Scheduling ‘pain and suffering’. Northwestern Law Review, 83, 908–972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bray, R. M., & Noble, A. M. (1978). Authoritarianism and decisions of mock juries: Evidence of jury bias and group polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1424–1430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2000). Alternative sentencing guidelines. Retrieved January 23, 2009 from http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/2553/Sentencing-ALTERNATIVE-SENTENCING.html.

  • Cannon, D. (2008). Just where will flattery get you? Orange County Law Review, 50, 22–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, G. B., & Bornstein, B. H. (1996). The more you ask for, the more you get: Anchoring in personal injury verdicts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 519–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conlin, R. B., Cusimano, G. S., & Averbach, A. (2003). ATLA’s litigating tort cases. Eagan, MN: West Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, A., Arndt, A., & Lieberman, J. D. (2004). Firing back at the backfire effect: The influence of mortality salience and nullification beliefs on reactions to inadmissible evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 389–410.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, J., Bennett, E. A., & Sukel, H. L. (1996). Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions? Law and Human Behavior, 20, 379–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, C. L., Thompson, W. C., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1984). The effects of death qualification on jurors’ predisposition to convict and on the quality of deliberation. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 53–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Dunford, B. B., Seying, R., & Pryce, J. (2001). Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 622–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, S. S., & Casper, J. D. (1992). Blindfolding the jury to verdict consequences: Damages, experts, and the civil jury. Law & Society Review, 26, 513–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, S., Ellis, L., Saks, M. J., & Landsman, S. (2000, March). Ad damnums and caps: Assistance or merely influence? Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychology Law Society, New Orleans, LA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, S. S., & Zeisel, H. (1986). A courtroom experiment on juror selection and decision-making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1, 276–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, S. S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellsworth, P. C., & Mauro, R. (1998). Psychology and law. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual. (2008). (§ 4A1.3). Retrieved January 23, 2009 from http://www.ussc.gov/2008guid/4a1_3.htm.

  • ForsterLee, L., Fox, G. B., ForsterLee, R., & Ho, R. (2004). The effects of a victim impact statement and gender on juror information processing in a criminal trial: Does the punishment fit the crime? Australian Psychologist, 39, 57–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gobert, J., & Jordan, A. (1990). Jury selection: The law, art, and science of seleciting a jury (2nd ed.). Colorado Springs, CO: Shepard’s/McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, E. (1988). Judge’s instruction on eyewitness testimony: Evaluation and revision. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 252–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, E., & Bornstein, B. H. (2003). Determining damages: The psychology of jury awards. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, E., Chopra, S. R., Kovera, M. B., Penrod, S. D., Rose, V. G., Schuller, R., et al. (2002). Jurors and juries: A review of the field. In J. R. P. Ogloff (Ed.), Taking psychology and law into the twenty-first century (pp. 225–284). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, E., Johns, M., & Bowman, J. (1999). The effects of injury severity on jury negligence decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 675–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, E., Johns, M., & Smith, A. (2001). The effects of defendant conduct on jury damage awards. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 228–237.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, E. & Smith, A. (2002, March). Debiasing techniques: Reducing the impact of hindsight bias in civil jury trials. Paper presented at the meeting of the American-Psychology Law Society, Austin, TX.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, E., Woody, W. D., & Winter, R. (2000). Compensating plaintiffs and punishing defendants: Is bifurcation necessary? Law and Human Behavior, 24, 187–205.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, P. W., & Clayton, S. D. (1996). The effects of attorney presentation style, attorney gender, and juror gender on juror decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 533–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hans, V. P., & Lofquist, W. S. (1994). Perceptions of civil justice: The litigation crisis attitudes of civil jurors. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 12, 181–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, A. J., Evans, D. L., Wissler, R. L., Feehan, J. W., & Saks, M. J. (1997). Injuries, prior beliefs, and damage awards. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 15, 63–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, R., Schkade, D. A., & Payne, J. W. (1998). A study of juror and jury judgments in civil cases: Deciding liability for punitive damages. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 287–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hepburn, J. R. (1980). The objective reality of evidence and the utility of systematic jury selection. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 89–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, I. A. (1997). Reasonable doubt instructions: Commonsense justice and standard of proof. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 285–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, I. A., ForsterLee, L., & Brolly, I. (1996). Effects of trial complexity on decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 757–768.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, W. W., & Ricketts, W. A. (1980). A strategy for the measurement of homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality, 5, 357–372.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, T. L., Dienst, R. D., Efird, T. L., Mobley, B. D., Schroeder, D. A., Hout, A. D., et al. (1994). The violence attitudes scale (VAS). In L. VandeCreek, S. Knapp, & T. L. Jackson (Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice: A source book (Vol. 13, pp. 279–291). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press/Professional Resource Exchange.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • What is JuryVoice? (2011). JuryVoice. Retrieved January 18, 2011 from JuryVoice: http://www.juryvoice.com/default.aspx.

  • Kagehiro, D. K., & Stanton, W. C. (1985). Legal vs. quantified standards of proof. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 159–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, M. F., & Krupa, S. (1986). Severe penalties under the control of others can reduce guilt verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, M. F., & Miller, C. E. (1987). Group decision making and normative versus informational influence: Effect of type of issue and assigned decision rule. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 306–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, M. F., & Simon, R. I. (1972). Latitude of severity of sentencing options, race of the victim, and decisions of simulated jurors: Some issues arising from the “Algiers Motel” trial. Law and Society Review, 7, 87–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S. M., & Sommers, S. R. (1997). Inadmissible testimony, instructions to disregard, and the jury: Substantive versus procedural considerations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1046–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1983). The construction and validation of a juror bias scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 423–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, C. M., & Devine, D. J. (1999). Effects of reasonable doubt definition and inclusion of a lesser charge on jury verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 653–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kovera, M. B., McAuliff, B. D., & Hebert, K. S. (1999). Reasoning about scientific evidence: Effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 362–375.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, G. P., Kerr, N. L., & Carroll, J. S. (1990). Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies, and jury bias. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 409–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kravitz, D. A., Cutler, B. L., & Brock, P. (1993). Reliability and validity of the original and revised legal attitudes questionnaire. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 661–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landsman, S., Diamond, S., Dimitropolous, L., & Saks, M. J. (1998). Be careful what you wish for: The paradoxical effects of bifurcating claims for punitive damages. Wisconsin Law Review, 1998, 297–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lecci, L., & Myers, B. (2008). Individual differences in attitudes relevant to juror decision making: Development and validation of the pretrial juror attitude questionnaire (PJAQ). Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 2010–2038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leippe, M. R. (1985). The influence of eyewitness nonidentifications on mock-jurors’ judgments of a court case. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 656–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, J. (1992). Juries and politics. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockhart v. McCree. 476 U.S. 162 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  • London, K., & Nunez, N. (2000). The effect of jury deliberations on jurors’ propensity to disregard inadmissible evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 932–939.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, M., & Haney, C. (2000). Discrimination and instructional comprehension: Guided discretion, racial bias, and the death penalty. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 337–358.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism scale. In J.F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 91–125). San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCullough, G. W. (2007). Function of text structure in jurors’ comprehension and decision making. Psychological Reports, 101, 723–730.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, T. L., Haw, R. M., Pfeifer, J. E., & Meissner, C. A. (2005). Racial bias in mock juror decision-making: A meta-analytic review of defendant treatment. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 621–637.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Model Code of Professional Responsibility. (1980). DR 7-108(d). Retrieved January 23, 2009 from http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/mcpr.pdf.

  • Mott, N. L., Hans, V. P., & Simpson, L. (2000). What’s half a lung worth? Civil jurors’ accounts of their award decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 401–419.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Munsterberg, H. (1908). On the witness stand. New York: Clark Boardman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, B., & Greene, E. (2004). The prejudicial nature of victim impact statements: Implications for capital sentencing policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10, 492–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1981). Juror decision-making models: The generalization gap. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 246–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 242–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1988). Explanation-based decision making: Effects of memory structure on judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 521–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence: Tests of the story model for juror decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 189–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1993). Reasoning in explanation-based decision making. Cognition, 49, 123–163.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1993). The story model for juror decision making. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision making (pp. 192–221). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Posey, A. J., & Dahl, L. M. (2002). Beyond pretrial publicity: Legal and ethical issues associated with change of venue surveys. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 107–125.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Posey, A. J., & Wrightsman, S. L. (2005). Trial consulting. New York: Oxford University Press, American Psychology-Law Society Series.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pyszczynski, T., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1981). The effects of opening statements on mock jurors’ verdict in a simulated criminal trial. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11, 301–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ring v. Arizona, 536 US 584 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbennolt, J. K., & Studebaker, C. A. (1999). Anchoring in the courtroom: The effects of caps on punitive damages. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 353–373.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, B. L., & Melillo, L. S. (2006). Attitudes toward battered women who kill: Defendant typicality and judgments of culpability. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 219–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schkade, D. A., Sunstein, C. R., & Kahneman, D. (2000). Deliberating about dollars: The severity shift. Columbia Law Review, 100, 1139–1175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuller, R. A., & Yarmey, M. (2001). The jury: Deciding guilt and innocence. In J. R. P. Ogloff (Ed.), Introduction to psychology and law: Canadian perspectives (pp. 157–187). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuller, R. A., Terry, D., & McKimmie, B. (2005). The impact of expert testimony on jurors’ decisions: Gender of the expert and testimony complexity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 1266–1280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skolnick, P., & Shaw, J. I. (2001). A comparison of eyewitness and physical evidence on mock-juror decision making. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 614–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small Group Research (Professional Standards) (American Society of Trial Consultants). (2008). Received January 23, 2009 from: http://astcweb.org/content/File/AboutUs/ASTC_Code_SGR.pdf.

  • Spaeth, J. M. (1994). Post-trial juror interviews: An overlooked gem. Tucson: The WRIT Pima County Bar Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiecker, S. C., & Worthington, D. (2003). The influence of opening statement and closing argument organizational strategy on juror decision-making. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 437–456.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Strier, F. (1999). Whither trial consulting? issues and projections. Law and Human Behavior: Special Issue: The First 20 Years of Law and Human Behavior, 23, 93–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanford, S., & Penrod, S. (1986). Jury deliberations: Discussion content and influence processing in jury decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 322–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, T. S., & Hosch, H. M. (2004). An examination of jury verdicts for evidence of a similarity-leniency effect, an out-group punitiveness effect or a black sheep effect. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 587–598.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Trial Behavior Consulting. (2006). Frequently asked questions. Attorney and litigants. Retrieved August 23, 2006 from http://www.trialbehavior.com/pages/FAQ/cont1.htm.

  • Ugwuegbu, D. C. E. (1979). Racial and evidential factors in juror attribution of legal responsibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 133–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United States v. Biaggi. (1988). 853 F.2d 89.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v. McVeigh. (1996). 940 F. Supp. 1571, 1582.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v. Nichols. (1996). 169 F.3d 1255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidmar, N. (1972). Effects of decision alternatives on the verdicts and social perceptions of simulated jurors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22, 211–218.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vidmar, N., Lee, J., Cohen, E., & Stewart, A. (1994). Damage awards and jurors’ responsibility ascriptions in medical versus automobile negligence cases. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 12, 149–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voss, J. F., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2001). Narrative structure, information certainty, emotional content, and gender as factors in a pseudo jury decision making task. Discourse Processes, 32, 215–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, R. L., & Hurt, L. E. (1999). An interdisciplinary approach to understanding social sexual conduct at work. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 556–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, R. L., & Hurt, L. E. (2000). How do people evaluate social sexual conduct at work?: A psycholegal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 75–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, R. L., Rogers, M., Winter, R., Hurt, L., Hackney, A., Kadela, K., et al. (2004). Guided jury discretion in capital murder cases: The role of declarative and procedural knowledge. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10, 516–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. W., & Donnerstein, E. (1977). Guilty or not guilty? A look at the “simulated” jury paradigm. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wissler, R. L., Rector, K. A., & Saks, M. J. (2001). The impact of jury instructions on the fusion of liability and compensatory damages. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 125–139.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 US 510 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  • Worthington, D. L., Stallard, M. J., Price, J. M., & Goss, P. J. (2002). Hindsight bias, daubert, and the silicone breast implant litigation – making the case for court-appointed experts in complex medical and scientific litigation. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 8, 154–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yarbrough, S. L. (2001). The jury consultant: Friend or foe of justice. Southern Methodist Law Review, 54, 1885–1900.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeisel, H., & Diamond, S. S. (1978). The effect of preemptory challenges on jury and verdict: An experiment in a federal district court. Stanford Law Review, 30, 491–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Florida International University, Modesto A. Maidique Campus DM 25611200, SW 8th Street, Miami, FL, 33199, USA

    Ryan J. Winter

Authors
  1. Ryan J. Winter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Timothy Robicheaux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ryan J. Winter .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska/Lincoln, Burnett Hall 338, Lincoln, 68588-9296, Nebraska, USA

    Richard L. Wiener

  2. Dept. Psychology, University of Nebraska, Burnett Hall 335, Lincoln, 68588-0308, Nebraska, USA

    Brian H. Bornstein

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Winter, R.J., Robicheaux, T. (2011). Questions About the Jury: What Trial Consultants Should Know About Jury Decision Making. In: Wiener, R., Bornstein, B. (eds) Handbook of Trial Consulting. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7569-0_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation