Using Multiple Coding Schemes to Understand Argument in In the Jury Room

Abstract

The present study analyzes argument in jury deliberations by using the Conversational Argument Coding Scheme (CACS) and the content of juror argument using Subject Matter Argument Assessment (SMAA) (Pettus, 1990). The main purpose is to illustrate how the two coding schemes can complement each other to provide rich yet systematic characterization of argument in jury deliberation. Jury deliberations drawn from In the Jury Room, a televised news series on jury deliberation, are coded and analyzed using CACS and SMAA. The researchers found that using two argument coding schemes is beneficial in learning about the types of arguments jurors make and the subject matter about which they argue. The study results are compared with findings from previous studies of juror argument behavior, suggesting that argument in mediated juries differs from argument in mock juries.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors acknowledge Alex Winnicker, Lashauna Johnson, Leroy Hill, Allison Edgley, Paul DiNero, Matthew Berls, and Jennifer Vaughn for their assistance in transcribing the data. The authors also thank Steven Hammer for assisting with argument coding and Mark Aakhus for being a helpful, generous, and patient editor.