An exploratory study of argument in the jury decision‐making process

Abstract

Different from most other group decision‐making contexts, courtroom jurors face two distinct layers of argument— arguments made during the trial and arguments made during deliberation. The juror often makes an individual decision prior to deliberation based on arguments heard in court and then, using that decision, creates arguments with the other jurors about “what really happened.” The researchers used Canary, Tanita‐Ratledge and Seibold's (1982) coding scheme to analyze arguments in 80 mock juries. The results revealed that jurors’ arguments were not complex; they used assertions and acknowledgments most frequently, followed by propositions, elaborations, and non‐related arguments. The conclusions suggest practical applications for attorneys as well as a model of argument in jury decision‐making.

Key concepts:

• jury decision‐making
• argument
• legal communication
• small groups