Symposium Issue on the Selection and Function of the Modern Jury WHAT EMPIRICAL RESEARCH TELLS US: STUDYING JUDGES' AND JURIES' BEHAVIOR
نویسندگان
چکیده
II. Preliminary Results of the Study A. Global and Micro Dimensions of Judges' Behavior B. Testing the Model C. Simple Relationships in the Model 1. Background--Expectancy ("A-B") relationships 2. Background--Behavior ("A-C") relationships 3. Background--Outcome ("A-D") relationships 4. Background--Judge/jury agreement ("A-E") relationships 5. Background--Sentence ("A-F") relationships 6. Expectancy--Behavior ("B-C") relationships 7. Expectancy--Outcome ("B-D") relationships 8. Expectancy--Judge/jury agreement ("B-E") relationships 9. Expectancy--Sentence ("B-F") relationships 10. Behavior--Outcome ("C-D") relationships
منابع مشابه
Runaway Judges? Selection Effects and the Jury
Reports about runaway jury awards have become so common that it is widely accepted that the US jury system needs to be ‘fixed.’ Proposals to limit the right to a jury trial and increase judicial discretion over awards implicitly assume that judges decide cases differently than juries. We show that there are large differences in mean awards and win rates across juries and judges. But if the type...
متن کاملSymposium: Improving Communications in the Courtroom CALIBRATING THE SCALES OF JUSTICE: STUDYING JUDGES' BEHAVIOR IN BENCH TRIALS
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1120 I. A MODEL FOR THE STUDY OF JUDGES’ AND JURIES’ BEHAVIOR .................................... 1126 II. THE STANFORD STUDY: TESTING THE MODEL IN JURY TRIALS ...................................1132 A. Global and Micro Dimensions of Judges' Behavior ................
متن کاملJackpot Justice: Verdict Variability and the Mass Tort Class Action
Mass tort scholars, practitioners, and judges struggle with determining the most efficient approach to adjudicate sometimes tens of thousands of cases. Favoring class actions, mass tort scholars and judges have assumed that litigating any issue once is best. But while litigating any one issue could conceivably save attorneys’ fees and court resources, a single adjudication of thousands of mass ...
متن کاملJuries and medical malpractice claims: empirical facts versus myths.
Juries in medical malpractice trials are viewed as incompetent, antidoctor, irresponsible in awarding damages to patients, and casting a threatening shadow over the settlement process. Several decades of systematic empirical research yields little support for these claims. This article summarizes those findings. Doctors win about three cases of four that go to trial. Juries are skeptical about ...
متن کاملSymposium: Modeling Human Decisionmaking in the Law the Neurobiology of Opinions: Can Judges and Juries Be Impartial?
In this Article we build on neuroscience evidence to model belief formation and study decisionmaking by judges and juries. We show that physiological constraints generate posterior beliefs with properties that are qualitatively different from traditional Bayesian theory. In particular, decisionmakers will tend to reinforce their prior beliefs and to hold posteriors influenced by their preferenc...
متن کامل