Explore the vast range of titles available.

Today, all but one U.S. jurisdiction restricts a convicted felon's eligibility for jury service. Are there valid, legal reasons for banishing millions of Americans from the jury process? How do felon-juror exclusion statutes impact convicted felons, jury systems, and jurisdictions that impose them? Twenty Million Angry Men provides the first full account of this pervasive yet invisible form of civic marginalization. Drawing on extensive research, James M. Binnall challenges the professed rationales for felon-juror exclusion and highlights the benefits of inclusion as they relate to criminal desistance at the individual and community levels. Ultimately, this forward-looking book argues that when it comes to serving as a juror, a history of involvement in the criminal justice system is an asset, not a liability.

Most United States courts require the jury to elect their own foreperson, a role that has amplified influence on the jury's verdict. In practice, the election process is done quickly and without discussion. As a result, the foreperson is demographically biased toward older men of high socioeconomic status. This paper uses psychological literature to argue that the current selection system produces suboptimal forepersons. Instead, it proposes a system of random selection, including an opt-out procedure for those who do not feel capable of holding the position.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is anticipated to play a significant role in criminal trials involving citizen jurors. Prior studies have suggested that AI is not widely preferred in ethical decision-making contexts, but little research has compared jurors' reliance on judgments by human judges versus AI in such settings. This study examined whether jurors are more likely to defer to judgments by human judges or AI, especially in cases involving mitigating circumstances in which human-like reasoning may be valued. Two pre-registered online experiments were conducted with Japanese participants (Experiment 1: N = 1,735, Mage = 48.4; Experiment 2: N = 1,731, Mage = 48.5). Participants reviewed two murder trial vignettes and made sentencing decisions (1 = suspended sentence; 8 = prison sentence) under two conditions: trials with and without mitigating circumstances. Across both experiments, participants showed no preference for deferring to human judges' or AI judgments when making sentencing decisions. While suspended sentences were more common in cases with mitigating circumstances, this tendency was unrelated to the judgment source. These findings suggest that jurors do not inherently avoid algorithmic judgments and may consider AI opinions on par with those of human judges in certain contexts. However, whether this leads to improved decision-making quality remains an open question, as objectivity (a strength of AI) and emotional considerations (a safeguard for fairness) may interact in complex ways during juror deliberations. Future research should further explore how these factors influence juror attitudes and decisions in diverse trial scenarios, taking into account potential biases in existing literature.

One-hundred-and-sixty jury-eligible participants read a vignette describing a male who was brought to the attention of police for suspicious and aggressive behaviours and displayed atypical behaviours in court. Half of participants were informed that he had autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and were given background information about ASD; the other half received no diagnostic label or information. The provision of a label and information led to higher ratings of the defendant’s honesty and likeability, reduced blameworthiness, and resulted in fewer guilty verdicts, and more lenient sentencing. Thematic analysis revealed that participants in the label condition were more empathetic and attributed his behaviours to his ASD and mitigating factors, while participants in the No label condition perceived the defendant as deceitful, unremorseful, rude and aggressive.

The Call is an inside look at the turbulent jury selection process in Italy. In Italy, citizens can be summoned at a day’s notice for potential jury duty. 60 common citizens are randomly selected by a computer and notified by the police in person to appear in court--by the end of the day, 6 people are selected to be jurors. Shot with three cameras from a fly-on-the-wall perspective, director Enrico Maisto chronicles the selection process in Milan’s Court of Assize--which tries the country’s most notorious crimes--capturing the expression of worried potential jurors as they nervously wait to be individually interviewed by lead judge Anna Conforti. Their whispers, nervous questions, humorous comments, and discomfort are all captured and brought together in a soft cacophony full of reflection on a little-known civic duty.

The American Bar Association (ABA) has long been interested in ensuring that jury trial rights, both state and federal, are fully protected and are administered in a manner that respects not only the rights of litigants to fair jury decisions but also the rights of citizens to participate in their democracy by serving as jurors. [...]the ABA established a Commission on the American Jury, composed of judges and lawyers experienced in the jury trial arena, that it tasked with adopting best practices for jury trials and, more generally, with issues related to jury management. [...]as the Commentary explains, the Supreme Court recently overrode those state law provisions in Ramos v. Louisiana, holding that the federal Constitution's Sixth Amendment jury trial guarantee requires unanimity in criminal trials whether in federal court or state court. (The Commission likes to think that its longstanding Principle 4 finally convinced the Supreme Court to adopt this suggested best practice as a federal constitutional right.) But the Commentary does not stop at reporting this important recent development in the law. [...]the Washington Supreme Court has made it easier to challenge the use of a peremptory by holding that a prima facie case of discrimination has been made if a party strikes the last member of a racially cognizable group.

William Blackstone famously expressed the view that convicting the innocent constitutes a much more serious error than acquitting the guilty. This view is the cornerstone of due process protections for those accused of crimes, giving rise to the presumption of innocence and the high burden of proof required for criminal convictions. While most legal elites share Blackstone's view, the citizen jurors tasked with making due process protections a reality do not share the law's preference for false acquittals over false convictions. Across multiple national surveys sampling more than 12,000 people, we find that a majority of Americans consider false acquittals and false convictions to be errors of equal magnitude. Contrary to Blackstone, most people are unwilling to err on the side of letting the guilty go free to avoid convicting the innocent. Indeed, a sizeable minority view false acquittals as worse than false convictions; this group is willing to convict multiple innocent persons to avoid letting one guilty person go free. These value differences translate into behavioral differences: we show in multiple studies that jury-eligible adults who reject Blackstone's view are more accepting of prosecution evidence and are more conviction-prone than the minority of potential jurors who agree with Blackstone. These findings have important implications for our understanding of due process and criminal justice policy. Due process currently depends on jurors faithfully following instructions on the burden of proof, but many jurors are not inclined to hold the state to its high burden. Courts should do away with the fiction that the reasonable doubt standard guarantees due process and consider protections that do not depend on jurors honoring the law's preference for false acquittals, such as more stringent pretrial screening of criminal cases and stricter limits on prosecution evidence. Further, the fact that many people place crime control on par with, or above, the need to avoid wrongful convictions helps explain divisions in public opinion on important policy questions like bail and sentencing reform. Criminal justice proposals that emphasize deontic concerns without addressing consequentialist concerns are unlikely to garner widespread support.

The purpose of this study was to investigate how the race salience effect influences juror decision making when manipulated through defense attorney statements. The literature is unclear regarding the ability of attorney statements to manipulate race salience and the individual influence of opening statements and closing arguments in creating the effect. In the current study, 207 undergraduate White mock jurors participated in a simulated criminal assault case in which defendant race was made salient through defense attorney statements (through opening statements, closing arguments, or both). Results indicated a race salience effect for verdict choice when race was salient and suggested that closing arguments may be particularly important in creating this effect. Our results also suggest that race salience creates an outgroup favoritism effect rather than the equalizing effect identified in early research. Implications of these findings for the race salience and juror decision making literature are discussed along with implications for actual court cases.