Jury Size and Composition: An Economic Approach

  • Alvin K. Klevorick
Part of the International Economic Association Conference Volumes book series (IEA)


The facilities and processes that governments provide for resolving legal disputes constitute an important public service. For the resolution of some of these disputes, society turns to a body of laymen—a jury. In considering the fury as a conflict-resolving instrument, several interrelated questions arise concerning the jury’s size, the way its members are selected, and the voting rule that it uses in reaching its decision. This paper presents a theoretical structure to help address these questions. The model, which uses a statistical decision-theoretic framework, is then used to examine the specific issue of how ‘representative’ a jury should be.


Criminal Justice System Reasonable Doubt Innocent Defendant Stochastic Interaction Jury Selection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beiser, E. N., ‘The Trial Jury: Empirical and Normative Considerations’ (paper delivered at the 1973 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, 4–8 Sep 1973).Google Scholar
  2. Broeder, D. W., ‘The Functions of the Jury: Facts or Fictions?’, University of Chicago Law Review, XXI (1954), p. 386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Erlanger, H. S., ‘Jury Research in America; Its Past and Future’, Law and Society Review, IV (1970), p. 345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Finkelstein, M. O., ‘The Application of Statistical Decision Theory to the Jury Discrimination Cases’, Harvard Law Review, LXXX (1966), p. 338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Finkelstein, M. O., and Fairley, W. B., ‘A Bayesian Approach to Identification Evidence’, Harvard Law Review, LXXXIII (1970), p. 489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Finkelstein, M. O., and Fairley, W. B., ‘A Comment on “Trial by Mathematics” ‘, Harvard Law Review, LXXXIV (1971), p. 1801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gelfand, A. E., and Solomon, H., ‘A Study of Poisson’s Models for Jury Verdicts in Criminal and Civil Trials’, Journal of the American Statistical Association, LXVIII (1973), p. 271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goldstein, A. S., Book Review, Law and Society Review, I (1967), p. 148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Himelrick, R. G., ‘Federal Courts—Juror Selection—Under-Representation of Young Adults on Juror Source Lists’, Wayne Law Review, XIX (1973), p. 1287.Google Scholar
  10. Johnson, N., and Kotz, S., Distributions in Statistics: Continuous Multivariate Distributions (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1972).Google Scholar
  11. Kalven, H., and Zeisel, H., The American Jury (Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown and Co., 1966).Google Scholar
  12. Kessler, J. B., ‘An Empirical Study of Six- and Twelve-Member Jury Decision-Making Processes’, University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, VI (1973), p. 712.Google Scholar
  13. Martin, D. L., ‘The Economics of Jury Conscription’, Journal of Political Economv, LXXX (1972), p. 680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mills, L. R., ‘Six-Member and Twelve-Member Juries: An Empirical Study of Trial Results’, University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, VI (1973), p. 671.Google Scholar
  15. Posner, R. A., ‘An Economic Approach to Legal Procedure and Judicial Administration’, Journal of Legal Studies, II (1973), p. 399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Powell, D. M., ‘Reducing the Size of Juries’, University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, V (1971), p. 87.Google Scholar
  17. Raiffa, H., Decision Analysis. Introductory Lectures on Choices under Uncertainty (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968).Google Scholar
  18. Schulman, J., Shaver, P., Colman, R., Emrich, B., and Christie, R., ‘Recipe for a Jury’, Psychology Today, VI (1973), p. 37.Google Scholar
  19. Sealy, A. P, and Cornish, W. R., ‘Jurors and their Verdicts’, Modern Law Review, XXXVI (1973), p. 496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stigler, G. J., ‘Optimum Enforcement of Laws’, Journal of Political Economy, LXXVIII (1970), p. 526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tribe, L. H., ‘A Further Critique of Mathematical Proof, Harvard Law Review, LXXXIV (1971), p. 1810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tribe, L. H., ‘Trial by Mathematics: Precision and Ritual in the Legal Process’, Harvard Law Review, LXXXIV (1971), p. 1329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Von Neumann, J., and Morgenstern, O., Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1947).Google Scholar
  24. Walbert, D. F., ‘The Effect of Jury Size on the Probability of Conviction: An Evaluation of Williams v. Florida’, Case-Western Reserve Law Review, XXII (1971). p. 529.Google Scholar
  25. Wellington, H. H., ‘Common Law Rules and Constitutional Double Standards: Some Notes on Adjudication’, Yale Law Journal LXXXIII (1973), p. 221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Winter, R. K., Jr. ‘The Jury and the Risk of Nonpersuasion’, Law and Society Review, V (1971), p. 335.Google Scholar
  27. Zeisel, H., ‘… And Then There Were None: The Diminution of the Federal Jury’, University of Chicago Law Review, XXXVIII (1971), p. 710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zeisel, H., Six-Man Juries, Majority Verdicts—What Difference Do They Make?, Occasional Papers from the Law School, University of Chicago (1972).Google Scholar
  29. Zeisel, H., ‘The Waning of the American Jury’, American Bar Association Journal, LVIII (1972), p. 367.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Economic Association 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alvin K. Klevorick
    • 1
  1. 1.Yale UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations