male. Second, sloppy police work such as failing to
fingerprint the steering wheel led to lower guilt rat-
ings. The defense was on notice to focus on these
points and ignore certain other evidence such as a
doctor’s testimony that the defendant had no memory
of postblackout events under hypnosis.
The third section of the survey consists of open-
ended items answered in the respondent’s own words.
Respondents are asked for the best reasons for convict-
ing and acquitting, and for any suggestions they might
have. The responses confirmed that the best reasons for
acquittal were the legal ground rules favoring the defen-
dant, sloppy police work, and the BOLO. Responses to
free-response questions often produce useful articula-
tions. These can be used to make a point in argument.
The fourth section consists of opinion items.
Respondents used rating scales to indicate their opin-
ions about alcohol and driving, sloppy police work,
eyewitness accuracy, and conventionality. The results
indicated that opinions about convicting when the
police work has been sloppy, not convicting on strong
suspicion but only on proof, and concern about irre-
sponsibility and sexual immorality predicted the ver-
dict. The defense would focus on these opinions in
voir dire.
Experience has shown that demographic predictors
emphasized in the original SJS research are usually
less predictive of the verdict than are experiences
and/or opinions. Nevertheless, as in the current case,
they are sometimes predictive. This is extremely help-
ful when court procedure limits voir dire as in the fed-
eral courts. The current study indicates Cuban Whites
reach verdicts similar to those of married jurors, jurors
with lower incomes and less education, male jurors,
and jurors who never drink even moderate amounts of
alcohol when driving. These characteristics are asso-
ciated with conviction.
In the current case, the survey has distinguished
critical and less significant evidential issues. Nine
opinion and demographic predictors have been identi-
fied. In juror selection, venirepersons with more of
these features will be favored for defense peremptory
excusals.
The disposition of this case is instructive in evaluat-
ing the utility of SJS. Preparation for jury selection is
only one aspect of trial outcome and usually far from
the most important. In this case, as noted, the defense
knew from the survey that the police BOLO indicating
that the driver was a dark-skinned male was crucial to
introducing doubt that the fair-skinned defendant was
driving the car. The prosecution argued that the BOLO
was in error because the eyewitness in fact told the
police that it was the car that was black. Unfortunately
for the defense, the judge disallowed mention of the
BOLO. Faced with 50 years in prison if convicted, the
defendant agreed to plead guilty and serve 12 years in
prison. In this case, SJS succeeded in identifying crucial
evidence and juror features predictive of the verdict.
Utility of SJS
Informed opinion differs, but most academic review-
ers are skeptical that SJS improves attorney-conducted
jury selection. Eight traditional published studies of
the statistical utility of SJS indicate that on average
only 11% of the factors that determine a juror’s ver-
dict are explained by SJS opinion and demographic
predictors. This is, however, better than it may sound
as it suggests an improvement of 17% in the accurate
prediction of a venireperson’s verdict. If, for the sake
of argument, we assume that attorney jury selection is
no better than guesswork—50% accurate (it is
unknown but probably better on average)—then SJS
improves this to 67% accurate prediction. Eleven
(nine unpublished) additional SJS studies at Florida
International University in recent years suggest that
verdict prediction accuracy can be further improved
(up to 76% accuracy). SJS is of no value if the evi-
dence makes conviction inevitable. SJS is more fre-
quently used in civil trials, where the evidence is more
likely to be balanced. Finally, it must be recognized
that the survey must capture the essence of the evi-
dence to be presented at the trial as well as case-
relevant opinions, which are known to predict juror
verdicts better than demographic characteristics or
general attitudes do.
Gary Moran
See alsoJury Questionnaires; Jury Selection; Trial
Consulting; Voir Dire
Further Readings
Kovera, M. B., Dickinson, J. J., & Cutler, B. L. (2003). Voir
dire and jury selection: Practical issues, research findings,
and directions for future research. In A. M. Goldstein
(Ed.),Handbook of psychology: Vol. 11. Forensic
psychology(pp. 161–175). New York: Wiley.
Lieberman, J. D., & Sales, B. D. (2007). Scientific jury
selection.Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Scientific Jury Selection——— 707
S-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 707