Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

(lily) #1
was charged with murder. In the first version, the
physician had euthanized a patient he knew (to
relieve suffering); in the second version, the physi-
cian was charged with murdering the patient for
financial gain. In other words, while the euthanatiz-
ing procedure was the same—increasing a drug dose
beyond the recommended dosage, the motive for that
act was different in the two circumstances. When
jurors were given standard instructions, the apparent
motive of the surgeon had no effect. Jurors found the
defendant guilty irrespective of the motive. However,
when the jury was in receipt of nullification instruc-
tions, a surgeon who increased the drug dose to
relieve suffering was less likely to receive a guilty
verdict. Nullification instructions induced jurors to
attend to emotionally biasing information (e.g., how
sympathetically the victim was portrayed). Proponents
of jury nullification would likely argue that these
results sustain their view that juries will use their
right to nullify judiciously. Those opposed to jury
nullification would suggest that the law should deter-
mine trial outcomes, not the whims, however well
meant, of the jurors.

Irwin A. Horowitz

See alsoJuries and Judges’ Instructions; Jury Competence;
Jury Deliberation

Further Readings
Brown, D. K. (1997). Jury nullification within the rule of law.
Minnesota Law Review, 81,1149–1200.
Conrad, C. S. (1998). Jury nullification: The evolution of a
doctrine.Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
Finkel, N. J. (1995). Commonsense justice.Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Horowitz, I., Kerr, N. Park, E. S., & Gockel, C. (2006).
Chaos in the courtroom reconsidered: Emotional bias and
juror nullification. Law and Human Behavior, 30,
163–181.
Horowitz, I. A., & Willging, T. E. (1991). Changing views of
jury power: The nullification debate, 1787–1988. Law and
Human Behavior, 15(2), 165–182.
Howe, M. (1939). Juries as judge of criminal law. Harvard
Law Review, 52,582–616.
Sparf and Hansen v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895).
St. John, R. R. (1997). License to nullify: The democratic
and constitutional deficiencies of authorized jury
lawmaking. Yale Law Review, 106,2563–2597.
United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113 (1973).

JURYQUESTIONNAIRES


Jury questionnaires are often used during the voir dire
process to help judges and attorneys identify prospec-
tive jurors who are not suitable for jury service. Jury
questionnaires typically include items dealing with
hardship or medical issues that may make it difficult
for some individuals to serve as jurors. Often, at the
discretion of the court, jury questionnaires may delve
into experiences or opinions related to the case, some-
times in considerable detail. Of course, jury question-
naires are self-report measures that are vulnerable to
forgetting, distortions, or deception. Lengthy jury
questionnaires completed by a large group of prospec-
tive jurors can make it difficult to extract useful infor-
mation in a short amount of time. Moreover, there are
situations where trial attorneys would be ill-advised to
request a detailed jury questionnaire.
The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution pro-
vides defendants with the right to an impartial jury.
Often a part of the voir dire process, jury questionnaires
may help identify sources of bias in prospective jurors
that may interfere with their impartiality or ability to
follow the law. The fundamental assumption underly-
ing the use of jury questionnaires is that people are
more likely to disclose information on a survey than in
open court, particularly information about sensitive
issues. There is a general tendency for people to appear
open-minded and to provide socially desirable responses
to questions posed during attorney- or judge-conducted
voir dire. In theory, jury questionnaires serve to mea-
sure more accurately the relevant attitudes, expecta-
tions, and experiences related to the case.
Generally used at the discretion of the court,
generic jury questionnaires have become much more
common throughout the United States. The format,
content domain, and scope of the items vary consider-
ably, but there is some common content. Most jury
questionnaires tap into factors that may lead to a chal-
lenge for cause, reflecting a legitimate difficulty or
problem with jury service. These items include hard-
ship issues, such as having to care of an infant or
elderly parent, serious financial difficulties, or other
related factors. Other items common to jury question-
naires include those dealing with medical problems,
disabilities, and the use of medication that might inter-
fere with a prospective juror’s ability to serve as a trier
of fact. Most include a question relating to difficulties
in reading or understanding the English language and

Jury Questionnaires——— 415

J-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 415

Free download pdf