The disappearing trial: how social scientists can help save the jury from extinction

References

• Abramson, J. (1994). We, the jury: The jury system and the ideal of democracy. Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Acker, J., & Redlich, A. D. (2019). Wrongful convictions: Law, social science, and policy (2nd ed.). Carolina Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Alschuler, A. W. (1968). The prosecutor’s role in plea bargaining. The University of Chicago Law Review, 36(1), 50–112. https://doi.org/10.2307/1598832
   Google Scholar
• Alschuler, A. W. (1979). Plea bargaining and its history. Columbia Law Review, 79(1), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.2307/1122051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alvarez, M. J., Miller, M. K., & Bornstein, B. H. (2016). “It will be your duty … :” The psychology of criminal jury instructions. Advances in Psychology and Law, 1, 119–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29406-3_4
   Google Scholar
• Alvarez v. City of Brownsville, 860 F.3d 799 (5th Cir. 2017).
   Google Scholar
• Amar, A. R. (1998). The Bill of rights: Creation and reconstruction. Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• American Bar Association. (2005). Principles for juries and jury trials.
   Google Scholar
• Bell, B. A. (2019). Not for human consumption: Vague laws, uninformed plea bargains, and the trial penalty. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 31(4-5), 226–233. https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2019.31.4-5.226
   Google Scholar
• Bibas, S. (2004). Plea bargaining outside the shadow of a trial. Harvard Law Review, 117(8), 2463–2547. https://doi.org/10.2307/4093404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bibas, S. (2006). Transparency and participation in criminal procedure. New York University Law Review, 81, 911–966.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blackledge v. Allison. 431 U.S. 63 (1977).
   Google Scholar
• Bordenkircher v. Hayes. 437 U.S. 357 (1978).
   Google Scholar
• Bordens, K. A., & Basset, J. (1985). The plea bargaining process from the defendant’s perspective: A field investigation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 6(2), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp0602_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bordens, K. S. (1984). The effects of likelihood of conviction, threatened punishment, and assumed role on mock plea bargaining decisions. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 5(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp0501_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornstein, B. H. (2017). Jury simulation research: Pros, cons, trends, and alternatives. In M. B. Kovera (Ed.), The psychology of juries (pp. 207–226). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000026-010
   Google Scholar
• Bornstein, B. H., & Greene, E. (2011). Jury decision making: Implications for and from psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(1), 63–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410397282
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornstein, B. H., & Greene, E. (2017). The jury under fire: Myth, controversy, and reform. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bornstein, B. H., Hamm, J. A., Dellapaolera, K., Kleynhans, A., & Miller, M. K. (2020). JUST: A measure of jury system trustworthiness. Psychology, Crime & Law, 26(8), 797–022. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2020.1740222
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornstein, B. H., & Kleynhans, A. J. (2019). The evolution of jury research methods: From hugo münsterberg to the modern age. Denver Law Review, 96, 813–839.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornstein, B. H., Miller, M. K., Nemeth, R. J., Page, G. L., & Musil, S. M. (2005). Juror reactions to jury duty: Perceptions of the system and potential stressors. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23(3), 321–346. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.635
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boykin v. Alabama. 89 U.S. S. Ct. 1709 (1969).
   Google Scholar
• Brady v. Maryland. 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
   Google Scholar
• Brady v. United States. 397 U.S. 742 (1970).
   Google Scholar
• Brown, D. K. (2020). Judicial power to regulate plea bargaining. William and Mary Law Review, 57, 101–148.
   Google Scholar
• Bryan v. United States, 492 F.2d 775, 780 (5th Cir. 1974).
   Google Scholar
• Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2015). Federal justice statistics, 2012 - statistical tables (NCJ Report No. 248470). Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
   Google Scholar
• Bushway, S. D., & Redlich, A. D. (2012). Is plea bargaining in the ‘shadow of the trial’ a mirage? Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 28(3), 437–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-011-9147-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne, M. (2010). Baseless pleas: A mockery of justice. Fordham Law Review, 78, 2961–3005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charrow, R. P., & Charrow, V. R. (1979). Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review, 79(7), 1306–1374. https://doi.org/10.2307/1121842
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conrad, R. J., & Clements, K. L. (2018). The vanishing criminal jury trial: From trial judges to sentencing judges. George Washington Law Review, 86, 99–167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crocker, C. B., & Kovera, M. B. (2011). Systematic jury selection. In R. L. Wiener, & B. H. Bornstein (Eds.), Handbook of trial consulting (pp. 13–31). Springer Science + Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Cutler, B. L., & Kovera, M. B. (2011). Expert psychological testimony. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(1), 53–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410388802
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darlow, B. (2014, May 19). History of trial by jury. The New Jurist. https://newjurist.com/history-of-trial-by-jury.html
   Google Scholar
• Dervan, L. E. (2019). Bargained justice: The history and psychology of plea bargaining and the trial penalty. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 31(4-5), 239–247. https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2019.31.4-5.239
   Google Scholar
• Dervan, L. E., & Edkins, V. A. (2013). The innocent defendant’s dilemma: An innovative empirical study of plea bargaining’s innocence problem. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 103, 1–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dervan, L. E., Edkins, V. A., & Pardieck, A. M. (2020). Bargained justice: The global rise of false testimony for false pleas. Manuscript under review.
   Google Scholar
• Devine, D. J. (2012). Jury decision making: The state of the science. NYU Press.
   Google Scholar
• Diamond, S. S., & Salerno, J. M. (2020). Reasons for the disappearing jury trial: Perspectives from attorneys and judges. Louisiana Law Review, 81(1), 119–164.
   Google Scholar
• Diamond, S. S., Vidmar, N., Rose, M. R., Ellis, L., & Murphy, B. (2003). Juror discussions during civil trials: Studying an Arizona innovation. Arizona Law, 45, 1–81.
   Google Scholar
• Dolven, T., & Porat, D. (2015, October 4). How Christopher Young’s 14-year plea deal for drug crimes turned into life in prison. Vice News. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/neyem7/how-christopher-youngs-14-year-plea-deal-for-drug-crimes-turned-into-life-in-prison
   Google Scholar
• Eisenberg, T., Hannaford-Agor, P., Hans, V., Waters, N., Munsterman, G., Schwab, S., & Wells, M. (2005). Judge-jury agreement in criminal cases: A partial replication of Kalven and zeisel’s The American jury. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2(1), 171–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2005.00035.x
   Google Scholar
• Elwork, A., Sales, B. D., & Alfini, J. J. (1982). Making jury instructions understandable. Michie.
   Google Scholar
• Fair Trials. (2017). The disappearing trial: Towards a rights-based approach to trial waiver systems. https://www.fairtrials.org/publication/disappearing-trial-report
   Google Scholar
• Ferguson, A. G. (2013). Why jury duty matters: A citizen’s guide to constitutional action. NYU Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, G. (2000). Plea bargaining’s triumph: A history of plea bargaining in america. Yale Law Review, 109(5), 857–1086. https://doi.org/10.2307/797483
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galanter, M. (1983). Reading the landscape of disputes: What we know and don’t know (and think we know) about our allegedly contentious and litigious society. UCLA Law Review, 31, 4–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galanter, M. (1987). Jury shadows: Reflections on the civil jury and the “litigation explosion.”. In The American civil jury (pp. 15–42). Roscoe Pound-American Trial Lawyers Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Galanter, M. (2004). The vanishing trial: An examination of trials and related matters in federal and state courts. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 1(3), 459–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2004.00014.x
   Google Scholar
• Galanter, M., & Frozena, A. (2011). The continuing decline of civil trials in American courts. Pound Civil Justice Institute—2011 Forum for State Appellate Court Judges.
   Google Scholar
• Garrett, B. L. (2011). Convicting the innocent: Where criminal prosecutions go wrong. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gastil, J., Deess, E. P., Weiser, P. J., & Simmons, C. (2010). The jury and democracy: How jury deliberation promotes civic engagement and political participation. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gideon v. Wainwright. 372 U.S. 335 (1963).
   Google Scholar
• Golding, J. M., Lynch, K. R., Malik, S. E., & Foster-Gimbel, O. (2018). Justice served? Perceptions of plea bargaining involving a sexual assault in child and adult females. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 45(4), 503–518. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854817743538
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groscup, J. L., Penrod, S. D., Studebaker, C. A., Huss, M. T., & O’Neil, K. M. (2002). The effects of daubert on the admissibility of expert testimony in state and federal criminal cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8(4), 339–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.8.4.339
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gross, S. R. (2015, July 24). The staggering number of wrongful convictions in america. The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-cost-of-convicting-the-innocent/2015/07/24/260fc3a2-1aae-11e5-93b7-5eddc056ad8a_story.html
   Google Scholar
• Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. J., & Wistrich, A. J. (2001). Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Review, 86, 777–830.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallinger v. Davis. 146 U.S. 314 (1892).
   Google Scholar
• Hamm, J. A., Bornstein, B. H., & Perkins, J. (2013). Jury nullification: The myth revisited. In D. Fung (Ed.), The psychology of policy-making (pp. 49–71). Nova Science Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Hannaford, P., Hans, V., & Munsterman, G. (2000). Permitting jury discussions during trial: Impact of the Arizona reform. Law and Human Behavior, 24(3), 359–382. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005540305832
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hans, V. P. (2014). What’s it worth? Jury damage awards as community judgments. William & Mary Law Review, 55, 935–969.
   Google Scholar
• Hans, V. P., Fukurai, H., Ivkovic, S. K., & Park, J. (2017). Global juries: A plan for research. In M. B. Kovera (Ed.), The psychology of juries (pp. 131–157). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000026-007
   Google Scholar
• Henderson, K. S., & Levett, L. M. (2018). Investigating predictors of true and false guilty pleas. Law and Human Behavior, 42(5), 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000297
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henrichson, C., & Delaney, R. (2012). The price of prisons: What incarceration costs taxpayers. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 25(1), 68–80. https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2012.25.1.68
   Google Scholar
• Hirst, W., & Stone, C. B. (2017). The effects of collaborative remembering on trial verdicts. In M. B. Kovera (Ed.), The psychology of juries (pp. 37–57). American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Horowitz, I. A., Kerr, N. L., Park, E. S., & Gockel, C. (2006). Chaos in the courtroom reconsidered: Emotional bias and juror nullification. Law and Human Behavior, 30(2), 163–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9028-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horwitz, S. (2015, August 15). Unlikely allies. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/08/15/clemency-the-issue-that-obama-and-the-koch-brothers-actually-agree-on/
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, T. (2019). Fictional pleas. Indiana Law Journal, 94, 855–900.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, A. M., Bergold, A. N., Dillon, M. K., & Penrod, S. D. (2017). Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13(1), 29–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-016-9279-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalven, H.Jr., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Little, Brown and Company.
   Google Scholar
• Kane, J. L. (2014, December 26). Plea bargaining and the innocent (Commentary). The Marshall Project. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2014/12/26/plea-bargaining-and-the-innocent
   Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M. (2020). Discussant comments. In A. Dezember (Chair), Understanding guilty pleas and modeling plea decision-making. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society conference, New Orleans, LA.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, S., Park, J., Park, K., & Eom, J.-S. (2013). Judge-jury agreement in criminal cases: The first three years of the Korean jury system. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 10(1), 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koehler, J. J. (2011). Misperceptions about statistics and statistical evidence. In R. L. Wiener, & B. H. Bornstein (Eds.), Handbook of trial consulting (pp. 121–133). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7569-0_6
   Google Scholar
• Lafler v. Cooper. 132 U.S. 1376 (2012).
   Google Scholar
• Lamb, M. C. (2014). A return to rehabilitation: Mandatory minimum sentencing in an era of mass incarceration. Journal of Legislation, 41(1), 126–150.
   Google Scholar
• Landes, W. (1971). An economic analysis of the courts. Journal of Labor Economics, 14, 61–107. https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c3629.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Langton, L., & Cohen, T. (2008). Civil bench and jury trials in state courts, 2005. Bureau of Justice Statistics special Report (NCJ 223851). U.S. Department of Justice.
   Google Scholar
• Laub, C. E., Kimbrough, C. D., & Bornstein, B. H. (2016). Mock juror perceptions of eyewitnesses versus earwitnesses: Do safeguards help? American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 34(2), 33–56.
   Google Scholar
• Levett, L. M., & Devine, D. (2017). Integrating individual and group models of juror decision making. In M. B. Kovera (Ed.), The psychology of juries (pp. 11–36). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000026-002
   Google Scholar
• Levy, L. W. (1999). The palladium of justice: Origins of trial by jury. Ivan R. Dee.
   Google Scholar
• Lieberman, J. D. (2009). The psychology of the jury instruction process. In J. D. Lieberman, & D. A. Krauss (Eds.), Jury psychology: Social aspects of trial processes: Psychology in the courtroom, 1 (pp. 129–155). Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Luna, S., & Redlich, A. D. (2020). The decision to provide discovery: An examination of policies and guilty pleas (Online first publication). Journal of Experimental Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-019-09403-z
   Google Scholar
• Lynch, M., & Haney, C. (2009). Capital jury deliberation: Effects on death sentencing, comprehension, and discrimination. Law and Human Behavior, 33(6), 481–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9168-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malloy, L. C., Shulman, E. P., & Cauffman, E. (2014). Interrogations, confessions, and guilty pleas among serious adolescent offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 38(2), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000065
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mapp v. Ohio. 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
   Google Scholar
• Marder, N. S. (2006). Bringing jury instructions into the twenty-first century. Notre Dame Law Review, 81, 449–511.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marder, N. S. (2010). Answering jurors’ questions: Next steps in illinois. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 41, 727–752.
   Google Scholar
• Marder, N. S. (2015). Juror bias, voir dire, and the judge-jury relationship. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 90, 927–956.
   Google Scholar
• Matthews, R., Hancock, L., & Briggs, D. (2004). Jurors’ perceptions, understanding, confidence and satisfaction in the jury system: A study in six courts. Home Office Online Report. Retrieved from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/29e3/395aab54c0ef88181be4e9ed71eaf428f0dd.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Matthew v. Johnson. 201 F. 3d 353 (5th Cir. 2000).
   Google Scholar
• McAllister, H. A., & Bregman, N. J. (1986). Plea bargaining by defendants: A decision theory approach. The Journal of Social Psychology, 126(1), 105–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1986.9713576
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miranda v. Arizona. 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
   Google Scholar
• National Association for Criminal Defense Lawyers. (2018). The trial penalty: The Sixth Amendment right to trial on the verge of extinction and how to save it. www.nacdl.org/trialpenaltyreport
   Google Scholar
• National Center for State Courts. (2015). Civil justice initiative: The landscape of civil litigation in state courts.
   Google Scholar
• National Registry of Exonerations. (2020). [Interactive data display]. Exonerations in the United States Map. The University of Michigan Law School. https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/Exonerations-in-the-United-States-Map.aspx
   Google Scholar
• New Jersey v. Henderson, 208 N. J. 208, 27 A. 3d 872 (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Oppel, R. A.Jr (2011, September 26). Sentencing shift gives new leverage to prosecutors. The New York Times. A1. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/us/tough-sentences-help-prosecutors-push-for-plea-bargains.html?searchResultPosition=1
   Google Scholar
• Patry, M. W., & Penrod, S. D. (2013). Death penalty decisions: Instruction comprehension, attitudes, and decision mediators. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 13(3), 204–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2013.795816
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pawlenko, N. B., Safer, M. A., Wise, R. A., & Holfeld, B. (2013). A teaching aid for improving jurors’ assessments of eyewitness accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(2), 190–197. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2895
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perez, G. (2018, September 6). Former federal judge: Keeping Chris Young in prison “serves no purpose other than revenge”. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chris-young-case-former-federal-judge-kevin-sharp-cbs-interview-mandatory-sentencing/
   Google Scholar
• Rakoff, J. S. (2014, November 20). Why innocent people plead guilty. The New York Review of Books, 61(18), http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/11/20/why-innocent-people-plead-guilty/
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Redlich, A. D. (2010). The susceptibility of juveniles to false confessions and false guilty pleas. Rutgers Law Review, 62, 943–957.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Redlich, A. D. (2016). The validity of pleading guilty. In B. H. Bornstein, & M. K. Miller (Eds.), Advances in Psychology and Law (pp. 1–27). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10/1007/978-3-319-43083-6_1
   Google Scholar
• Redlich, A. D., & Ozdogru, A. A. (2009). Alford pleas in the age of innocence. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 27(3), 467–488. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.876
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Redlich, A. D., & Shteynberg, R. V. (2016). To plead or not to plead: A comparison of juvenile and adult true and false plea decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 40(6), 611–625. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000205
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Redlich, A. D., Wilford, M. M., & Bushway, S. (2017). Understanding guilty pleas through the lens of social science [special anniversary issue]. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23(4), 458–471. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000142
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reed, K., & Bornstein, B. H. (2015). Using mock jury studies to measure community sentiment toward child sexual abusers. In M. K. Miller, J. A. Blumenthal, & J. Chamberlain (Eds.), Handbook of community sentiment (pp. 57–68). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Reimer, N. L., & Sabelli, M. A. (2019). The tyranny of the trial penalty: The consensus that coercive plea practices must end. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 31(4-5), 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2019.31.4-5.215
   Google Scholar
• Rose, M. R. (2017). How typical is lockhart v. McCree? Ecological validity concerns in court opinions. In M. B. Kovera (Ed.), The psychology of juries (pp. 227–253). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000026-011
   Google Scholar
• Rose, M. R., Diamond, S. S., & Musick, M. A. (2012). Selected to serve: An analysis of lifetime jury participation. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 9(1), 33–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01246.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salerno, J. M., & Diamond, S. (2010). The promise of a cognitive perspective on jury deliberation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(2), 174–179. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.2.174
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salerno, J. M., & Peter-Hagene, L. C. (2015). One angry woman: Anger expression increases influence for men, but decreases influence for women, during group deliberation. Law and Human Behavior, 39(6), 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000147
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider, R. A., & Zottoli, T. M. (2019). Disentangling the effects of plea discount and potential trial sentence on decisions to plead guilty. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 24(2), 288–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12157
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaked-Schroer, N., Costanzo, M., & Marcus-Newhall, A. (2008). Reducing racial bias in the penalty phase of capital trials. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 26(5), 603–617. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.829
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, D. (2012). In doubt: The psychology of the criminal justice process. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Skalon, A., San Roque, M., & Beaudry, J. L. (2020). An interdisciplinary and cross-national analysis of legal safeguards for eyewitness evidence. In M. K. Miller, & B. H. Bornstein (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law (Vol. 5) (pp. 137–178). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54678-6_5
   Google Scholar
• Smith, A. E., & Haney, C. (2011). Getting to the point: Attempting to improve juror comprehension of capital penalty phase instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 35(5), 339–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9246-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sparf and Hansen v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895).
   Google Scholar
• Steblay, N. K. (2019). Translating psychological science into policy and practice. In N. Brewer, & A. Bradfield-Douglass (Eds.), Psychological science and the law (pp. 266–292). Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence. (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement. U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, S. (2016). The missing American jury. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tiersma, P., & Curtis, M. (2008). Testing the comprehensibility of jury instructions: California’s old and new instructions on circumstantial evidence. Journal of Court Innovation, 1, 231–261.
   Google Scholar
• Tor, A., Gazal-Ayal, O., & Garcia, S. M. (2010). Fairness and the willingness to accept bargain offers. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 7(1), 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2009.01171.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner, J. I., & Redlich, A. D. (2016). Two models of pre-plea discovery in criminal cases: An empirical comparison. Washington & Lee Law Review, 73, 285–408.
   Google Scholar
• Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Carter, N. T. (2014). Declines in trust in others and confidence in institutions among American adults and late adolescents, 1972-2012. Psychological Science, 25(10), 1914–1923. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614545133
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United States Sentencing Commission. (2017). Overview of federal criminal cases: Fiscal year 2017. https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2018/FY17_Overview_Federal_Criminal_Cases.pdf
   Google Scholar
• United States v. Angelos, 345 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• United States v. Hooper, 621 F. App’x 770 (5th Cir. 2015).
   Google Scholar
• United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Vidmar, N., & Hans, V. P. (2007). American juries: The verdict. Prometheus Books.
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, P., & Rabuy, B. (2017). Following the money of mass incarceration. Prison Policy Initiative, https://www.prisonpolicy.org/factsheets/money2017.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Webster, J. M., Golding, J. M., Malik, S. E., & Riederer, A. M. (2021). Perceptions of plea bargains for driving under the influence (DUI) cases involving alcohol and marijuana. Psychology, Crime & Law, 26(10), 950–966. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2020.1742342
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiser, B. (2016, August 7). Trial by jury, a hallowed American right, is vanishing. The New York Times. A1. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/nyregion/jury-trials-vanish-and-justice-is-served-behind-closed-doors.html?searchResultPosition=1
   Google Scholar
• Wetmore, S. A., Neuschatz, J. S., Fessinger, M. B., Bornstein, B. H., & Golding, J. M. (2020). Do judicial instructions aid in distinguishing between reliable and unreliable jailhouse informants? Criminal Justice & Behavior, 47(5), 582–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820908628
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilford, M. M., Frazier, A., Sutherland, K. T., Gonzales, J. E., & Rabinovich, M. (2020). A system of pleas: Testing a role-playing computer simulation of plea-bargaining. Manuscript in preparation.
   Google Scholar
• Wilford, M. M., & Khairalla, A. (2019). Innocence and plea bargaining. In V. A. Edkins, & A. D. Redlich (Eds.), A system of pleas: Social science’s contributions to the real justice system (pp. 132–152). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wilford, M. M., Shestak, A., & Wells, G. L. (2019). Plea bargaining. In N. Brewer, & A. Bradfield-Douglass (Eds.), Psychological science and the law (pp. 266–292). Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wilford, M. M., Sutherland, K. T., Gonzales, J. E., & Rabinovich, M. (in press). Guilt status influences plea outcomes beyond the shadow-of-the-trial in an interactive simulation of legal procedure. Law and Human Behavior [Manuscript accepted for publication]. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000450
   Google Scholar
• Wilford, M. M., & Wells, G. L. (2018). Bluffed by the dealer: Distinguishing false pleas from false confessions [special section on guilty pleas]. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(2), 158–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000165
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilford, M. M., Wells, G. L., & Frazier, A. (2020). Plea-bargaining law: The impact of innocence, trial penalty, and conviction probability on plea outcomes. American Journal of Criminal Justice, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09564-y
   Google Scholar
• Wistrich, A. J., Guthrie, C., & Rachlinski, J. J. (2005). Can judges ignore inadmissible information? The difficulty of deliberately disregarding. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 153(4), 1251–1345. https://doi.org/10.2307/4150614
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright v. Rindskopf, 43 Wisc. 344, 354 (1877).
   Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, D. M., & Hunter, S. (2018). Factors affecting false guilty pleas in a mock plea bargaining scenario. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 23(1), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12117
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zottoli, T. M., Daftary-Kapur, T., Edkins, V. A., Redlich, A. D., King, C. M., Dervan, L. E., & Tahan, E. (2019). State of the states: A survey of statutory law, regulations and court rules pertaining to guilty pleas across the United States. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 37(4), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2413
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zottoli, T. M., Daftary-Kapur, T., Winters, G. M., & Hoga, C. (2016). Plea discounts, time pressures, and false-guilty pleas in youth and adults who pleaded guilty to felonies in New York city. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(3), 250–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000095
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar