Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

trial summaries helps jurors refresh their memories,

allows them to clarify the evidence when memories dif-

fer, and makes it more likely that they will systemati-

cally process the evidence. Allowing jurors to discuss

the case throughout the trial may help jurors compre-

hend the evidence and formulate useful questions.

Other reforms are targeted at helping jurors follow

the legal rules. For example, bifurcating the trial—that

is, separating trials into multiple parts at which differ-

ent questions are considered may help jurors focus on

the evidence that is most relevant to the separate deci-

sions at hand. For example, decisions on punitive dam-

ages could be postponed until after the jury has

determined liability and compensatory damages. Then,

evidence relevant to punitive damages could be heard at

a separate proceeding. Similarly, asking jurors to

respond to a series of questions (“interrogatories” or a

“special verdict”) can be used to focus jurors on the rel-

evant legal questions. Reforms directed at judicial

instructions are also likely to improve jurors’ ability to

understand and follow the law. Rewriting judicial

instructions to make them more understandable and

easier to follow, drafting instructions to assist jurors

with scientific and statistical evidence, and formulating

reason-based instructions may all help jurors compre-

hend and apply the law better.

Jennifer K. Robbennolt

See alsoChicago Jury Project; Confession Evidence;

Damage Awards; Expert Psychological Testimony; Expert

Psychological Testimony on Eyewitness Identification;

Hearsay Testimony; Inadmissible Evidence, Impact on

Juries; Juries and Eyewitnesses; Juries and Judges’

Instructions; Jury Decisions Versus Judges’ Decisions;

Jury Deliberation; Jury Reforms; Statistical Information,

Impact on Juries; Story Model for Juror Decision Making

Further Readings

Greene, E., Chopra, S., Kovera, M. B., Penrod, S., Rose, V. G.,

Schuller, R., et al. (2002). Jurors and juries: A review of

the field. In J. R. P. Ogloff (Ed.),Taking psychology and

law into the twenty-first century(pp. 225–284). New

York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Hans, V. P. (Ed.). (2006). The jury system: Contemporary

scholarship.Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury.Boston:

Little, Brown.

Lieberman, J. D., & Sales, B. D. (Eds.). (2000). The jury

instruction process [Special issue]. Psychology, Public

Policy, & Law, 6(3).

Robbennolt, J. K. (2005). Evaluating juries by comparison to

judges: A benchmark for judging? Florida State

University Law Review, 32,469–509.

Robbennolt, J. K., Groscup, J., & Penrod, S. D. (2005).

Evaluating and assisting civil jury competence. In

I. Weiner & A. Hess (Eds.),The handbook of forensic

psychology(pp. 392–425). New York: Wiley.

Vidmar, N. (1998). The performance of the American civil

jury: An empirical perspective. Arizona Law Review,

40,849–899.

Vidmar, N., & Hans, V. P. (2007). American juries: The

verdict.New York: Prometheus Books.

JURYDECISIONSVERSUS

JUDGES’ DECISIONS

In American trials, the verdict is reached by either a

judge or a jury, raising questions as to how these two

fact finders reach their decisions and whether their

decisions systematically differ. Most research has

focused on the jury, though some key studies have

compared the decisions of judges and juries. The

available archival studies, case-specific judicial sur-

veys, and experimental research reveal substantial

similarities and a few differences.

Before a civil or criminal trial begins, the parties

decide whether it will be a trial by jury or a trial

by judge (“bench trial”). A bench trial occurs if both

sides waive the right to a jury. Although rates vary

across jurisdictions, approximately one third of felony

trials and one in four civil trials in the United States

are bench trials. Outside the United States, a mixed

tribunal consisting of both lay and professional mem-

bers may determine the outcome of a trial. Some crit-

ics of the American jury suggest that the justice

system would be improved by transferring more deci-

sion-making responsibility to professional judges.

Thus, in evaluating the performance of the jury, the

policy-relevant comparison is not some hypothetical

ideal decision maker, whatever characteristics that

model might have, but rather the professional, legally

qualified judge. Yet most research on trial court deci-

sion makers has focused on the jury rather than on the

judge, perhaps because the jury is both a cultural icon

and a favorite whipping boy, because relying on con-

scripted amateurs rather than professionals to decide

outcomes of important conflicts raises questions, and

because laypersons are more accessible than judges as

subjects for research on decision making.

Jury Decisions Versus Judges’ Decisions——— 405

J-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 405