Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mathematical Models of Juror and Jury Decision-Making

The State of the Art

  • Chapter
The Trial Process

Part of the book series: Perspectives in Law & Psychology ((PILP,volume 2))

Abstract

The jury is a remarkable example of the use of groups to make decisions. A jury is composed of untrained citizens, drawn randomly from the eligible population, convened briefly for a particular trial, entrusted with great official powers, permitted to deliberate in secret, to render a verdict without explanation, and without any accountability then or ever, to return to private life. In that such a firm institution is composed of such fluid members, and that these ordinary citizens judge criminal responsibility in place of professional agents of the state, the jury is a unique political institution. More than representative legislatures and popularly elected executives, it is the jury that characterizes democratic political systems. (Saks, 1977, p. 6)

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 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

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Auchumuty, G. & Grofman, B. Some theorems on optimal jury rules. Unpublished manuscript Department of Political Science, State University of New York at Stony Brook, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asch, S. E. Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 1956, 70, 1–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Badger, W. Political individualism, positional preferences, and optimal decision rules. In R. Nierai & H. Weisberg (Eds.), Probability Models of collective decision-making. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barton, A. H. Personal communication, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, D. The theory of committees and elections. London: Cambridge University Press, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloomstein, M. J. Verdict: The jury system. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bray, R. M. The mock trial: Problems and prospects for jury research. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., September 3, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bray, R. M., & Struckman-Johnson, L. Effects of juror population, assigned decision rule and insurance on the decisions of simulated juries. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., September 3, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broeder, D. W. The functions of the jury: Facts or fictions? University of Chicago Law Review, 1954, 21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, B. Conflict and conformity, Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, B., & Lee, H. Convlict, conformity, and social status. New York: Elsevier, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. Introduction to mathematical sociology. New York: Free Press, 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  • Condorcet, N. C. de. Essai sur l’application de l’analyse d la probabilité des décisions rendues d lapluralité des voix. Paris: 1785.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coombs, C. A theory of data. New York: John Wiley, 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coombs, C. H., Dawes, R. M., & Tversky, A. Mathematical psychology: An elemenatary introduction. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, R. Decision rules and collective values in constitutional choice. In R. Niemi & H. Weisberg (Eds.), Probability models of collective decision making. Colombus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. H. Group Decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review, 1973, 80, 97–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. H., Kerr, N., Sussman, M., & Rissman, A. Social decision schemes under risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 30, 248–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J., Kerr, N. L., Atkin, R. S., Holt, R., & Meek, D. The decision processes of 6- and 12-person mock juries assigned unanimous and 2/3 majority rules. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. H., Kerr, N. L. Stasser, G., Meek, D., & Holt, R. Victim consequences, sentence severity and decision processes in mock juries. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. H. Bray, R. M. & Holt, R. The empirical study of decision processes in juries: A critical review. In J. L. Tapp & F. J. Levine (Eds.), Law, justice and the individual in society. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, S. S. A jury experiment reanalyzed. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. Spring, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Factor, J., Eisner, J., & Shaw, J. The jury: A selected annotated bibliography of social science research on juries (Center Report 30). Brooklyn, N.Y.: Center for Responsive Psychology, Brooklyn College, CUNY, January, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg, W. E. Teaching the type I and type II errors: The judicial process. The American Statistician,June, 1971, 30–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feller, W. An introduction to probability theory and its applications (Vol. 1.) New York: John Wiley, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, M. D., & Fairley, W. B. A Bayesian approach to evidence identification. Harvard Law Review, 1970, 38, 489–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, H. Trial by jury: Criteria for corrections, jury size, and Type I and Type II errors. The American Statistician. April, 1972, pp. 21–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelfand, A. A., & Solomon, H. A study of Poisson’s models for jury verdicts in criminal and civil trials. Journal of American Statistical Association,1973, 68, 271–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelfand, A. A. & Solomon, H. Modelling jury verdicts in the American legal system. Journal of American Statistical Association, 1974, 69, 32–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelfand, A. A. & Solomon, H. Analyzing the decision-making process of the American jury. Journal of the American Statistical Association,1975, 70, 305–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelfand, A. & Solomon, H. An argument in favor of 12-member juries. In S. Nagel (Ed.), Modeling the criminal justice system. Vol. 7, Justice systems analysis. Beverly Hills, Cal.: Sage Publications, 1977. Pp. 205–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerbasi, K. C., Zuckerman, M., & Reis, A. T. Justice needs a new blindfold: A review of mock jury research. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 1977, 84, 323–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grofman, B. Some notes on voting schemes and the will of the majority. Public Choice, 1969, 7, 65–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grofman, B. Mathematics and politics: Mathematical reasoning and optimal jury rules. In M. Black (Ed.), Proceedings of the Cornell Aspen Colloquium on Decision and Choice. Cornell Program in Humanities, Science and Technology, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grofman, B. A singlepeakedness model of juror choice. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Political Science, State University of New York at Stony Brook, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grofman, B. A comment on democratic theory: A preliminary mathematical model. Public Choice, 1975, 21, 99–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grofman, B. Not necessarily twelve and not necessarily unanimous. In G. Bermant & N. Vidmar (Eds.), Psychology and the law: Research frontiers. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grofman, B. Models of individual and collective decision-making. Unpublished manuscript, School of Social Sciences, University of California, Irvine, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grofman, B. Jury-decision-making models. In S. Nagel (Ed.), Modeling the criminal justice system. Vol. 7, Justice System Annuals. Beverly Hills, Cal.: Sage Publications, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grofman, B. Communication: Sloppy sampling—A comment on “six member juries in the federal courts.” Social Action and the Law Newsletter, 1977, 4 (2), 4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grofman, B. Communication: Differential effects of jury sizeChrw(133) Revisited. Social Action and the Law Newsletter, 1977, 4, (2), 7–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grofman, B. Judgmental competence of individuals and groups in a dichotomous choice situation. Journal of athematical Sociology, 1978, 5 (3), 47–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grofman, B. A Markov model of jury decision-making. Unpublished manuscript, School of Social Sciences, University of California, Irvine, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grofman, B. A pilot study of individual behavior: Three and five member mock juries. Experimental Study of Politics, 1979, 7, 41–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grofman, B. Some preliminary models of jury decision-making. In G. Tullock (Ed.), Frontiers of Economics (Vol. 3). The Hague: Nijhoff, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grofman, B. Jury decision-making models and the Supreme Court: The jury cases from Williams vs. Florida to Ballew vs. Georgia. Policy Studies Journal, 1980, 749–772.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grofman, B. The slippery slope: Jury size and jury verdict requirements, legal and social science approaches. Law and Politics Quarterly, 2(3), July 1980, 285–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grofman, B., & Feld, S. A note on clique avoidance in repeated jury selection from among a fixed pool of jurors: Comparisons of manpower savings in six-and twelve-member juries., Public Choice, 1976, 26, 145–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson, D. H., Shukla, R. K., Delbecq, A. L., & Walster, G. W. A comparative study of difference in subjective likelihood estimates made by individuals, interacting groups, delphi groups, and nominal groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,1973, 9, 280–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, L. Personal communication, Department of Sociology, University of Michigan, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, J. Decision theory and the fact-finding process. Stanford Law Review, 1968, 20, 1065–1092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kazmann, R. Democratic theory: A preliminary mathematical model. Public Choice,1973, 16, 17–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemeny, J., Snell, L., & Thompson, N. An introduction to finite mathematics (rev. ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N., Atkin, R., Stasser, G., Meek, D., Holt, R., & Davis, J. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: Effects of concept definition and assigned decision rule on the judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Personality and Social Behavior, 1976, 34, 282–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klevorick, A. Personal communication. Yale University Law School, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klevorick, A. Personal communication. Yale University Law School, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klevorick, A. & Rothschild, M. A model of the jury decision process. Journal of Legal Studies,January 1979, 141–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, M. A. Should the military less-than unanimous verdict of guilt be retained? Hastings Law Journal, 1971, 22, 237–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larntz, K. Reanalysis of Vidmar’s data on the effects of decision alternatives on verdicts of simulated jurors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 123–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laughlin, P., Kerr, N. L., Munch, M. M., & Haggarth, C. A. Social decision schemes of the same four person groups on two different intelligence tasks. Journal Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 33, 80–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lempert, R. O. Uncovering nondiscernible differences: Empirical research and the jury-size cases. Michigan Law Review, 1975, 73, 644–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lempert, R. O. Personal communication, University of Michigan Law School, August 27, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D. Individual choice behavior. New York: John Wiley, 1959.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D., & Raiffa, H. Games and decisions. New York: John Wiley, 1957.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. The group polarization phenomenon. Psychology Bulletin, 1976, 83, 602–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, S. S. & Neef, M. Deductive modeling to determine an optimum jury size and fraction required to convict. Washington University Law Review, 1975, 646–656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, S. S., & Neef, M. Legal Policy analysis: Finding an optimum level or mix. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Book, 1976. Chap. 2, pp. 75–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C. Rules governing jury deliberations: A consideration of recent changes. In G. Bermant & N. Vidmar (Eds.), Psychology and the law: Research frontiers. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C. Interactions between jurors as a function of majority vs. unanimity decision rules. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 1977, 38–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • New York Times. Retreat on rights (editorial). May 24, 1972, p. 44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemi, R., & Weisberg, H. The effects of group size on collective decision making. In R. Niemi & H. Weisberg (Eds.), Probability models of collective decision making. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merill, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oelsner, L. Smaller juries increase: Divided verdicts allowed. New York Times. July 20, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padawer-Singer, A., & Barton, A. H. Interim report: experimental study of decision-making in the 12vs. 6-man jury under unanimous and non-unanimous decisions. Unpublished mimeographed manuscript, Bureau of Applied Social Research, Columbia University, May, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parducci, A. Range frequency compromise in judgement. Psychology Monographs, 77, Whole No. 565. 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poisson, S. D. Recherches sur la probabilité de judgement en matière criminal et en matière civile: Precédées des regles générales du calcul des probabilités. Paris: Bachelier, Imprimateur Libraire, 1837.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rae, D. Decision rules and individual values in collective choice. American Political Science Review, 1969, 63, 40–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Restie, F., & Greeno, J. G. Introduction to mathematical psychology. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saari, D. J. The criminal jury faces future shock. Judicature, 1973 (June July), 57, 12–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saks, M. J. Jury verdicts: The role of group size and social decision rule. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saks, M. J., & Ostrom, T. M. Jury size and consensus requirements: The laws of probability v. the laws of the land. Journal of Contemporary Law, 1975, 1, 163–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schofield, N. Ethical decision rules for uncertain voters. British Journal of Political Science, 1971, 2, 193–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schofield, N. Is majority rule special? In R. Niemi & H. Weisberg (Eds.), Probability models in collective decision-making. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. The own categories procedure in attitude research. In M. Fishbeing (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and measurement. New York: John Wiley, 1967. Pp. 190–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, R. J. The jury and the defense of insanity. Boston: Little, Brown, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, R. J., & Mahan, L. Quantifying burdens of proof: A view from the bench, the jury, and the classroom. Law and Society Review, 1971, 5, 319–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strawn, D. U., & Buchanan, R. W. Jury confusion: A threat to justice. Judicature, 1976, 59, 478–484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tapp, J. L. Psychology and the law: An overture. Annual Review of Psychology,1976, 27, 359–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M. Proof of a theorem on majority rule. Behavioral Science, 1969, 14 (3), 228–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tribe, L. H. Trial by mathematics: Precision and ritual in the legal process. Harvard Law Review, 1971, 84, 1329–1393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Walbert, T. D. Note: Effect of jury size on probability of conviction—An evaluation of Williams vs. Florida. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 1971, 22, 529–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeisel, H. And then there were none: The dimunition of the federal jury. University of Chicago Law Review, 1971, 38, 710–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeisel, H. The waning of the American jury. American Bar Association Journal, 1972, 58, 367–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeisel, H., & Diamond, S. S. Convincing empirical evidence and the six-member jury. University of Chicago Law Review,1974, 41,281–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Social Sciences, University of California, Irvine, California, 92717, USA

    Bernard Grofman

Authors
  1. Bernard Grofman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology and College of Law, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

    Bruce Dennis Sales

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1981 Plenum Press, New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Grofman, B. (1981). Mathematical Models of Juror and Jury Decision-Making. In: Sales, B.D. (eds) The Trial Process. Perspectives in Law & Psychology, vol 2. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-3767-6_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-3767-6_9

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4684-3769-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4684-3767-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation