Prediction of first ballot mock jury votes by the Analytic Juror Rater
- 39 Downloads
Two scales of Abbott's (1987) Analytic Juror Rater (AJR) were used with 24 mock jurors to predict first ballot mock jury votes. Each participant observed one of two mock trial proceedings involving an actual second degree murder case. In a moot courtroom, they heard arguments from attorneys and witnessed examination of the defendant and actors portraying witnesses. The Cosmopolitan Lifestyle Scale of the AJR successfully predicted first ballot votes of participants (p<.02), while the Non-Authoritarian Scale showed a non-significant trend in the hypothesized direction. It was concluded that, in cases where evidence is not strong, the AJR may lend modest assistance to the attorney using peremptory challenge to eliminatevenire members who may be biased against a defendant.
KeywordsGeneral Social Survey Criminal Psychology Mock Juror Closed Circuit Television Final Verdict
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Abbott, W. F. (1987).Analytic Juror Rater. Philadelphia: American Law Institute.Google Scholar
- Filkins, J. W., Smith, C. M., & Tindale, R. S. (1998). An evaluation of the biasing effects of death qualification: A meta-analytic/computer simulation approach. In T. S. Tindale & L. Heath (Eds.),Theory and Research on Small Groups: Social Psychological Applications to Social Issues, Vol. 4. New York: Plenum Press, pp 153–175.Google Scholar
- Kalven, H. & Zelsel, H. (1966).The American Jury. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
- Mauet, T. A. (1996).Trial Techniques (4th Ed.). New York: Aspen Law Business.Google Scholar
- Mertz, R., Miller, G., & Balance, L. (1966). Open- and closed-mindedness and cognitive conflict.Journalism Quarterly, 43, 429–433.Google Scholar
- Saks, M. (1976). Social scientists can't rig juries.Psychology Today, 9, 48–50, 55–57.Google Scholar
- Snortum, R.J., & Ashear, V.H. (1972). Prejudice, punitiveness, and personality.Journal of Personality Assessment, 36, 292–296.Google Scholar