Advertisement

Legal Consciousness in Action: Lay People and Accountability in the Jury Room

  • Matthew P. FoxEmail author
Article
  • 18 Downloads

Abstract

This paper argues that lay people’s legal consciousness, defined as how they experience and interpret the law and legal meanings, can be studied by observing natural conversation. It proposes a framework that analyzes the contexts when law is invoked to account for social behavior, which enables examination of individuals’ perceptions of law through their utilization of and reactions to it. This framework is applied to recordings of a jury deliberation, an ideal setting due to its institutionally-controlled conditions. The analysis demonstrates that jurors wield law as a conversational resource to create distinctions between legitimate and illegitimate conduct based upon their endogenous understandings of these boundaries. The invocation of law is an important element of the deliberation because it permits jurors to enforce these distinctions and understand their completed duties as aligning with the legal system’s ideals. This paper also discusses the ability of this framework to study the law’s influence in other social institutions, as well as those institutions’ own “consciousness.”

Keywords

Accounts Conversational resource Decision-making Jury deliberation Legal consciousness Legal invocation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am particularly indebted to Steven Clayman for insights provided through his close reading of several earlier drafts of this paper. Additionally, I would like to thank Christopher Erickson, Yu-Hui Lee Fox, David Gibson, John Heritage, Jack Katz, Máximo Langer, Gabriel Rossman, Lynne Zucker, the five anonymous Qualitative Sociology reviewers along with Editor-in-Chief David Smilde for their helpful comments.

References

  1. Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896).Google Scholar
  2. Alvarez, Mauricio J., Miller, Monica K., and Brian H. Bornstein. 2016. It will be your duty...: The psychology of criminal jury instructions. In Advances in Psychology and Law, eds. Mauricio Miller and Brian Bornstein, 119–158. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson, J. Maxwell. 1971. Societal reactions to suicide: The role of coroners. In Images of deviance, ed. Stanley Cohen, 165–191. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, W. Lance. 1978. Storytelling in criminal trials: A model of social judgment. The Quarterly Journal of Speech 64 (1): 1–22.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, W. Lance, and Martha S. Feldman. 1981. Reconstructing reality in the courtroom: Justice and judgment in American culture. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bittner, Egon. 1967a. The police on skid-row: A study of peace keeping. American Sociological Review 32 (5): 699–715.Google Scholar
  7. Bittner, Egon. 1967b. Police discretion in emergency apprehension of mentally ill persons. Social Problems 14 (3): 278–292.Google Scholar
  8. Devine, Dennis J. 2012. Jury decision making: The state of the science. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Devine, Dennis J., Laura D. Clayton, Benjamin B. Dunford, Rasmy Seying, and Jennifer Pryce. 2001. Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 7 (3): 622–727.Google Scholar
  10. Diamond, Shari S., Neil Vidmar, Mary Rose, Leslie Ellis, and Beth Murphy. 2003. Juror discussions during civil trials: Studying an Arizona innovation. Arizona Law Review 45 (1): 1–81.Google Scholar
  11. Diamond, Shari S., Neil Vidmar, Mary Rose, Leslie Ellis, and Beth Murphy. 2003-2004. Inside the jury room: Evaluating juror discussions during trial. Judicature 87 (2): 54–58.Google Scholar
  12. Drew, Paul, and John Heritage. 1992. Talk at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Ewick, Patricia. 2015. Law and everyday life. In International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, ed. James Wright, vol. 13, 2nd ed., 726–733. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  14. Ewick, Patricia, and Susan S. Silbey. 1998. The common place of law: Stories from everyday life. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
  16. Gastil, John, Stephanie Burkhalter, and Laura W. Black. 2007. Do juries deliberate? A study of deliberation, individual difference, and group member satisfaction in a municipal courthouse. Small Group Research 38 (3): 337–359.Google Scholar
  17. Gibson, David R. 2011. Avoiding catastrophe: The interactional production of possibility during the Cuban missile crisis. American Journal of Sociology 117 (2): 361–419.Google Scholar
  18. Gibson, David R. 2016. The habits of normal, innocent people (NIPS), as construed by the north American juror. Symbolic Interaction 39 (3): 397–420.Google Scholar
  19. Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  20. Glenn, Phillip J. 1991/1992. Current speaker initiation of two-party shared laughter. Research on Language & Social Interaction 25: 139–162.Google Scholar
  21. Hans, Valerie P. 2001. Inside the black box: Comment on Diamond and Vidmar. Virginia Law Review 87 (8): 1917–1932.Google Scholar
  22. Heller, Kevin. 2009. The cognitive psychology of mens rea. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 99 (2): 317–379.Google Scholar
  23. Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  24. Heritage, John. 2012a. Epistemics in conversation. In The handbook of conversation analysis, eds. Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 370–394. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  25. Heritage, John. 2012b. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (1): 1–29.Google Scholar
  26. Heritage, John, and Steven Clayman. 2010. Talk in action: Interactions, identities, and institutions. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  27. Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond. 2005. The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 68 (1): 15–38.Google Scholar
  28. Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond. 2012. Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives, ed. J.P. de Ruiter, 179–192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Heuer, Larry, and Steven D. Penrod. 1989. Instructing jurors: A field experiment with written and preliminary instructions. Law and Human Behavior 13 (4): 409–430.Google Scholar
  30. Holstein, James A. 1983. Jurors', use of judges', instructions: Conceptual and methodological issues for simulated jury studies. Sociological Methods & Research 11 (4): 501–518.Google Scholar
  31. Holstein, James A. 1985. Jurors’ interpretations and jury decision making. Law and Human Behavior 9 (1): 83–100.Google Scholar
  32. Holstein, James A. 1993. Court-ordered insanity: Interpretive practice and involuntary commitment. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  33. Horowitz, Irwin A. 2008. Jury nullification. In Encyclopedia of psychology and law, ed. Brian L. Cutler, vol. 1, 412–415. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Jefferson, Gail. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, ed. Gene H. Lerner, 13–23. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  35. Jerolmack, Colin, and Shamus Khan. 2014. Talk is cheap: Ethnography and the attitudinal fallacy. Sociological Methods & Research 43 (2): 178–209.Google Scholar
  36. Kessler, Joan B. 1975. The social psychology of jury deliberations. In The jury system in America: A critical overview, ed. Rita J. Simon, 68–93. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  37. Kotthoff, Helga. 1993. Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context sensitivity of preference structures. Language in Society 22 (2): 193–216.Google Scholar
  38. LaFave, Wayne R. 2003. Criminal Law (4th edition). St. Paul: Thomson-West.Google Scholar
  39. Lieberman, Joseph D., and Bruce D. Sales. 1997. What social science teaches us about the jury instruction process. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 3 (4): 589–644.Google Scholar
  40. Manzo, John F. 1993. Jurors’ narratives of personal experience in deliberation talk. Text 13 (2): 267–290.Google Scholar
  41. Manzo, John F. 1994. “You wouldn’t take a seven-year old and ask him all these questions”: Jurors’ use of practical reasoning in supporting their arguments. Law & Social Inquiry 19: 639–663.Google Scholar
  42. Maynard, Douglas W., and John F. Manzo. 1993. On the sociology of justice: Theoretical notes from an actual jury deliberation. Sociological Theory 11 (2): 171–193.Google Scholar
  43. McGowan, Laura. 2005. Trial by jury: Still a lamp in the dark? The Journal of Criminal Law 69 (6): 518–534.Google Scholar
  44. McKnight, Aaron. 2013. Jury nullification as a tool to balance the demands of law and justice. BYU Law Review (4): 1103–1132.Google Scholar
  45. Merry, Sally E. 1985. Concepts of law and justice among working-class Americans: Ideology as culture. Legal Studies Forum 9 (1): 59–69.Google Scholar
  46. Mezey, Naomi. 2001. Out of the ordinary: Law, power, culture, and the commonplace. Law & Social Inquiry 26 (1): 145–167.Google Scholar
  47. Niedermeier, Keith E., Irwin A. Horowitz, and Norbert L. Kerr. 1999. Informing jurors of their nullification power: A route to a just verdict or judicial chaos? Law and Human Behavior 23 (3): 331–351.Google Scholar
  48. Pennington, Nancy, and Reid Hastie. 1991-1992. A cognitive theory of juror decision making: The story model. Cardozo Law Review 13: 519–557.Google Scholar
  49. Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, eds. J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Pomerantz, Anita, and John Heritage. 2012. Preference. In The handbook of conversation analysis, eds. Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 210–228. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  51. Raymond, Geoffrey. 2003. Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68: 939–967.Google Scholar
  52. Rideout, J. Christopher. 2008. Storytelling, narrative rationality, and legal persuasion. The Journal of the Legal Writing Institute 14: 53–86.Google Scholar
  53. Sacks, Harvey. 1972. Notes on police assessment of moral character. In Studies in social interaction, ed. David Sudnow, 280–293. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  54. Sacks, Harvey, and Gail Jefferson. 1992. Lectures on conversation (two volumes). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  55. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50 (4): 696–735.Google Scholar
  56. Sacks, Harvey, and Emanuel A. Schegloff. 1979. Two preferences in the organization of references to persons in conversation and their interaction. In Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, ed. George Psathas, 15–21. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
  57. Sarat, Austin. 1985. Legal effectiveness and social studies of law: On the unfortunate persistence of a research tradition. Legal Studies Forum 9 (1): 23–32.Google Scholar
  58. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1987. Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly 50 (2): 101–114.Google Scholar
  59. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interactions: A partial sketch of a systematics. In Studies in anaphora, ed. Barbara A. Fox, 437–485. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  60. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Scott, Marvin B., and Stanford M. Lyman. 1968. Accounts. American Sociological Review 33 (1): 46–62.Google Scholar
  62. Sidnell, Jack. 2010. Conversation analysis: An introduction. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  63. Silbey, Susan S. 2005. After legal consciousness. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 1 (1): 323–368.Google Scholar
  64. Silbey, Susan S. 2015. Legal culture and legal consciousness. In International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, ed. James Wright, vol. 13, 2nd ed., 468–473. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  65. Sparf and Hansen v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895).Google Scholar
  66. Stivers, Tanya. 2010. An overview of the question-response system in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2772–2781.Google Scholar
  67. Sudnow, David. 1964. Normal crimes: Sociological features of the penal code in a public defender office. Social Problems 12: 255–276.Google Scholar
  68. Tatalovich, Anne. 2007. How civil juries really decide cases: Lessons from an empirical study of actual jury deliberations. Researching Law 18 (2): 1–11.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations