Should juries deliberate?

References

• Anderson, L., and C. Holt. 1997. “Information Cascades in the Laboratory.” American Economic Review 87: 847–862.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Apodaca v. Oregon. 1972. 406 U.S. 404.
   Google Scholar
• Ariely, D., W. T. Au, R. H. Bender, D. V. Budescu, C. B. Dietz, H. Gu, and G. Zauberman. 2000. “The Effects of Averaging Subjective Probability Estimates between and Within Judges.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 6: 130–147.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baron, R., S. Hoppe, C. Kao, B. Brunsman, B. Linneweh, and D. Rogers. 1996. “Social Corroboration and Opinion Extremity.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 32: 537–560.10.1006/jesp.1996.0024
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bassett Jr., G. W., and J. Persky. 1999. “Robust Voting.” Public Choice 99 (3/4): 299–310.10.1023/A:1018324807861
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benforado, A. 2015. Unfair: The New Science of Criminal Justice. New York: Crown Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Brief for the ABA as amicus curiae. Scott David Bowen v. Oregon, United States Supreme Court, No. 08-1117, May 28, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Burgman, Mark. 2015. Trusting Judgments: How to Get the Best out of Experts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Canadian Judicial Council. 2016. “Model Jury Instructions.” https://www.nji-inm.ca/index.cfm/publications/model-jury-instructions/.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, C., and A. Abbott. 2000. “Team Medical Decision Making.” In Decision Making in Health Care, edited by G. Chapman and F. Sonnenberg, 273–276. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Condorcet, Marquis de. (1785) 1972. Essai Sur L’application De L’analyse a La Probabilite Des Decisions Rendues a La Pluralite Des Voix [Essay on The Application of Analysis to the Probability of Decisions Rendered by People]. Paris: Imprimerie Royale. Reprinted, New York: Chelsea Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Cooke, Roger. 1991. Experts in Uncertainty: Opinion and Subjective Probability in Science. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Crown Court Bench Book. 2010 (Mar.). https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Training/benchbookcriminal2010.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Dalkey, N. C. 1969. The Delphi Method: An Experimental Study of Group Opinions. Report No. RM-5888-PR. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Dalkey, N. C., and B. Brown. 1971. Comparisons of Group Judgment Techniques with Short-Range Predictions and Almanac Questions. Report No. R-678-ARPA. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Dawes, R. M., D. Faust, and P. E. Meehl. 1989. “Clinical versus Actuarial Judgment.” Science 243 (4899): 1668–1674.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawkins, R. 2003. “Trial by Jury.” In A Devil’s Chaplain, edited by R. Dawkins, 38–41. New York: Mariner Books.
   Google Scholar
• DeKay, M. L. 1996. “The Difference between Blackstone-like Error Ratios and Probabilistic Standards of Proof.” Law and Social Inquiry 21 (1): 95–132.10.1111/lsi.1996.21.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dietrich, F., and C. List. 2004. “A Model of Jury Decisions Where All Jurors Have the Same Evidence.” Synthese 142: 175–202.10.1007/s11229-004-1276-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drabsch, T. 2005. “Majority Jury Verdicts in Criminal Trials.” NSW Parliamentary Library Research Service Briefing Paper No. 15/05.
   Google Scholar
• Dworkin, R. 1986. Law’s Empire. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Estlund, D. 1994. “Opinion Leaders, Independence, and Condorcet’s Jury Theorem.” Theory and Decision 36: 131–162.10.1007/BF01079210
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Estlund, D. 2000. Democratic Authority. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Feddersen, T. J., and W. Pesendorfer. 1998. “Convicting the Innocent: The Inferiority of Unanimous Jury Verdicts under Strategic Voting.” American Political Science Review 92: 23–35.10.2307/2585926
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fricker, M. 2007. Epistemic Injustice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Galton, F. 1907a. “One Vote, One Value.” Nature 75: 414.10.1038/075414a0
   Google Scholar
• Galton, F. 1907b. “Vox Populi.” Nature 75: 450–451.10.1038/075450a0
   Google Scholar
• Gawande, Atul. 2010. The Checklist Manifesto. New York: Metropolitan Books.
   Google Scholar
• Genest, C., and J. V. Zidek. 1986. “Combining Probability Distributions: A Critique and an Annotated Bibliography.” Statistical Science 1 (1): 114–135.10.1214/ss/1177013825
   Google Scholar
• Goldin, C., and C. Rouse. 2000. “Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of ‘Blind’ Auditions on Female Musicians.” American Economic Review 90 (4): 715–741.10.1257/aer.90.4.715
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graefe, A., and J. Armstrong. 2011. “Comparing Face-to-Face Meetings, Nominal Groups, Delphi and Prediction Markets on an Estimation Task.” International Journal of Forecasting 27: 183–195.10.1016/j.ijforecast.2010.05.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grofman, B., G. Owen, and S. Feld. 1983. “Thirteen Theorems in Search of the Truth.” Theory and Decision 15 (3): 261–278.10.1007/BF00125672
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grove, W. M., D. H. Zald, B. S. Lebow, B. E. Snitz, and C. Nelson. 2000. “Clinical versus Mechanical Prediction: A Meta-Analysis.” Psychological Assessment 12 (1): 19–30.10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gustafson, D., R. Shukla, A. Delbecq, and G. William Walster. 1973. “A Comparative Study of Differences in Subjective Likelihood Estimates Made by Individuals, Interacting Groups, Delphi Groups, and Nominal Groups.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 9: 280–291.10.1016/0030-5073(73)90052-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hans, V. 2008. “Jury Systems around the World.” Cornell Law Faculty Publications. Paper 305. http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/305.
   Google Scholar
• Hastie, R., S. Penrod, and N. Pennington. 1983. Inside the Jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674865945
   Google Scholar
• Heath, C., and R. Gonzalez. 1995. “Interaction with Others Increases Decision Confidence but Not Decision Quality: Evidence against Information Collection Views of Interactive Decision Making.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 61: 305–326.10.1006/obhd.1995.1024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herzog, S., and R. Hertwig. 2014. “Harnessing the Wisdom of the Inner Crowd.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 18: 504–506.10.1016/j.tics.2014.06.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• High Court of Australia. 1993. Black V. Queen. HCA 71.
   Google Scholar
• Hong, L., and S. Page. 2012. “Some Microfoundations for Collective Wisdom.” In Collective Wisdom: Principles and Mechanisms, edited by H. Landemore and J. Elster, 56–71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Janis, I. 1982. Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Kagehiro, D., and W. Stanton. 1985. “Legal vs. Quantified Definitions of Standards of Proof.” Law and Human Behavior 9: 159–178.10.1007/BF01067049
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalven, H., and H. Zeisel. 1966. The American Jury. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
   Google Scholar
• Laddaga, R., and B. Loewer. 1985. “Destroying the Consensus.” Synthese 62: 79–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laudan, L. 2006. Truth, Error, and Criminal Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511617515
   Google Scholar
• Laudan, L. 2008. “The Elementary Epistemic Arithmetic of Criminal Justice.” Episteme 5 (03): 282–294.10.3366/E1742360008000397
   Google Scholar
• Laudan, L. 2010. “Need Verdicts Come in Pairs?” The International Journal of Evidence & Proof 14: 1–24.10.1350/ijep.2010.14.1.338
   Google Scholar
• Levy, D. M., and S. Peart. 2002. “Galton’s Two Papers on Voting as Robust Estimation.” Public Choice 113 (3/4): 357–365.10.1023/A:1020836223192
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, D. 1989. “The Punishment That Leaves Something to Chance.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 18 (1): 53–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• List, C., and P. Pettit. 2011. Group Agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199591565.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• MacCoun, R. 2002. “Comparing Micro and Macro Rationality.” In Judgments, Decisions, and Public Policy, edited by J. Fox and R. Gowda, 116–137. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the First Circuit. 2014 ed. rev. http://federalevidence.com/pdf/JuryInst/1st.Crim.6.2014.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Pritchard, M., and J. Keenan. 2002. “Does Jury Deliberation Really Improve Jurors’ Memories?” Applied Cognitive Psychology 16: 589–601.10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0720
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rawls, John. 1999. A Theory of Justice. Revised ed. Originally published 1971. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Regan, H., M. Colyvan, and L. Markovchick-Nicholls. 2006. “A Formal Model for Consensus and Negotiation in Environmental Management.” Journal of Environmental Management 80: 167–176.10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.09.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowe, G., and G. Wright. 1999. “The Delphi Technique as a Forecasting Tool: Issues and Analysis.” International Journal of Forecasting 15: 353–375.10.1016/S0169-2070(99)00018-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell, J., J. Hawthorne, and L. Buchak. 2015. “Groupthink.” Philosophical Studies 172: 1287–1309.10.1007/s11098-014-0350-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schkade, D., C. Sunstein, and D. Kahneman. 1999. “Are Juries Less Erratic than Individuals? Deliberation, Polarization, and Punitive Damages.” John M. Olin Law and Economics Working Paper no. 81.
   Google Scholar
• Schkade, D., C. Sunstein, and D. Kahneman. 2000. “Deliberating about Dollars: The Severity Shift.” Columbia Law Review 100 (4): 1139–1175.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schumann, E., and W. C. Thomson. 1989. “Effects of Attorney’s Arguments on Juror’s Use of Statistical Evidence.” Unpublished manuscript.
   Google Scholar
• Sommers, S. 2006. “On Racial Diversity and Group Decision Making: Identifying Multiple Effects of Racial Composition on Jury Deliberations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90: 597–612.10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.597
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C. 2011. “Deliberating Groups versus Prediction Markets (or Hayek’s Challenge to Habermas).” In Social Epistemology: Essential Readings, edited by A. Goldman and D. Whitcomb. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C., R. Hastie, J. Payne, D. Schkade, and W. Kip Viscusi. 2002. Punitive Damages. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226780160.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• “The Jury is Out.” 2009. The Economist, 14 February. 65 (EU). Accessed July 8, 2016. http://www.economist.com/node/13109647
   Google Scholar
• Tribe, L. 1971. “Trial by Mathematics: Precision and Ritual in the Legal Process.” Harvard Law Review 84: 1329–1393.10.2307/1339610
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vul, E., and H. Pashler. 2008. “Measuring the Crowd Within: Probabilistic Representations Within Individuals.” Psychological Science 19: 645–647.10.1111/psci.2008.19.issue-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner, C., and K. Lehrer. 1981. Rational Consensus in Science and Society. Dordrecht: Dordrecht Reidel.
   Google Scholar
• Wansley, M. 2013. “Scaled Punishments.” New Criminal Law Review 16: 309–363.
   Google Scholar
• Waters, N., and V. Hans. 2009. “A Jury of One: Opinion Formation, Conformity, and Dissent on Juries.” Cornell Law Faculty Publications, Paper 114.
   Google Scholar
• Woudenberg, F. 1991. “An Evaluation of Delphi.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 40: 131–150.
   Google Scholar