Jurors customarily do their work with very little by way of instruction from the court, other than about the law. This suggests that they enter the jury room with the relevant cognitive and interactional tools at the ready, drawn from everyday life. This paper focuses on a specific conversational device jurors use to do their work: conditional-contrastive inculpations (CCIs), whereby the defendant’s actions are compared unfavorably to what a normal, innocent person would have done, with the implication that the discrepancy indicates guilt. We examine the logic, variants, sequential precursors, and immediate consequences of this phenomenon in two real-life American criminal juries deliberating the same charges. This study offers a rare glimpse into the operation of real (rather than mock) juries, and specifically the way in which they appropriate a practice from ordinary conversation in order to perform the unordinary work demanded of them by the legal system.
AyaßR (2015) Doing data: The status of transcripts in conversation analysis. Discourse Studies17: 505–528.
2.
BalesRF (1953) The equilibrium problem in small groups. In: ParsonsTBalesRFShilsEA (eds.) Working Papers in the Theory of Action. Glencoe, IL: Free Press, pp.111–161.
3.
BergmannJR (1993) Discreet Indiscretions: The Social Organization of Gossip, New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.
4.
ConleyRHConleyJM (2009) Stories from the jury room: How jurors use narrative to process evidence. Studies in Law, Politics, and Society49: 25–56.
5.
DevineDJ (2012) Jury Decision Making: The State of the Science. New York, NY: New York University Press.
6.
DevineDJClaytonLDDunfordBB, et al. (2001) Jury decision making: 45 Years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law7: 622–727.
7.
DiamondSRoseMMurphyB, et al. (2006) Juror questions during trial: A window into juror thinking. Vanderbilt Law Review59: 1926–1972.
8.
DiamondSVidmarN (2001) Jury room ruminations on forbidden topics. Virginia Law Review87: 1857–1915.
9.
DiamondSSMurphyBRoseMR (2012) The ‘Kettleful of Law’ in real jury deliberations: Successes, failures, and next steps. Northwestern University Law Review106: 1537–1608.
10.
DiamondSSRoseMR (2005) Real juries. Annual Review of Law and Social Science1: 255–284.
11.
FogartyKAugoustinosMKettlerL (2013) Re-thinking rapport through the lens of progressivity in investigative interviews into child sexual abuse. Discourse Studies15: 395–420.
12.
FoxMP (2020) Legal consciousness in action: Lay people and accountability in the jury room. Qualitative Sociology43: 111–142.
13.
FramptonTW (2012) The uneven Bulwark: How (and why) criminal jury trial rates vary by state. California Law Review100: 183–222.
14.
GarfinkelH (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
15.
GibsonDR (2005) Opportunistic interruptions: Interactional vulnerabilities deriving from linearization. Social Psychology Quarterly68: 316–337.
16.
GibsonDR (2016) The habits of normal, innocent people, as construed by the North American juror. Symbolic Interaction39: 397–420.
17.
HansVVidmarN (1991) The American jury at twenty-five years. Law and Social Inquiry16: 323–351.
18.
HansVP (2001) Inside the black box: Comment on Diamond and Vidmar. Virginia Law Review87: 1917–1932.
19.
HastieRPenrodSDPenningtonN (1983) Inside the Jury. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
20.
HellerKJ (2009) The cognitive psychology of mens rea. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology99: 317–379.
21.
HeritageJ (2012) Espistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction45: 1–29.
22.
HeritageJClaymanS. (2010) Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
23.
HolsteinJA (1985) Jurors’ interpretations and jury decision making. Law and Human Behavior9: 83–100.
24.
LabovWWaletzkyJ (1967) Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In: HelmJ (ed.) Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts. Seattle: University of Washington Press, pp.12–44.
25.
LernerGH (1992) Assisted storytelling: Deploying shared knowledge as a practical matter. Qualitative Sociology15: 247–271.
26.
MacCounRJKerrNL (1988) Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: Jurors’ bias for leniency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology54: 21–33.
27.
ManzoJF (1993) Jurors’ narratives of personal experience in deliberative talk. Text & Talk13: 267–290.
28.
ManzoJF (1994) ‘You wouldn’t take a seven-year-old and ask him all these questions’: Jurors’ use of practical reasoning in supporting their arguments. Law and Social Inquiry19: 639–663.
29.
ManzoJF (1996) Taking turns and taking sides: Opening scenes from two jury deliberations. Social Psychology Quarterly59: 107–125.
30.
MaynardDWClaymanSE (1991) The diversity of ethnomethodology. Annual Review of Sociology17: 385–418.
31.
MaynardDWClaymanSE (2003) Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. In: ReynoldsLTHerman-KinneyNJ (eds.) Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism. Lahman, MD: AltaMira-Rowan & Littlefield, pp.173–202.
32.
MaynardDWManzoJF (1993) On the sociology of justice: Theoretical notes from an actual jury deliberation. Sociological Theory11: 171–193.
33.
MeyersRASeiboldDRKangP (2010) Examining argument in a naturally occurring jury deliberation. Small Group Research41: 452–473.
34.
PenningtonNHastieR (1991/1992) A cognitive theory of juror decision making: The story model. Cardozo Law Review13: 519–557.
35.
PinoM (2017) I-challenges: Influencing others’ perspectives by mentioning personal experiences in therapeutic community group meetings. Social Psychological Quarterly80: 217–242.
36.
PomerantzA (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In: AtkinsonJHeritageJ (eds.) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.57–101.
37.
PooleMSDoboshM (2010) Exploring conflict management processes in jury deliberations through interaction analysis. Small Group Research41: 408–426.
38.
RoseMRDiamondSBakerKM (2010) Goffman on the jury: Real jurors’ attention to the ‘offstage’ of trials. Law and Human Behavior34: 310–323.
SacksH (1995) Lectures on Conversation, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Blackwell.
41.
SacksHSchegloffEA (1979) Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In: PsathasG (ed.) Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York, NY: Halsted, pp.15–21.
42.
SacksHSchegloffEAJeffersonG (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language50: 696–735.
43.
SandysMDillehayRC (1995) First-ballot votes, predeliberation dispositions, and final verdicts in jury trials. Law and Human Behavior19: 175–195.
44.
SchegloffEA (1992a) On talk and its institutional occasions. In: DrewPHeritageJ (eds.) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.101–134.
45.
SchegloffEA (1992b) Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology97: 1295–1345.
46.
SchegloffEA (1993) Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction26: 99–128.
47.
SchegloffEA (1996) Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology102: 161–216.
48.
SchegloffEA (2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49.
SchegloffEASacksH (1973) Opening up closings. Semiotica8: 289–327.
50.
SchützA (1967) The Phenomenology of the Social World. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
51.
SeurenLM (2018) Questioning in court: The construction of direct examinations. Discourse Studies21: 340–357.
52.
TanfordSPenrodS (1986) Jury deliberations: Discussion content and influence processes in jury decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology16: 322–347.
53.
YorkECornwellB (2006) Status on trial: Social characteristics and influence in the jury room. Social Forces85: 455–477.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
