examples highlight the difficulties inherent in using
stereotypes to formulate reliable assumptions about
juror favorability.
Another factor that attorneys often consider during
jury selection is juror nonverbal communication. It has
been suggested that factors such as posture, pitch of
voice, and willingness to express opinions go into the
decision of who should stay on the jury and who
should be removed. Other attorneys use informa-
tion such as facial expression and perceived level of
friendliness or extroversion to make decisions about
prospective jurors. Although research has not proved
traditional jury selection to be superior to other meth-
ods, it does not necessarily follow that the traditional
approach should be abandoned. It is quite possible that
in individual cases, attorneys may use their implicit
theories about jurors based on years of experience to
exercise peremptory challenges in their favor.Scientific Jury Selection
Scientific jury selection refers to the use of community
surveys and data analysis to yield probabilities that dif-
ferent types of prospective jurors will be favorable to a
particular side. Scientific jury selection is a systematic
method for identifying information that would be use-
ful to elicit during the voir dire process and to rely on
when deciding which jurors to challenge. The core of
this approach assumes that different people who view
the same evidence may render different verdicts and
that verdict preference can be predicted by individual
juror characteristics. This approach also assumes that
attitudes and individual differences can be measured
accurately; the attitudes themselves or proxies for the
attitudes, such as demographic characteristics, must be
discernable during voir dire. In addition, this approach
requires that these attitudes and characteristics can
ultimately be used to predict verdicts.
When conducting a community survey, trial consul-
tants recruit a random sample of participants from the
same pool from which an actual jury is being selected.
These surveys are often conducted over the telephone
by using a random digit dialing sampling technique.
Respondents are asked questions that measure demo-
graphic characteristics, attitudes toward the legal sys-
tem, knowledge of case facts, and case-relevant
attitudes. Participants may also be provided with evi-
dentiary information about the case. Participants are
then asked to render a verdict. By using statistics to
test for significant relationships between demographiccharacteristics, general attitudes, and case-relevant
attitudes, trial consultants can educate attorneys about
the likelihood that prospective jurors with certain atti-
tudes or demographic characteristics will be favorable
or unfavorable to their side. The techniques used dur-
ing scientific jury selection must take into account the
nature and scope of voir dire. For example, the infor-
mation gleaned from a community survey that indi-
cates that political affiliation is likely to be a strong
predictor of verdict preference is helpful only if the
judge allows the venire panel to be questioned about
political affiliation. Because the judge determines
which questions attorneys are allowed to pose to the
venire panel, the scope of voir dire can vary widely.
When only minimal voir dire is permitted, attorneys
may not have any opportunity to pose any questions to
the potential jurors, let alone questions that have been
identified through the community survey to be predic-
tive of verdicts. In more expanded voir dire situations,
attorneys may be allowed to administer a questionnaire
to the panel that could contain questions known to pre-
dict verdicts.Individual Characteristics
as Predictors of Verdicts
An abundance of research has been conducted on the
relationship between individual juror characteristics
and jurors’ verdict preferences. Research generally sug-
gests that there is no single set of personality or demo-
graphic predictors that can be used for all types of
cases. Unfortunately, those characteristics that are the
most visible, such as gender and race, tend to be weakly
correlated with verdict across cases. Although these
characteristics are not good predictors in general, race
and gender may be good predictors in specific types of
cases in which these racial and gender issues are
salient. For example, although juror gender is important
when gender is an issue in the trial, such as in rape or
sexual harassment cases, gender is not a stable predic-
tor of verdicts in other types of cases. There is also
evidence that personality characteristics such as author-
itarianism, liberalism, and the need for social approval
affect juror decisions. For example, jurors who score
high on measures of authoritarianism are more convic-
tion prone. It is arguable that group membership
and political beliefs may have a greater influence on
verdict judgments than race or gender because, unlike
gender and race, people choose their affiliations.
Jurors are affected by their cultural backgrounds, prior422 ———Jury SelectionJ-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 422