Social scientists have recently generated a great deal of publicity by their involvement in jury selection. This paper describes the components of the methodology used. Then both practical and conceptual difficulties with each component are discussed. It is noted that there is little empirical support for any of the components or for the method as a whole. Finally, some of the legal and ethical implications of the methodology are treated.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Blunk, R., & Sales, B.Persuasion during the voir dire. In B . Sales (Ed.), Psychology in the legal process. New York: Spectrum, 1977.
2.
Calder, B., & Ross, M.Attitudes and behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press, 1973.
3.
Kairys, D.The jury system: New methods for reducing prejudice. Philadelphia : National Jury Project and National Lawyers Guild , 1975.
Kerlinger, F., & Pedhazur, E.Multiple regression in behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973.
6.
Mitchell, H., & Byrne, D.The defendant's dilemma: Effects of jurors' attitudes and authoritarianism . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 25, 123-129.
7.
Right to aid in addition to counsel for indigent criminal defendants. Minnesota Law Review, 1963, 47, 1054-1078.
8.
Schulman, J. A systematic approach to successful jury selection. GuildNotes, 1973, 2, 13-20.
9.
Schulman, J., Shaver, P., Colman, R., Emrick, B., & Christie, R.Recipe for a fair jury. Psychology Today, 1973, 6, 37-84.
10.
Tapp, J.L., & Keniston, A., Jr. Wounded Knee-Advocate or expert. Paper presented at the 89th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.
