Juries and Jurors

In order to understand how juries work, the writer needs to understand how jurors make decisions and how those decisions affect the jury as a whole. Most juries follow the same basic decision-making framework of (1) presentation of issues, (2) clarify questions and gather input, (3) proposal, (4) test for consensus, (5) deliberate again to attempt a compromise, (6) test for consensus (Bressen, 2009). Writers can use this framework to show how a jury successfully or unsuccessfully reaches a decision in their writing.

There are two main theories, which are very relevant to understanding these decisions: source credibility theory and the functional theory of group decision‐making.

Source Credibility Theory

Source credibility theory is the theory that the credibility of the source has a direct impact on the persuasiveness of a message on a receiver (Brodsky, Griffin, & Cramer, 2010). In the case of jury trials, source credibility would be applied as witness credibility in relation to the testimony that the jury hears as a part of the trial. Source credibility theory tends to be applied most to expert witnesses that testify with the purpose of either educating or providing the jury with some form of scientific or professional data. However, it can also be applied to the testimony presented by the prosecution and the defense. For example, in a criminal trial, the member of the jury would evaluate the credibility of any witnesses to the crime, the victim, and the defendant. Since both the prosecution and the defense can call upon expert witnesses that can have opposing views, source credibility is the main factor of determination for which view the jury will believe (Brodsky, Griffin, & Cramer, 2010). In this way, source credibility has a direct impact on the way in which a jury will reach a consensus as the credibility of the expert witness will factor into jury deliberations. Swenson, Nash, and Roos (1984) found that jurors perceived people with higher experience levels as credible witnesses, which parallels the findings of Mondak (1990) that when participants were undecided, they relied on source credibility as a determinant of the decision.

Functional Theory of Group Decision‐Making

The functional theory of group decision‐making explains the relationship between competently performed communication and the quality of group decisions (Cragan & Wright, 1993). Functional theory states that there are four main functions that are needed for group decision making. These four functions are: understanding the problem, assessing the requirements for an acceptable choice, assessing the positive consequences, and assessing the negative consequences of the alternative choices. For a jury, a good decision-making process using these four functions would include the jury understanding the case, assessing the requirements of the choices available to them, assessing the positive outcomes, and assessing the alternative negative outcomes of the case. Jury deliberation is essentially small group decision making, which makes these four functions important to writers as they can be used to explain how and why the jury made either a good decision or a bad decision.

Reaching a Consensus

When it comes to actually reaching a consensus, Bornstein and Greene (2011) found that jurors tend to focus on the relevant evidence, make use of their collective memory of trial-related information, and sanction members who attempt to add personal or irrelevant legal information to the jury’s deliberations during their attempt to reach a consensus. The creation of consensus begins with the jury members evaluating the conflicting claims that the defense and prosecution presented; then the jury works to construct a narrative framework, which provides a plausible interpretation of the evidence (Pennington & Hastie, 1992). During this process, different jury members will often offer different interpretations of the evidence, which the other members will consider and work to reconcile the different perspectives until they either reach a consensus or fail to be able to. The writer can use this portion of time to present different viewpoints of what occurred and have the different members of the jury comment on the interpretations.

References

Bornstein, B. H., & Greene, E. (2011). Jury decision making: implications for and from    psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(1), 63–67. https://doi-

org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/10.1177/0963721410397282

Bressen, T. (2009).Consensus Decision Making. In P. Holman, T. Devane, & S. Cady (Eds.),

The Change Handbook: The Definitive Resource on Today's Best Methods for Engaging Whole Systems (212-217). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Brodsky, S. L., Griffin, M. P., & Cramer, R. J. (2010). The Witness Credibility Scale: An

outcome measure for expert witness research. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 6, 892. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.bsclw28.62&site=eds-live&scope=site

Cragan, J. F., & Wright, D. W. (1993). The functional theory of small group decision-making: a

replication. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 8(6), 165–174. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=1994-13292-001&site=eds-live&scope=site

Flynn, L. J. (1977). Does justice fail when the jury is

deadlocked? Judicature, 61(3), 129–134. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=SM046839&site=eds-live&scope=site

Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown & Company.

Mondak, J. J. (1990). Perceived legitimacy of Supreme Court decisions: three functions of

source credibility. Political Behavior, 12, 363 – 384.

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

Swenson, R. A., Nash, D. L., & Roos, D. C. (1984). Sourced credibility and perceived expertness

of testimony in a simulated child custody case. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 15, 891 – 898.