jurors subjective experiences of deliberations in criminal cases · 2017-02-07 · characteristics...

Jurors’ Subjective Experiences ofDeliberations in Criminal Cases

Alix S. Winter and Matthew Clair

Research on jury deliberations has largely focused on the implications ofdeliberations for criminal defendants’ outcomes. In contrast, this article considers jurors’outcomes by integrating subjective experience into the study of deliberations. Weexamine whether jurors’ feelings that they had enough time to express themselves vary byjurors’ gender, race, or education. Drawing on status characteristics theory and a surveyof more than 3,000 real-world jurors, we find that the majority of jurors feel that theyhad enough time to express themselves. However, blacks and Hispanics, and especiallyblacks and Hispanics with less education, are less likely to feel so. Jurors’ verdictpreferences do not account for these findings. Our findings have implications for statuscharacteristics theory and for legal cynicism among members of lower-status socialgroups.

INTRODUCTION

Juries are central to the US legal system (Abramson 1994). Although the

majority of criminal cases do not reach a jury trial, the possibility of adjudication

by a jury structures the decision making of prosecutors (Albonetti 1986), defense

attorneys (Kramer, Wolbransky, and Heilbrun 2007), and defendants throughout

the court process (Eisenstein and Jacob 1977). Roughly a third of all US citizens

serve on a jury at some point (Mize, Hannaford-Agor, and Waters 2007; Gastil

et al. 2010, 4), and jury service is understood to be a key form of contact with the

legal system, shaping attitudes toward legal institutions and participation in politics

and civil society (Diamond 1993; Gastil et al. 2010). Indeed, the US Supreme

Court has considered jury service an important aspect of citizenship, establishing

that citizens cannot be excluded from a jury based on their race or gender (Fukurai

and Krooth 2003; Gastil et al. 2010).

Despite the social significance of jury service for jurors, the majority of

research on jury deliberations considers how different styles of deliberations or

demographic compositions of juries relate to criminal defendants’ outcomes

Alix S. Winter is a PhD candidate in Sociology and Social Policy at Harvard University.Correspondence may be sent to [email protected] or William James Hall, Sixth Floor, 33Kirkland Street, Cambridge, MA 02138.

Matthew Clair is a PhD candidate in Sociology at Harvard University.For their helpful comments, the authors thank Lawrence D. Bobo, Alexandra Killewald, Cecilia

Ridgeway, Robert J. Sampson, Christopher Winship, and members of Harvard’s Qualifying Paper Semi-nar, Proseminar on Inequality and Social Policy, Quantitative Methods in Sociology Workshop, andISF Workshop. The second author acknowledges support from the National Science Foundation Gradu-ate Research Fellowship, grant number DGE1144152.

VC 2017 American Bar Foundation. 1

Law & Social Inquiry

Volume ••, Issue ••, ••–••, •• 2017

(Sommers 2007; Devine 2012; Hunt 2015). Less research has focused on the experi-

ences of jurors as the outcome of interest (Diamond 1993). Studies that have con-

sidered jurors’ experiences of deliberations have largely examined objective outcomes

that are measurable through external observation, such as individual jurors’ partici-

pation rates. We argue that researchers should also pay attention to jurors’ subjective

experiences of deliberations as an independent object of analysis. We define subjec-

tive experience as a juror’s feelings about her involvement on a deliberating jury,

such as feelings of inclusion, self-expression, worthiness, and engagement during the

deliberation process. A juror’s subjective experience may not align with objective

measures of deliberations. For example, a juror may objectively speak more than

other jurors but subjectively feel frustrated that other jurors did not understand her

position. Thus, subjective experience reveals an underexamined dimension of jury

service.

Drawing on status characteristics theory of interpersonal interaction in small

group settings, we further argue that researchers should consider whether jurors’ sub-

jective experiences of deliberations vary by status group membership. This inquiry,

unaddressed by extant jury research, is critical for several reasons. Research on sub-

jective experiences in other institutional contexts suggests that formal incorporation

of lower-status groups does not necessarily translate into feelings of inclusion (Jack

2014; Evans and Moore 2015). As juries represent a key symbol of US democracy

(Diamond and Rose 2005) and are an important site of public participation (Brad-

bury and Williams 2013), it is important to know whether members of social groups

that were historically excluded from jury service (Fukurai and Krooth 2003) feel

less a part of deliberations than others despite their increased access. Evidence of

disparate subjective experiences of deliberations would indicate not only a lack of

social inclusion, but also a potential pathway for shaping jurors’ disparate percep-

tions of the legal system (Diamond 1993) and may contribute to jurors’ legal cyni-

cism (Sampson and Bartusch 1998).

We utilize a unique survey of real-world jurors to advance jury research by exam-

ining whether one measure of subjective experience—the extent to which jurors felt

they had enough time to express themselves during deliberations—varies by gender,

race, and education level. Informed by status characteristics theory, we consider both

the independent and interactive relationships between these status characteristics and

self-expression, as well as whether any observed differences are accounted for by

which jurors held opinions with respect to the verdict that contrasted with those of

the majority of their fellow jurors at the start of deliberations. We find that the

majority of jurors feel that they had enough time to express themselves during delib-

erations, but we look beyond jurors’ overwhelmingly positive reports to reveal that

blacks and Hispanics, and especially blacks and Hispanics of lower education levels,

are less likely to feel they had enough time to express themselves relative to whites.

Our findings hold after incorporating minority opinion status. Our findings illustrate

the intersectionality of subjective experience in real-world interpersonal interaction

and have theoretical implications for jury research and status characteristics theory as

well as substantive implications for jurors and the US legal system.

In what follows, we first review research on jurors’ objective experiences of

deliberations within the context of status characteristics theory—a theory that was

2 LAW & SOCIAL INQUIRY

partially developed by studying mock juries and offers clues to explaining how gen-

der, race, and socioeconomic status (SES) might shape jurors’ experiences. We then

introduce our concept of subjective experience and explain its significance in rela-

tion to jury deliberations. Finally, we draw on status characteristics theory to devel-

op and then test hypotheses regarding jurors’ subjective experiences of

deliberations.

JURY DELIBERATIONS AND STATUS CHARACTERISTICSTHEORY

Fundamental to status characteristics theory is the concept of status. Status is a

marker of worth that helps determine how individuals and groups are evaluated in

terms of esteem and respect (Weber 1968). Social categories (such as gender or

race) are socially meaningful and historically contingent groupings of individuals

that tend to be associated with varying levels of status (Ridgeway 1991; Cornell

and Hartmann 2007). Status characteristics theory posits that status differences

between social categories operate in interpersonal interactions (such as when small

groups of individuals assemble to accomplish a task) and contribute to macro-level

differences in the distribution of symbolic and material resources between groups

(Ridgeway 2014).

Joseph Berger was among the first to elaborate a theory of why status organiz-

ing processes matter in interpersonal interaction. Drawing on findings from mock

juries, Berger theorized that varying status characteristics, such as age, gender, race,

and class, are associated with evaluations of worth and competence that shape

expectations and, in turn, behavior, including deference and the allocation of

opportunities to perform (Berger et al. 1977). Similarly, research on implicit bias

has found that those of lower status tend to internalize dominant status hierarchies

against their own group (Jost, Pelham, and Carvallo 2002). The meanings of status

characteristics are not innate, but are learned and reproduced through interpersonal

interaction. This involves status generalization, a process by which scant information

or beliefs about a given social group are applied to individual members (Meeker

and Weitzel-O’Neill 1977; Allport 1979).

Following Berger, a host of studies in mostly experimental settings has assessed

the consequences of status characteristics for the accumulation of, or inability to

access, rewards in interpersonal interaction—including respect, belief in one’s com-

petence (Meeker and Weitzel-O’Neill 1977; Correll 2004), participation (Berger,

Cohen, and Zelditch 1972), leadership positions (Webster and Driskell 1978), and

verbal and nonverbal influence (Fiske 2010). Generally, with regard to each of

these dimensions, studies involving small groups working toward a task have consis-

tently shown that within the United States, it is advantageous to be male, of mid-

dle age, white, and of a higher social class (Webster and Driskell 1978; Fiske 2010).

Although the effects of status characteristics are more pronounced when they are

commonly perceived as relevant to the task at hand, given stereotypes associated

with certain groups’ task-specific abilities (Berger et al. 1977; Webster and Driskell

1978; Correll and Ridgeway 2003), status characteristics also shape interpersonal

Juror Experience of Criminal Case Deliberations 3

interaction when they are irrelevant to the task at hand (Berger, Cohen, and

Zelditch 1972; Webster and Driskell 1978).

Given the use of mock juries in the early development of status characteristics

theory, it is not surprising that the theory’s predictions have largely borne out in

jury deliberation studies. These studies have mostly considered jurors’ objective

experiences, or aspects of jurors’ experiences that are measurable through external

observation. Because outside parties are legally barred from real-world jury delibera-

tions (Cornwell 2010), researchers have largely relied on mock juries (for a review,

see Devine et al. 2001) or, more recently, surveys of jurors following real-world

deliberations (York and Cornwell 2006; Farrell, Pennington, and Cronin 2013) to

investigate how jurors’ objective experiences vary by status characteristics. These

studies use measures such as observed participation rates, influence nominations of

other jurors, and likelihood of changing one’s vote after deliberating. Findings with

respect to class have been in line with status characteristics theory, whereas findings

with respect to gender and race/ethnicity have been mixed in the jury setting.

With respect to social class, some of the earliest studies found that whites with

higher levels of education (James 1959) or greater occupational prestige (Strodtbeck,

James, and Hawkins 1957) participated more in mock jury deliberations than whites

of lower status. Hastie, Penrod, and Pennington (1983) further found that more edu-

cated jurors and those of higher occupational status participated more frequently and

also contributed more to the number of legal issues and case facts discussed. A small

number of more recent studies has confirmed that education and occupation shape

participation rates, controlling for race and other juror- and case-level characteristics.

York and Cornwell (2006), using postdeliberation survey data of real-world jurors in

Massachusetts, find that jurors of higher social class are rated by other jurors as more

influential and as having participated more during deliberations, relative to their

lower-class peers. Moreover, other recent studies of real-world jurors have found that

those with higher levels of education report having participated more during delibera-

tions (Moran and Comfort 1982; Cornwell and Hans 2011).

With respect to gender, while studies from the 1950s and later found that men

tended to exhibit leadership roles (Strodtbeck and Mann 1956) and participated

more in mock juries than women (Strodtbeck, James, and Hawkins 1957; James

1959; Hastie, Penrod, and Pennington 1983), more recent studies have not found a

significant difference between men’s and women’s participation. Cornwell and Hans

(2011), using the same data set of real-world jurors used here, find that gender is

not significantly associated with differences in self-reported participation rates. And

York and Cornwell (2006) find that gender is not significantly associated with

differences in fellow jurors’ perceived influence.

With respect to race and ethnicity, although early studies relied on all-white

juries, a small number of recent studies have indicated contradictory findings. York

and Cornwell (2006) find null results with respect to race and fellow jurors’ per-

ceived influence, controlling for other juror characteristics, including social class,

but Cornwell and Hans (2011) find that blacks report having participated more

during deliberations than whites and members of other racial/ethnic groups. The

authors note the surprising nature of these findings and conclude that more research

is needed in order to understand how race and ethnicity shape the deliberation


process. Meanwhile, Lynch and Haney (2015) examine the role of emotions in

mock capital jury deliberations and observe that white male jurors tend to assert

emotional authority during deliberations by both proclaiming their own emotional

responses and monitoring the emotional expressions of others. Although the authors

do not disentangle this finding in relation to jurors’ gender and race, in line with

status characteristics theory, it suggests the possibility of racial differences in author-

ity during the deliberation process. Finally, Rose (2009) and Hunt (2015) cite

unpublished findings based on data from real-world civil jury deliberations in Arizo-

na (Diamond et al. 2003) that whites speak more during deliberations than mem-

bers of other racial/ethnic groups.

Extant jury deliberation research generally considers one status characteristic at

a time while controlling for the others. Yet, the effects of multiple status characteris-

tics on interpersonal interaction may not be simply additive (Pettigrew 1981; Cren-

shaw 1991; McCall 2005). According to status characteristics theory, individuals tend

to form “aggregated performance expectations” of others based on their multiple sta-

tus characteristics. This occurs both when multiple status characteristics are simulta-

neously salient given the task at hand (Ridgeway and Smith-Lovin 1999) and when

some are relevant to the particular situation and others are not, but are generally

accepted markers of status (Balkwell and Berger 1996). These aggregated expectations

are formed outside of conscious thought, but lead to behavior that empirically sug-

gests that additional consistent information has declining marginal impact, whereas

inconsistent information tends to carry more weight (Correll and Ridgeway 2003).

For example, the status gain a white man would receive from others learning he is

also a physician would not be as large as the status gain a black woman would receive

from the same information. It is, therefore, important to considerer intersecting social

categories in order to understand fully how status characteristics shape jury delibera-

tions. We return to this insight when we develop our hypotheses below.

JURORS’ WELL-BEING: FROM OBJECTIVE TO SUBJECTIVEEXPERIENCE

As we have noted, jury deliberation research tends to focus on individuals’

objective experiences of deliberations—aspects of jurors’ experiences that are mea-

surable through external observation. This perspective considers jurors’ roles in

shaping the deliberation process through their perceived influence, persuasion, or

participation rates, often with an eye toward explaining juries’ ultimate verdicts

(Rose 2009). We argue that in addition to considering objective experience,

researchers should consider whether subjective experiences of deliberations vary by

gender, race, and/or SES, with an eye toward understanding jury deliberation as an

important social and political experience for jurors (Bradbury and Williams 2013).

We define subjective experience as a juror’s feelings about her involvement on

a deliberating jury, especially feelings of inclusion, self-expression, worthiness, and

engagement as a member of a deliberative body. High levels of participation (an

objective measure of experience) may mask lower levels of self-expression (a subjec-

tive measure) if a juror is participating more than her peers because she feels her


points are not being given their proper due. Objective experience and subjective

experience are, therefore, distinct constructs that reveal different processes through

which inequalities in jurors’ experiences may be produced.

Extant research on jurors’ subjective experiences tends to focus on jurors’ satisfac-

tion with the jury selection process (Rose 2005), stress, anxiety, or hardships associat-

ed with various aspects of jury service (Cutler and Hughes 2001; Miller and Bornstein

2004; Brower 2010), or jurors’ willingness to serve again (Diamond 1993; Rose 2005).

Very few studies have considered jurors’ subjective experiences of deliberations, and

those that have do not address the extent to which such experiences vary by status

characteristics. For example, in their study of jurors in King County, Washington,

Gastil et al. (2010) find that jurors’ feelings that other jurors “gave me enough of a

chance to express my opinions” are significantly correlated with jurors’ overall satisfac-

tion with deliberations, but not with jurors’ overall satisfaction with their juries’ ver-

dicts. Although the authors do not consider whether their subjective measures vary by

status characteristics, they do further find that variation in jurors’ levels of satisfaction

significantly relates to variations in civic outcomes, such as increased attention to

news media and increased community group participation. In a study of civil juries in

Arizona, Antonio and Hans (2001) find that racial minorities and Hispanics were less

satisfied with their jury deliberations than whites. However, their study sample was

not large enough to examine blacks’ and Hispanics’ satisfaction independently.

Our lack of knowledge regarding jurors’ subjective experiences of deliberations and

whether such experiences vary by status characteristics is a critical limitation of jury

deliberations research. Research on formerly marginalized groups in other institutional

contexts has revealed how formal incorporation does not always translate into feelings

of inclusion (Jack 2014; Evans and Moore 2015). Such research has highlighted the

emotional and psychological burdens carried by members of historically marginalized

groups as they navigate perceived discrimination while, at the same time, they need to

participate in dominant institutional cultures (Clair and Denis 2015; Evans and Moore

2015; Lamont et al. 2016). Given historical discrimination against nonwhite, nonmale,

and poor citizens in jury selection (Fukurai and Krooth 2003), it is important to consid-

er whether similar processes are at work in the context of jury deliberations. Further-

more, juries are often idealized as potential sites for democratic participation (Diamond

and Rose 2005; Bradbury and Williams 2013) and, as noted above, positive subjective

experiences of deliberations have been found to shape subsequent civic engagement

(Gastil et al. 2010). Disparate subjective experiences of jury deliberations by status

characteristics could, therefore, carry consequences for disparate civic engagement.

Negative subjective experiences of jury deliberations might also contribute to

jurors’ legal cynicism. Legal cynicism refers to “a cultural orientation in which the

law and the agents of its enforcement, such as the police and courts, are viewed as

illegitimate, unresponsive, and ill equipped to ensure public safety” (Kirk and

Papachristos 2011, 1191).1 While legal cynicism is traditionally conceived of as

1. The concept of legal cynicism (Sampson and Bartusch 1998) shares similarities with the concept ofprocedural justice (Tyler and Huo 2002). However, whereas procedural justice is ultimately concerned withthe public’s willingness to obey the law, legal cynicism is more focused on “social cohesion and inclusion asthe ultimate ends of law enforcement” (Bell forthcoming). The latter, therefore, more closely aligns withour theoretical focus.


arising from differential structural conditions as well as police interactions at the

neighborhood level (Sampson and Bartusch 1998; Kirk and Papachristos 2011), it

may be subsequently transmitted through interpersonal interaction (Kirk and

Papachristos 2011). We contend that interactions with courthouse legal proceed-

ings, including jury deliberations, are additional sites in which legal cynicism may

arise.

Prior research has shown that, on average, relative to whites, blacks and His-

panics have increased perceptions of criminal injustice (Hagan, Shedd, and Payne

2005) in relation to the police (Weitzer and Tuch 2005) and the courts (Brooks

and Jeon-Slaughter 2001; Overby et al. 2005) and are more likely to perceive the

criminal justice system as racially biased (Bobo and Johnson 2004; Bobo and

Thompson 2006), largely due to greater contact with the legal system (Hagan,

Shedd, and Payne 2005; Weitzer and Tuch 2005; Muller and Schrage 2014). Jury

deliberations may be yet another site in which these differential views are perpetu-

ated (Diamond 1993), as blacks express less willingness to serve on a jury than

whites, even controlling for prior jury experience (Musick et al. 2015). In sum, a

consideration of whether subjective experiences of jury deliberations vary by status

characteristics contributes to our understandings of trust in legal institutions and of

juries as an inclusionary deliberative body.

HYPOTHESES

Status characteristics theory suggests that members of lower-status social

groups would be expected to have lower-quality subjective experiences of jury

deliberations than their higher-status peers. Moreover, given that courthouses are

largely structured by taken-for-granted middle-class norms (Feeley 1992) and the

task-relevant competencies of deliberation involve verbal reasoning styles that

have been found to favor higher-status groups in multiple other settings

(Bourdieu 1984; Lareau 2002; Fiske and Markus 2012), the jury context would

further suggest that those of lower status would have lower-quality subjective

experiences.

We, therefore, hypothesize that women are less likely to feel positive about

their experiences of jury deliberations relative to men, that blacks and Hispanics

are less likely to feel positive about their experiences relative to whites, and that

those with lower levels of education are less likely to feel positive about their

experiences relative to those with higher levels of education. Education is one

dimension of SES (Fiske and Markus 2012) that is read by others relatively quick-

ly (Fiske 2010).2 While education level may be considered relevant to the task of

2. We examine education as a proxy for SES. Occupation is not measured clearly in our data. Jurorswere asked to categorize their occupation into one of the following categories: managerial specialties; profes-sional; technical and sales; service; agricultural; mechanic/craftsman; operator, laborer, transportationworker; or other. We created a dummy variable to indicate whether a juror is a professional or manager. Thefindings described below with respect to education are robust to using this occupation dummy as a measureof SES instead of education. Furthermore, the main effects of education and occupation are not jointly sig-nificant in our models.


deliberating on a jury, its relationship to jurors’ subjective experiences may vary

by gender and/or race/ethnicity, leading to our second set of hypotheses.

Given extant findings in the broader status characteristics theory literature

regarding the joint effects of multiple status characteristics, we hypothesize that the

negative effect of race/ethnicity is amplified among women. We also hypothesize

that the negative effects of race/ethnicity and of being female are amplified among

those with lower levels of education. Similarly, we would expect the effect of edu-

cation to be stronger for minorities than for whites, since blacks have been shown

to be stereotyped as lower income and less educated in experimental settings (Cor-

rell and Ridgeway 2003).

DATA, MEASURES, AND METHOD

Data

To evaluate jurors’ subjective experiences, we use the “Evaluation of Hung

Juries in Bronx County, New York, Los Angeles County, California, Maricopa

County, Arizona, and Washington, DC, 2000–2001” data set collected by the

National Center for State Courts. The data set includes approximately 350 noncap-

ital felony jury cases that are evenly distributed across the four named sites. The

sites were selected based on their volume of cases, the willingness of court person-

nel to cooperate, and their relevance for the investigation of hung jury rates, which

was the original purpose of the data collection (Hannaford-Agor et al. 2002). Hav-

ing data from four court districts allows us to improve on prior studies’ reliance on

single contexts. Moreover, having data from real-world juries improves on extant

jury deliberation studies’ reliance on experimental settings (Devine 2012), which

may lack external validity by failing to simulate settings that conjure the psycholog-

ical states subjects would experience in real-world courtrooms (Diamond and Rose

2005).

The data set, despite its name, includes data collected from all courtrooms

at each site hearing noncapital felony cases for a period of a few months.

Researchers distributed questionnaire packets, which included a form, filled out

by either the judge or a court officer, that asked for information regarding the

characteristics of the case as well as survey questionnaires for the judge, attor-

neys, and jurors. Accordingly, the data set contains a wealth of information on

each case, including the demographic characteristics of the victim(s), defend-

ant(s), and jurors, and jurors’ opinions regarding the cases and their juries’ delib-

erations. The large and diverse sample of the “Hung Juries” data set allows us to

examine differences by race/ethnicity, which previous studies have lacked the

capacity to do (Sommers and Ellsworth 2003). Additionally, the juror surveys

were completed immediately following the juries’ deliveries of their verdicts,

improving the quality of the information collected relative to some other studies

that have utilized surveys that were filled out days, if not weeks, later (Mills and

Bohannon 1980).


Missing data at the individual and case levels (Appendix Table A1) are not

patterned by observable measures and were multiply imputed using chained equa-

tions (see the Appendix). Although our dependent variable of interest was included

in the imputation model to avoid model misspecification, we do not use imputed

values of the dependent variable in our analyses (White, Royston, and Wood

2011), leaving us with a data set of 2,931 jurors from 328 cases (83.8 percent and

93.4 percent of the complete data set, respectively). These jurors very closely

resemble the complete sample after multiple imputation as well as the samples of

individuals and cases with available information for each variable prior to imputa-

tion (Appendix Table A2).

Variables

Table 1 provides descriptive statistics for our analytic sample stratified by

location as well as comparable individual-level information for each location

from the 2000 Decennial Census. Our dependent variable, self-expression, cap-

tures one aspect of subjective experience. This variable is based on the survey

question: “Do you feel that you had enough time to express your views during

jury deliberations?” Respondents recorded their answers on a scale ranging from

1, “definitely no,” to 7, “definitely yes.” Self-expression is different from overall

satisfaction (a broader measure that may or may not capture jurors’ feelings of

having expressed themselves to the extent that they would have liked) as well

as from self-rated participation (which may not reflect the quality of their par-

ticipation, or the extent to which they feel they conveyed the information they

desired to).3

Our independent variables that indicate status characteristics are gender, race/

ethnicity, and education level. Gender is operationalized as a dummy variable that

indicates jurors who categorized themselves as female, as opposed to male. With

respect to race/ethnicity, jurors were asked to choose between black/African Ameri-

can, white/Caucasian, white/Hispanic, nonwhite/Hispanic, Native American,

Asian/Pacific Islander, and other. We group those who chose white/Hispanic and

nonwhite/Hispanic into an Hispanic category and those who chose Native Ameri-

can, Asian/Pacific Islander, or other into an other category, due to the latter’s small

sample sizes.4 Our sample is particularly diverse with regard to race/ethnicity, as

only 43 percent of the overall sample identifies as non-Hispanic white. Education is

measured categorically (high school graduate or less; some college; and college

3. It is possible that in a group of twelve people, some individuals will inevitably feel that they wereunable to fully express themselves. Yet, we are interested in whether such feelings are randomly distributedor are associated with individuals’ status characteristics.

4. We also considered the possibilities of grouping those who chose white/Caucasian and those whochose white/Hispanic together, and maintaining separate indicators for those who chose white/Caucasian,white/Hispanic, and nonwhite/Hispanic. These supplementary analyses revealed that those who identify aswhite/Hispanic have statistically significantly different subjective experiences of jury deliberations fromthose who identify as white/Caucasian and are, in fact, driving the results we report for Hispanics.


TA

BL

E1.

Des

crip

tive

Sta

tist

ics

(Mea

ns)

for

Juro

rsSurv

eyed

Aft

erM

ult

iple

Impu

tati

onan

dfr

omth

e2000

Dec

ennia

lC

ensu

sˆ

Full

Sam

ple

LA

Mar

icop

aB

ronx

DC

(N5

2,9

31)

(N5

903)

2000

Cen

sus

(N5

596)

2000

Cen

sus

(N5

564)

2000

Cen

sus

(N5

868)

2000

Cen

sus

Juro

rC

hara

cter

istics

Fem

ale*

0.5

70.5

40.5

10.4

90.5

00.5

90.5

40.6

40.5

3R

ace/

eth

nic

ity

Wh

ite*

0.4

30.3

60.3

10.8

00.6

60.1

40.1

50.4

50.2

8B

lack

*0.2

70.1

50.1

00.0

30.0

40.4

10.3

10.4

60.6

0H

ispan

ic*

0.2

20

.33

0.4

50.1

40.2

50.3

70.4

80.0

50.0

8O

ther

*0.0

80.1

60.1

50.0

30.0

50.0

70.0

60.0

40.0

5A

ge(y

ears

)18–25*

0.1

00.1

00.1

40.0

90.1

40.1

30.1

50.0

80.1

626–35*

0.2

60.2

50.2

30.2

10.2

20.2

80.2

20.2

70.2

236–45*

0.2

50.2

50.2

20.2

60.2

10.2

70.2

10.2

20.1

946–55*

0.2

30.2

30.1

70.2

40.1

60.2

10.1

60.2

30.1

656-6

5*

0.1

20.1

10.1

00.1

40.1

10.0

70.1

10.1

40.1

1>

65*

0.0

50

.05

0.1

40.0

60.1

60.0

30.1

40.0

70.1

5E

duca

tion

Hig

hsc

hool

or

less

*0.1

90.1

70.4

90.1

40.4

10.3

60.6

40.1

50.4

3S

om

eco

lleg

e*0.3

00.3

40.2

60.4

10.3

40.3

00.2

20.1

80.1

8�

Coll

ege

grad

uat

e*0.5

00

.49

0.2

50.4

60.2

60.3

30.1

50.6

60.3

9M

inori

tyopin

ion

0.2

00.2

00.2

00.2

10.2

0T

ime

toex

pre

ssvie

ws*

‡6.4

16

.45

6.5

26.1

16.5

0(1

.16)

(1.0

5)

(1.0

1)

(1.4

6)

(1.1

1)

Par

tici

pat

ion

*5.7

45.6

65.6

65.9

55.7

3(1

.26)

(1.2

9)

(1.1

3)

(1.3

3)

(1.2

4)

Sat

isfa

ctio

nw

ith

del

iber

atio

ns*

5.9

05.9

26.2

55.8

85.6

5(1

.58)

(1.5

5)

(1.3

0)

(1.5

3)

(1.7

6)

Sat

isfa

ctio

nw

ith

ver

dic

t*5.8

85.8

66.2

56.0

65.5

4(1

.80)

(1.8

7)

(1.4

9)

(1.4

8)

(2.0

4)


Full

Sam

ple

LA

Mar

icop

aB

ronx

DC

(N5

328)

(N5

83)

(N5

78)

(N5

75)

(N5

92)

Cas

eC

hara

cter

istics

Def

endan

tfe

mal

e0.1

20.1

40.1

60.0

80.0

8D

efen

dan

tra

ce/e

thn

icit

yW

hit

e*0.1

10.0

40.3

60.0

30.0

1B

lack

*0.5

60.5

60.2

80.4

70.8

8H

ispan

ic*

0.3

00.3

80.2

50.4

80.1

1O

ther

*0.0

50.0

40.1

20.0

70.0

0C

ase

type

Murd

er0.1

70.2

40.0

80.1

70.2

0S

exual

assa

ult

0.0

60.0

50.0

70.0

70.0

4D

rugs

*0.2

70.3

10.1

40.2

90.3

4A

ssau

lt(n

ot

sexual

)*0.1

20.0

90.1

80.0

40.1

5T

rial

loca

tion

LA

0.2

5M

aric

opa

0.2

4B

ron

x0.2

3D

C0.2

8

Cen

sus

mea

sure

sap

pro

xim

ate

sam

ple

mea

sure

sas

close

lyas

poss

ible

,but

min

or

dif

fere

nce

ssh

ould

be

note

d.

(1)

Wit

hre

spec

tto

race

/eth

nic

ity,

those

wh

oid

enti

-fi

edon

the

Cen

sus

asn

on

-His

pan

ican

dof

two

or

more

race

sar

eca

ptu

red

inth

eoth

erca

tego

ry,

wh

erea

sth

ose

wh

oid

enti

fied

asH

ispan

ican

dof

any

race

are

captu

red

inth

eH

ispan

icca

tego

ry.

Surv

eyre

spon

den

tsw

ith

sim

ilar

raci

al/e

thn

icbac

kgr

oun

ds

may

hav

eca

tego

rize

dth

emse

lves

dif

fere

ntl

y.(2

)T

he

age

cate

gori

esca

ptu

red

by

the

Cen

sus

are

dif

fere

nt

by

on

eye

ar.

Th

eyar

e:18–24,

25–34,

35–44,

45–54,

55–64,

and�

65.

(3)

Educa

tion

alat

tain

men

tin

the

Cen

sus

ison

lym

easu

red

for

the

popu-

lati

on

25

year

sof

age

and

over

.*A

mon

gju

rors

surv

eyed

,fo

ral

lav

aila

ble

case

s(b

efore

mult

iple

imputa

tion

),ch

i-sq

uar

ete

stof

indep

enden

cefo

rlo

cati

on

ssi

gnif

ican

tat

p�

0.0

5.

‡S

tan

dar

ddev

iati

on

ssh

ow

nin

par

enth

eses

for

ord

inal

var

iable

s.

TA

BL

E1.

Con

tin

ued


graduate or more), as is age (18–25 years; 26–35 years; 36–45 years; 46–55 years;

56–65 years; and greater than 65 years).5

To account for the possibility that relationships between jurors’ status charac-

teristics and their self-expression are attributable to jurors’ differential beliefs about

the facts of cases, we also consider whether a juror held a minority opinion in rela-

tion to the verdict preferences of her fellow jurors at the start of deliberations. This

variable is a constructed indicator based on the survey question: “Before you began

deliberating with your fellow jurors at the end of the trial (after all of the evidence

and the judge’s instructions had been presented), which side did you favor?”

Respondents recorded their answers on a scale ranging from 1, “prosecution strongly

favored,” to 7, “defense strongly favored.” We first categorized jurors as proprosecu-

tion (ratings of 1 or 2), neutral (ratings of 3, 4, or 5), or prodefense (ratings of 6 or

7). Jurors were then categorized as having held a minority opinion if they held an

opinion that differed from that of the majority of jurors on their jury (at least 50

percent).6

We also include a number of control variables that are measured at the case

level. First, we control for defendant gender and race/ethnicity to address the possi-

bility that these characteristics influence which jurors lawyers choose to empanel

and also those jurors’ experiences during deliberations. Since cases may have multi-

ple defendants, the defendant gender and race/ethnicity variables indicate whether

at least one defendant of the given gender or racial/ethnic group was present.7 Sec-

ond, we control for the type of case because opinion formation with regard to crime

and punishment tends to differ by race as well as by the nature of the crime (Bobo

and Johnson 2004) and may, therefore, relate to jurors’ experiences regarding their

abilities to express themselves. Dummy variables indicate whether each case

involved murder, sexual assault or rape, drugs, or a nonsexual assault. These catego-

ries group together crimes for which jurors’ biases or predisposed attitudes are likely

to be similar. The reference category includes robbery, larceny, and driving under

the influence.

Finally, in order to identify whether our dependent variable is a unique mea-

sure of subjective experience, we consider the relationships between our dependent

variable and three other measures of jurors’ subjective experiences of their jury ser-

vice: self-rated participation during deliberations (“How much did you participate

in the jury deliberations?”), overall satisfaction with the jury’s deliberations (“How

satisfied were you with the jury’s deliberations?”), and satisfaction with the jury’s

5. The Census measures approximate our survey measures as closely as possible, but there are a fewminor differences. First, with respect to race/ethnicity, we categorize those who identified on the Census asnon-Hispanic and of two or more races in the other category and those who identified as Hispanic and ofany race in the Hispanic category. Jurors with similar racial/ethnic backgrounds may have categorized them-selves differently in response to the “Hung Juries” survey question, which combined race and ethnicity intoone question. Second, the age categories provided by the Census are different by one year. For example, theyoungest age category of interest is 18–24 years instead of 18–25 years as in the “Hung Juries” survey. Third,educational attainment is measured in the Census only for those 25 years of age and older.

6. If no opinion was held by at least 50 percent of jurors on a given jury at the start of deliberations,then no jurors on that jury are considered to have held minority opinions.

7. Jurors’ and defendants’ races/ethnicities were measured slightly differently. Whereas the Hispaniccategory for jurors includes white/Hispanic and nonwhite/Hispanic, the Hispanic category for defendantsincludes only white/Hispanic and black/Hispanic.


verdict (“How satisfied were you with the jury’s decision [guilty, not guilty,

hung]?”). Respondents recorded their answers to each of these questions on a scale

ranging from 1 to 7, with higher numbers indicating a more positive response.

Variation by Site

Table 1 reveals substantial variation across the four locations in the demo-

graphic compositions of both jurors and defendants in our sample. Maricopa has the

lowest proportion of women jurors, the highest proportion of white jurors, and rela-

tively few minority jurors, whereas the Bronx has the smallest proportion of white

and greater proportions of black and Hispanic jurors. DC is predominantly com-

prised of white and black jurors, whereas Los Angeles (LA) is predominantly com-

prised of white and Hispanic jurors, but also has a substantial proportion of black

jurors. Jurors in the Bronx have lower levels of education, whereas jurors in DC are

more highly educated than jurors in the other locations. We address these differ-

ences between the sites in our regression models, as described below.

In general, the jurors in our sample appear more likely to be women, white, in

their mid-forties to mid-fifties, and more highly educated relative to their local pop-

ulations. Such discrepancies might arise at various stages of the jury selection pro-

cess, including the composition of juror registries, the delivery of jury duty

summonses, and the courtroom selection process (Fukurai and Krooth 2003).

Analytic Strategy

To examine the relationships between jurors’ self-expression during delibera-

tions and alternate measures of jurors’ subjective experiences, we calculate correla-

tions and Cronbach’s alpha. Our dependent variable is measured on an ordinal

scale and is not normally distributed. Therefore, after examining its bivariate rela-

tionships with our status characteristics of interest (gender, race/ethnicity, and edu-

cation), our primary analyses consist of ordered logistic regression models. Since our

data include jurors nested within juries, we cluster the standard errors to account

for the nonindependence of jurors within juries.8 The equation below presents our

analytic model for testing our hypotheses.

ologit yij

� �5 aj1 bxij1 cdijtij1 qwj 1 dzijgj

We first examine the relationship between our dependent variable (yij), jurors’ rat-

ings of the extent to which they felt they had enough time to express themselves,

and the additive effects of jurors’ status characteristics (gender, race/ethnicity, and

education) as well as age (xij), controlling, at the group level, for (wj) the defend-

ant’s gender and race/ethnicity, the type of case, and the site at which the trial

8. We are interested in variation at the individual level, and the intraclass correlation of our depen-dent variable is very low, indicating that ordered logistic regression with clustered standard errors is moreappropriate than hierarchical linear models.


took place. The latter is a proxy for the differential demographic compositions of

the different sites as well as any other between-site differences.9 We also include a

set of interaction terms (zijgj) between juror race/ethnicity and the locations in

order to account for the possibility that the effects of race/ethnicity are different in

different jurisdictions (Harris, Evans, and Beckett 2011).10

We then run a second model to test our hypotheses that individuals’ combina-

tions of status characteristics affect their experiences as jurors. This model includes

interaction terms (dijtij) between race/ethnicity and gender, education and gender,

and race/ethnicity and education.

Finally, we run a second set of models that incorporates an indicator for which

jurors held minority opinions at the start of deliberations. We first simply add an

individual-level indicator of minority opinion status to the second model described

above, and then add interactions between minority opinion status and each of our

measured status characteristics as well as three-way interactions between minority

opinion status and the individual-level interaction terms described above. To facili-

tate interpretation of our results given the interaction terms, we calculate predicted

probabilities of responding to whether one had enough time to express oneself with

a “definitely yes” for select status groups.

FINDINGS

Before proceeding with our primary analyses, we first test whether self-

expression—our measure of subjective experience—is distinct from other measures

of jurors’ subjective experiences. We compare self-expression to jurors’ self-rated

participation, overall satisfaction with the jury’s deliberations, and satisfaction with

the jury’s final verdict. Table 2 shows that the correlations between the extent to

which jurors felt they had enough time to express themselves and each of these

measures are relatively low. For example, of those who reported definitely (7) hav-

ing had enough time to express themselves, only 39 percent reported having partici-

pated a great deal (7) (not shown), and of those who rated their self-expression

with a 4, 21 percent rated their participation with a 7. Additionally, Cronbach’s

alpha between the extent to which jurors felt they had enough time to express

themselves and each of these measures is quite low (Table 2), indicating that these

9. We tested the possibility that the effects of status characteristics in jury deliberations are moderatedby the status composition of the group (Berger et al. 1977; Ridgeway and Berger 1986). One might expectthe effect of a status characteristic to be attenuated when a higher proportion of one’s fellow jurors share thesame characteristic (Li, Karakowsky, and Siegel 1999). We therefore included jury-level indicators of theproportions of women, blacks, Hispanics, those of other races/ethnicities, and those with higher levels ofeducation on the jury. We also tested interactions between these indicators and their corresponding charac-teristics at the individual level. None of these terms were statistically significant or altered our results, possi-bly because any associations are already captured by the location indicators in the model, given thedemographic compositions of the different sites. We omit these variables from our final models for ease ofinterpretation.

10. We also tested interaction terms between the juror’s gender and the defendant’s gender; the juror’srace/ethnicity and the defendant’s race/ethnicity; the juror’s race/ethnicity and the type of crime; and thedefendant’s race/ethnicity and the type of crime. These interactions were not statistically significant anddid not alter our results.


measures are indeed measuring different constructs. Therefore, whereas each of

these aspects of subjective jury experience is important to consider and they are

positively associated with one another, they are each measuring a distinct aspect of

jurors’ subjective experiences.11

We now turn to our primary analyses and first look descriptively at the bivari-

ate relationships between self-expression and our status characteristics of interest

(Figure 1). Overall, the majority of jurors (71 percent) selected the highest possible

rating, indicating that they felt they definitely had enough time to express their

views during jury deliberations. This descriptive finding that most individuals feel

TABLE 2.Relationships Between Jurors’ Self-Expression and Additional Measures ofJurors’ Subjective Experiences

Participation Satisfaction with Deliberations Satisfaction with Verdict

Correlation 0.20 0.31 0.21Cronbach’s alpha 0.32 0.46 0.31

FIGURE 1.Distributions of Jurors’ Self-Report of Having Had Time to Express Their ViewsDuring Deliberations, by Status CharacteristicsNote: Since it is not possible to calculate frequencies based on imputed data, fre-quencies were calculated for the full available sample for each status characteris-tic prior to multiple imputation.

11. Given the retrospective nature of our survey data, we cannot reliably examine whether these dif-ferent outcomes mediate one another.


they are able to express themselves within the context of jury deliberations is

affirming.

The difference between checking 7 versus a lower number on the scale might

be conceptualized as the difference between a positively affirmative response and

some amount of hesitance in whether one felt one had enough time to express one-

self. In an ideal world, all respondents would have chosen the highest possible rat-

ing, or the distribution of those who did not would at least be unrelated to status

characteristics. However, Figure 1 shows apparent differences between some status

groups in who selected the highest option as well as in the distributions of respond-

ents among the rest of the answer choices. With respect to gender, there do not

appear to be large differences, as slightly more women than men selected the high-

est option, but slightly more men than women selected the next highest option.

The rest of the distribution is fairly even (Panel A).

With respect to race/ethnicity, whereas blacks and whites selected the highest

option in similar proportions, fewer Hispanics did (Panel B of Figure 1). Following

from this observation, although the distribution for Hispanics is skewed in the same

manner as it is for the full sample, more Hispanics are distributed throughout the

tail relative to whites. This is also true of blacks, to a lesser extent. With respect to

education, Panel C shows that education exhibits a clear gradient, with the greatest

proportion of those with at least a college education feeling as if they had enough

time to express themselves and those with a high school education or less more dis-

persed throughout the distribution. Chi-squared tests confirm that the observed dif-

ferences in Panels B and C with respect to race/ethnicity and education level are

statistically significant, whereas the gender distribution (Panel A) does not signifi-

cantly vary. In sum, feeling that one had enough time to express one’s views seems

to be unevenly distributed by education and by race/ethnicity.

We next turn to multivariate analyses to determine whether these relationships

persist when we control for potential confounders (Table 3). We first examine the

relationships between the extent of jurors’ feelings of self-expression and race/eth-

nicity, gender, and education, controlling for age and case-level characteristics.

Contrary to our hypothesis but in line with contemporary jury studies, women do

not significantly differ from men in the extent to which they feel they had enough

time to express themselves, as illustrated in Figure 1. Meanwhile, blacks and His-

panics in LA are less likely to feel they were fully able to express themselves than

whites,12 whereas those with higher levels of education are more likely to feel they

were fully able to express themselves relative to those with a high school education

or less.13

Model 2 of Table 3 adds interaction terms between juror race/ethnicity and

gender, gender and education, and race/ethnicity and education. This model tests

12. All models in Table 3 also control for the other race/ethnicity group as well as its correspondinginteraction terms. Therefore, whites are always the reference group. We do not report the coefficients forthis group or show their predicted probabilities in Figure 2 or 3, because the heterogeneous nature of thegroup renders any interpretation of these results meaningless.

13. Being black in DC is significantly associated with higher levels of self-expression. Due to the rangeof between-site differences that the location indicators may be capturing, further analyses that wouldexplore the meaning of this result are beyond the scope of this article.


TA

BL

E3.

Odd

sR

atio

s(O

R)

and

95

Per

cent

Con

fide

nce

Inte

rval

s(9

5%

CI)

from

Ord

ered

Log

isti

cR

egre

ssio

ns

Show

ing

Ass

ocia

tion

sw

ith

Juro

rs’

Sel

f-E

xpre

ssio

n,

Aft

erM

ult

iple

Impu

tati

on Mod

el1

aM

odel

2M

odel

3M

odel

4

OR

(95%

CI)

OR

(95%

CI)

OR

(95%

CI)

OR

(95%

CI)

Juro

rC

hara

cter

istics

Fem

ale

1.0

9(0

.91,

1.3

1)

1.3

5(0

.81,

2.2

7)

1.3

2(0

.78,

2.2

3)

1.4

9(0

.81,

2.7

5)

Rac

e/et

hn

icit

yB

lack

0.5

4***

(0.3

6,

0.8

0)

0.3

3***

(0.1

6,

0.6

9)

0.3

6***

(0.1

7,

0.7

5)

0.3

6**

(0.1

6,

0.8

2)

His

pan

ic0.4

9***

(0.3

3,

0.7

1)

0.3

2***

(0.1

6,

0.6

2)

0.3

5***

(0.1

8,

0.6

8)

0.4

2**

(0.2

0,

0.8

8)

Age 2

6–35

1.1

6(0

.84,

1.5

9)

1.1

5(0

.84,

1.5

9)

1.1

5(0

.83,

1.5

8)

1.1

2(0

.81,

1.5

5)

36–45

1.6

3***

(1.1

6,

2.3

0)

1.6

1***

(1.1

4,

2.2

8)

1.6

1***

(1.1

4,

2.2

7)

1.5

8**

(1.1

1,

2.2

5)

46–55

1.5

4**

(1.0

9,

2.1

8)

1.5

3**

(1.0

8,

2.1

6)

1.5

3**

(1.0

8,

2.1

7)

1.5

1**

(1.0

6,

2.1

5)

56–65

1.5

9**

(1.0

7,

2.3

4)

1.5

5**

(1.0

5,

2.3

1)

1.5

9**

(1.0

7,

2.3

7)

1.5

8**

(1.0

6,

2.3

7)

>65

1.0

7(0

.66,

1.7

3)

1.0

3(0

.63,

1.6

7)

1.0

1(0

.62,

1.6

5)

0.9

9(0

.60,

1.6

4)

Educa

tion

Som

eco

lleg

e1.3

7**

(1.0

7,

1.7

5)

1.1

3(0

.66,

1.9

2)

1.1

6(0

.68,

1.9

8)

1.0

8(0

.59,

1.9

6)

�C

oll

ege

grad

uat

e1.6

7***

(1.3

1,

2.1

3)

1.0

4(0

.62,

1.7

5)

1.0

7(0

.64,

1.7

9)

1.1

1(0

.63,

1.9

5)

Min

ori

tyopin

ion

0.6

1***

(0.4

9,

0.7

6)

0.9

3(0

.32,

2.7

7)

Juro

rC

hara

cter

istic

Inte

ract

ions

Rac

e/et

hn

icit

y-G

ender

Bla

ck-F

emal

e0.7

0(0

.43,

1.1

3)

0.6

7(0

.41,

1.0

9)

0.6

5(0

.37,

1.1

4)

His

pan

ic-F

emal

e1.0

0(0

.64,

1.5

7)

0.9

6(0

.61,

1.5

0)

0.7

2(0

.43,

1.2

1)

Gen

der

-Educa

tion

Fem

ale-

Som

eco

lleg

e0.7

7(0

.45,

1.3

0)

0.7

8(0

.46,

1.3

3)

0.8

2(0

.44,

1.5

4)

Fem

ale-

Coll

ege

grad

uat

e0.8

3(0

.49,

1.4

1)

0.8

6(0

.50,

1.4

7)

0.7

7(0

.42,

1.4

4)

Rac

e/et

hn

icit

y-E

duca

tion

Bla

ck-S

om

eco

lleg

e1.8

1*

(0.9

3,

3.5

5)

1.7

9*

(0.9

1,

3.5

0)

1.9

6*

(0.9

1,

4.2

5)

Bla

ck-C

oll

ege

grad

uat

e2.7

6***

(1.4

8,

5.1

6)

2.6

2***

(1.3

9,

4.9

1)

2.6

6***

(1.3

1,

5.3

7)


Tab

le3.

Con

tinued

Mod

el1

aM

odel

2M

odel

3M

odel

4

OR

(95%

CI)

OR

(95%

CI)

OR

(95%

CI)

OR

(95%

CI)

His

pan

ic-S

om

eco

lleg

e1.2

5*

(0.6

5,

2.4

0)

1.2

2(0

.63,

2.3

7)

1.3

3(0

.62,

2.8

6)

His

pan

ic-C

oll

ege

grad

uat

e1.9

8**

(1.0

4,

3.7

8)

1.8

8*

(0.9

8,

3.6

0)

1.9

8*

(0.9

6,

4.0

7)

Min

ori

tyopin

ion

-Fem

ale

0.5

4(0

.14,

2.1

2)

Min

ori

tyopin

ion

-Rac

e/et

hn

icit

yB

lack

-Min

ori

tyo

pin

ion

0.7

9(0

.20,

3.1

5)

His

pan

ic-M

inori

tyopin

ion

0.4

5(0

.13,

1.5

5)

Min

ori

tyopin

ion

-Educa

tion

Som

eco

lleg

e-M

inori

tyopin

ion

1.4

6(0

.36,

5.9

0)

Coll

ege

grad

uat

e-M

inori

tyopin

ion

0.8

1(0

.25,

2.6

0)

Min

ori

tyopin

ion

-Gen

der

-Rac

e/et

hn

icit

yFem

ale-

Bla

ck-M

inori

tyopin

ion

1.2

8(0

.35,

4.6

6)

Fem

ale-

His

pan

ic-M

inori

tyopin

ion

3.2

5**

(1.0

6,

9.9

9)

Min

ori

tyopin

ion

-Gen

der

-Educa

tion

Fem

ale-

Som

eco

lleg

e-M

inori

tyopin

ion

0.7

9(0

.22,

2.8

8)

Fem

ale-

Coll

ege

grad

uat

e-M

inori

tyopin

ion

1.7

0(0

.44,

6.5

9)

Min

ori

tyopin

ion

-Rac

e/et

hn

icit

y-E

duca

tion

Bla

ck-S

om

eco

lleg

e-M

inori

tyopin

ion

0.6

5(0

.12,

3.5

1)

Bla

ck-C

oll

ege

grad

uat

e-M

inori

tyopin

ion

1.0

1(0

.19,

5.4

7)

His

pan

ic-S

om

eco

lleg

e-M

inori

tyopin

ion

0.6

3(0

.14,

2.9

4)

His

pan

ic-C

oll

ege

grad

uat

e-M

inori

tyopin

ion

0.8

4(0

.20,

3.5

7)

Cas

eC

hara

cter

istics

Def

endan

tfe

mal

e1.1

0(0

.84,

1.4

5)

1.0

7(0

.82,

1.4

1)

1.0

9(0

.83,

1.4

3)

1.0

9(0

.83,

1.4

3)

Def

endan

tra

ce/e

thn

icit

yB

lack

1.1

0(0

.80,

1.5

1)

1.0

8(0

.79,

1.4

8)

1.1

1(0

.81,

1.5

1)

1.0

9(0

.80,

1.4

9)

His

pan

ic1.1

2(0

.81,

1.5

5)

1.1

0(0

.80,

1.5

2)

1.1

2(0

.82,

1.5

4)

1.1

2(0

.82,

1.5

4)


Tab

le3.

Con

tinued

Mod

el1

aM

odel

2M

odel

3M

odel

4

OR

(95%

CI)

OR

(95%

CI)

OR

(95%

CI)

OR

(95%

CI)

Cas

ety

pe

Murd

er0.9

7(0

.72,

1.3

1)

0.9

7(0

.72,

1.3

0)

0.9

6(0

.72,

1.3

0)

0.9

6(0

.71,

1.3

0)

Sex

ual

assa

ult

1.0

8(0

.72,

1.6

3)

1.0

9(0

.73,

1.6

2)

1.1

4(0

.77,

1.6

8)

1.1

2(0

.76,

1.6

5)

Dru

gs1.0

0(0

.78,

1.2

8)

1.0

0(0

.79,

1.2

8)

1.0

1(0

.79,

1.2

9)

1.0

1(0

.79,

1.2

9)

Ass

ault

(not

sexual

)1.0

5(0

.75,

1.4

7)

1.0

6(0

.76,

1.4

9)

1.1

0(0

.79,

1.5

4)

1.1

0(0

.78,

1.5

4)

Tri

allo

cati

on

Mar

icopa

0.8

1(0

.55,

1.1

9)

0.7

7(0

.53,

1.1

3)

0.7

9(0

.54,

1.1

6)

0.7

8(0

.53,

1.1

4)

Bro

nx

0.6

9(0

.38,

1.2

3)

0.6

0*

(0.3

3,

1.1

0)

0.6

5(0

.36,

1.1

7)

0.6

2(0

.34,

1.1

2)

DC

0.7

3(0

.50,

1.0

7)

0.8

1(0

.56,

1.1

9)

0.8

3(0

.56,

1.2

2)

0.8

2(0

.55,

1.2

0)

Juro

r-C

ase

Inte

ract

ion

sB

lack

-Mar

icopa

1.1

9(0

.39,

3.6

1)

1.2

8(0

.41,

4.0

1)

1.3

5(0

.43,

4.2

2)

1.4

7(0

.45,

4.7

6)

Bla

ck-B

ron

x1.4

2(0

.72,

2.8

0)

1.7

0(0

.85,

3.4

2)

1.5

5(0

.77,

3.0

9)

1.6

3(0

.81,

3.2

6)

Bla

ck-D

C2.0

4***

(1.2

2,

3.4

2)

1.9

5**

(1.1

5,

3.3

0)

1.9

3**

(1.1

3,

3.2

9)

1.9

7**

(1.1

5,

3.3

6)

His

pan

ic-M

aric

opa

1.5

1(0

.75,

3.0

4)

1.5

5(0

.76,

3.1

5)

1.4

9(0

.74,

3.0

0)

1.5

5(0

.78,

3.0

6)

His

pan

ic-B

ron

x1.0

4(0

.52,

2.0

7)

1.1

6(0

.58,

2.3

3)

1.0

9(0

.55,

2.1

6)

1.1

4(0

.57,

2.2

8)

His

pan

ic-D

C1.5

7(0

.71,

3.4

4)

1.2

8(0

.55,

2.9

7)

1.2

1(0

.51,

2.8

4)

1.1

7(0

.48,

2.8

4)

aA

llm

odel

sal

soad

just

edfo

r“o

ther

”ra

ce/e

thn

icit

yan

dit

sap

pli

cable

two-w

ayan

dth

ree-

way

inte

ract

ion

s.*O

dds

rati

osi

gnif

ican

tat

p�

0.1

0(t

wo-t

aile

d).

**O

dds

rati

osi

gnif

ican

tat

p�

0.0

5(t

wo-t

aile

d).

***O

dds

rati

osi

gnif

ican

tat

p�

0.0

1(t

wo-t

aile

d).

Not

e:A

llst

andar

der

rors

clust

ered

atth

eju

ryle

vel

.


our hypotheses that the intersections of multiple status characteristics may result in

different subjective experiences. Model 3 adds an indicator of whether jurors held

minority opinions relative to their fellow jurors at the start of deliberations. Since

jurors with minority opinions have previously been shown to be less satisfied with

their jury’s deliberations (Waters and Hans 2009), this addresses the possibility that

the results we observe are attributable to members of certain groups being more

likely to hold minority opinions, given differing attitudes toward the legal system

and proclivities for supporting the prosecution or defense (Farrell, Pennington, and

Cronin 2013). Finally, Model 4 addresses this possibility with increased specificity

by adding interaction terms between minority opinion status and our status charac-

teristics of interest as well as three-way interaction terms between minority opinion

status and the individual-level interaction terms in Model 2. When these models

are run with the survey data following listwise deletion instead of multiple imputa-

tion, the results are very similar (Appendix Table A3).14

To facilitate interpretation of our results given the interaction terms, we use

the coefficients from Table 3, Model 4 to calculate predicted probabilities of

responding to whether one had enough time to express oneself with a 7 “definitely

yes” by race/ethnicity. Figures 2 and 3 display these predicted probabilities and their

95 percent confidence intervals for each location for varying levels of education

(Figure 2) and for minority opinion status (Figure 3) by race/ethnicity. We do not

display predicted probabilities by gender, since the extent to which one felt one

had enough time to express oneself does not significantly vary by gender or by gen-

der in interaction with race/ethnicity, education, or minority opinion status. To cal-

culate the predicted probabilities shown in Figure 2, gender and other variables

were held constant as follows: male; age 26–35; nonminority opinion; black male

defendant; and case involving drugs. To calculate the predicted probabilities shown

in Figure 3, variables were similarly held constant as follows: male; age 26–35; at

least a college graduate; black male defendant; and case involving drugs. Hence,

the graphs in Figures 2 and 3 simulate ideal types with meaningful conditions to

illustrate the implications of our results more clearly.15 Although they focus on the

probability of having checked the highest rating of definitely having had enough

time to express oneself, they are based on ordered logistic regression models that

utilize the full scale of jurors’ ratings.

Figure 2 shows an education gradient for blacks and for Hispanics across all

sites. Blacks and Hispanics with higher levels of education are more likely to feel

they definitely had enough time to express themselves relative to blacks and His-

panics with lower levels of education, respectively—although the education gradi-

ent is stronger for blacks than it is for Hispanics. For whites, one’s education does

not matter; whites’ likelihood of feeling that they had enough time to express

themselves does not vary by education level in any of the sites.

14. The results are robust to a jury-level indicator of whether the jury hung and are not explained bythe lengths of the juries’ deliberations (results available upon request).

15. The 95 percent confidence intervals surrounding the predicted probabilities in Figures 2 and 3reveal that the results hold descriptively in each location, but are not statistically significant. This is likelydue to the decreased sample sizes used to calculate the predicted probabilities.


These results are particularly striking because in Model 1 (Table 3), having

higher levels of education was significantly, positively associated with feeling that

one had enough time to express oneself, controlling for race/ethnicity. However,

the interaction terms added in Model 2 reveal that the self-expressions of blacks

and of Hispanics of differing education levels are different from those of whites of

differing education levels. Whereas the experiences of expressing oneself for highly

educated blacks and Hispanics appear to be relatively similar to those of their white

peers in some locations (Figure 2), the experience of being black or Hispanic with

lower education levels is different than the experiences of being white with lower

education levels across all sites. In fact, the gaps between blacks and Hispanics with

low levels of education and whites with low levels of education are substantial.

However, the education gradient for Hispanics is not as steep as it is for blacks.

Given that jury deliberations consist of verbal reasoning, it is not necessarily sur-

prising that those with higher levels of education are more likely than those with

lower levels to report having had enough time to express themselves, but our results

reveal that this is true only for minorities.

Although whether one held a minority opinion at the start of deliberations sig-

nificantly relates to self-expression (Table 3, Model 3), this relationship does not

account for our findings with respect to race/ethnicity and education (Table 3,

Models 3 and 4). Since the majority of jury verdicts tend to follow the majority

FIGURE 2.Predicted Probabilities and 95 Percent Confidence Intervals of Definitely (Option7) Having Had Enough Time to Express One’s Views During Deliberations Fol-lowing Ordered Logistic Regression (Table 3, Model 4), by Race/Ethnicity andEducationNote: Predicted probabilities were calculated using coefficients for male; age 26–35; nonminority opinion; black male defendant; case involving drugs.


opinion at the start of deliberations (Kalvin and Zeisel 1966), this association could

arise from jurors with minority opinions feeling that their fellow jurors did not seri-

ously consider their viewpoints. However, like education, minority opinion status

does not matter equally for everybody (Table 3, Model 4). Figure 3 reveals that

although holding a minority opinion is associated with a smaller probability of hav-

ing definitely felt one had enough time to express oneself for all racial/ethnic

groups, the association is larger for minorities relative to whites, and particularly for

Hispanics.

DISCUSSION

Our results support our argument that researchers should consider jurors’ sub-

jective experiences independent of their influence on criminal defendants’ out-

comes. Using a survey of real-world jurors, we find that, overall, the majority of

jurors of all status groups feel that they definitely had enough time to express them-

selves during jury deliberations. This suggests jury service as a potential pathway for

positive contact with the legal system. Indeed, although one study found that

whites are more likely than blacks or Hispanics to favor a jury over a judge if they

imagine themselves as defendants, the study found the relationship to be attenuated

for minorities with prior jury service (Rose, Ellison, and Diamond 2008).

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

White Black Hispanic

Pred

icte

d pr

obab

ility

A. LA

Non-minorityopinion

Minority opinion

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1


Pred

icte

d pr

obab

ility

B. Maricopa

Non-minorityopinion

Minority opinion

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1


Pred

icte

d pr

obab

ility

C. Bronx

Non-minorityopinion

Minority opinion

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1


Pred

icte

d pr

obab

ility

D. DC

Non-minorityopinion

Minority opinion

FIGURE 3.Predicted Probabilities and 95 Percent Confidence Intervals of Definitely (Option7) Having Had Enough Time to Express One’s Views During Deliberations Fol-lowing Ordered Logistic Regression (Table 3, Model 4), by Race/Ethnicity andMinority Opinion StatusNote: Predicted probabilities were calculated using coefficients for: male; age 26–35;� college graduate; black male defendant; case involving drugs.


Despite our overall positive finding, our results simultaneously reveal that

experiences of jury deliberations are less positive for members of lower-status social

groups. Blacks and Hispanics with lower levels of education are less likely than

their white peers to feel as positively that they had enough time to express them-

selves during jury deliberations, associations that are attenuated for blacks and His-

panics with higher levels of education. In contrast, being white appears to operate

as a trumping “master status” (Hughes 1945, 357), shielding those with lower edu-

cation levels from less positive experiences of self-expression. In this way, our

results illustrate that in the context of jury deliberations, being black with a lower

level of education is qualitatively different from being white with a lower level of

education. This differing effect of class by race has previously been found with

respect to incarceration (Western 2006) as well as with respect to residential neigh-

borhoods (Sharkey 2013), but we find that it is also the case in the context of

interpersonal interaction.

Our findings contrast with those of Cornwell and Hans (2011), who, using the

same data set, found that blacks report having participated more during delibera-

tions than whites. Whereas the authors interpret jurors’ self-reports of participation

as a measure of objective participation rates (Cornwell and Hans 2011, 692), such

self-reports can also be understood as a measure of subjective feelings of engage-

ment. We offer three possible explanations for these discrepant results, none of

which are mutually exclusive. First, it may be that each set of findings is capturing

a different aspect of jurors’ feelings, highlighting the multidimensional nature of

individuals’ subjective experiences (see Table 2). Second, if we conceptualize self-

reported participation as a measure of objective participation rates, more highly

educated blacks may be more likely to attempt to convince others of their views

(Lareau 2002), especially in the context of criminal jury deliberations, since blacks

and whites tend to hold different explanatory accounts of law-breaking behavior

(Thompson and Bobo 2011). Third, status characteristics may operate more strongly

when individuals conform more closely to their associated stereotypes (Ridgeway

and Kricheli-Katz 2013). Whereas race is socially significant in its own right, it is

also deeply associated with class (Saperstein and Penner 2012), and so blacks with

less education may have more negative subjective experiences of interpersonal

interaction.

The nature of our data set prevents us from identifying the precise mechanisms

through which our results arise, as we are unable to observe what happened in the

jury rooms. Future research should combine observational data of jury deliberations

with postdeliberation surveys intended to capture subjective self-reports. Such a

research design could uncover the interactional processes that give rise to disparate

subjective experiences. Researchers should also consider how objective factors, such

as the process of foreperson selection, the gender and race/ethnicity of the foreper-

son, and whether each juror expresses an opinion before the first vote is taken,

shape jurors’ subjective experiences.

Additionally, building from our finding in Table 2 that different measures of

jurors’ subjective experiences are correlated but distinct from one another, future

research should consider whether the determinants of each of these outcomes are

unique or whether subjective experience across multiple dimensions tends to arise


from similar processes. While tackling these and other questions related to jury

deliberations, researchers should be sure to include the interactive effects of race

and class in order to provide more precise accounts of the relationships between sta-

tus characteristics and jurors’ objective and subjective experiences. Finally, larger

sample sizes from multiple jurisdictions would allow researchers to disentangle the

effects of the jurisdictional context from those of the racial composition of the jury.

Although we have laid out these recommendations for future research within the

substantive context of jury deliberations, they might also be applied to the broader

development of status characteristics theory across multiple, real-world contexts.

Although the impact of jury deliberations on defendants’ outcomes is not our

area of focus, our results have implications for understanding this relationship. Rose

(2009) posits that further study of jurors’ participation rates may help explain why

there is not a stronger link between juries’ racial compositions and their verdicts,

given average racial differences in beliefs regarding crime and the criminal justice

system at the individual level. However, our finding that blacks and Hispanics with

lower education levels feel less positive about their self-expression during delibera-

tions may be the missing link that helps explain this disconnect, rather than objec-

tive participation rates alone. Similarly, Hunt hypothesizes that “differences in

cultural values and practices” (2015, 279) may help explain differences in participa-

tion rates by status characteristics and, by extension, persistent biases in juries’ ver-

dicts against minority defendants. Such an explanation makes assumptions about

individuals’ subjective experiences that we, instead, directly measure, finding that

minority jurors with lower education levels feel less definitively than white jurors

that they were able to fully express themselves, rather than having a cultural prefer-

ence for less participation.

Returning to the significance of jury service for jurors themselves, our findings

have implications for understandings of the jury as a democratic deliberative body

and for legal cynicism. As in other institutional contexts (Jack 2014; Evans and

Moore 2015), our findings reveal that the increased access of marginalized status

groups to serving on a jury does not necessarily translate into feelings of inclusion,

potentially leading to lower levels of civic participation (Gastil et al. 2010). Addi-

tionally, our results indicate that jury deliberations may reinforce racial/ethnic

minorities’ more negative perceptions of the legal system relative to whites’ (Weit-

zer and Tuch 2005; Bobo and Thompson 2006), potentially increasing legal cyni-

cism (Sampson and Bartusch 1998) and decreasing confidence in the legal system

for protection might one need it (Bobo and Thompson 2006). Differences in sub-

jective experiences of deliberations may have ramifications not only for jurors’ own

views (Farrell, Pennington, and Cronin 2013), but also for the views and subse-

quent civic engagement of their family members and peers to whom they are likely

to relay their experiences (Kirk and Papachristos 2011). Women with previously

incarcerated partners have been shown to be less likely to participate politically fol-

lowing incarceration (Sugie 2015), and similar spillover effects may result from sub-

jective experiences of jury deliberations.

Overall, this study moves jury research and status characteristics theory toward

a greater consideration of the subjective feelings—not just the objective contribu-

tions—of minorities, women, and those of lower SES. In particular, we have shown


that jurors’ feelings of self-expression vary by individuals’ race/ethnicity and educa-

tion level, and that these variations are not accounted for by which jurors held

minority opinions at the start of jury deliberations. Our findings have implications

for minorities’ social inclusion and are significant given that juries are meant to be

paradigmatic of US democracy (Diamond and Rose 2005; Gastil et al. 2010).

REFERENCES

Abramson, Jeffrey B. 1994. We, the Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.Albonetti, Celesta A. 1986. Criminality, Prosecutorial Screening, and Uncertainty: Toward a

Theory of Discretionary Decision Making in Felony Case Processings. Criminology 24 (4):

623–44.Allport, Gordon Willard. 1979. The Nature of Prejudice. New York: Basic Books.Antonio, Michael E., and Valerie P. Hans. 2001. Race and the Civil Jury: How Does a Juror’s

Race Shape the Jury Experience? In Psychology in the Courts, ed. Ronald Roesch, Raymond

R. Corrado, and Rebecca Dempster, 69–82. New York: Routledge.Balkwell, James W., and Joseph Berger. 1996. Gender, Status, and Behavior in Task Situations.

Social Psychology Quarterly 59 (3): 273–83.Bell, Monica C. Forthcoming. Police Reform & the Dismantling of Legal Cynicism. Yale Law

Journal.Berger, Joseph M., Bernard P. Cohen, and Morris Zelditch, Jr. 1972. Status Characteristics and

Social Interaction. American Sociological Review 37 (3): 241–55.Berger, Joseph, M. Hamit Fisek, Robert Z. Norman, and Morris Zelditch, Jr. 1977. Status Charac-

teristics and Social Interaction: An Expectation-States Approach. New York: Elsevier Scientific.Bobo, Lawrence D., and Devon Johnson. 2004. A Taste for Punishment: Black and White Ameri-

cans’ Views on the Death Penalty and the War on Drugs. Du Bois Review: Social Science

Research on Race 1 (01): 151–80.Bobo, Lawrence D., and Victor Thompson. 2006. Unfair by Design: The War on Drugs, Race,

and the Legitimacy of the Criminal Justice System. Social Research 73 (2): 445–72.Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.Bradbury, Mark D., and Marian R. Williams. 2013. Diversity and Citizen Participation: The

Effect of Race on Juror Decision Making. Administration & Society 45 (5): 563–82.Brooks, Richard R. W., and Haekyung Jeon-Slaughter. 2001. Race, Income, and Perceptions of

the U.S. Court System. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 19 (2): 249–64.Brower, Todd. 2010. Twelve Angry—and Sometimes Alienated—Men: The Experiences and

Treatment of Lesbians and Gay Men During Jury Service. Drake Law Review 59:669–706.Clair, Matthew, and Jeffrey S. Denis. 2015. Sociology of Racism. In The International Encyclopedia

of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., ed. James D. Wright, 19:857–63. Oxford:

Elsevier.Cornell, Stephen Ellicott, and Douglas Hartmann. 2007. Ethnicity and Race: Making Identities in a

Changing World. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.Cornwell, Erin York. 2010. Opening and Closing the Jury Room Door: A Sociohistorical Consid-

eration of the 1955 Chicago Jury Project Scandal. Justice System Journal 31 (1): 49–73.Cornwell, Erin York, and Valerie P. Hans. 2011. Representation Through Participation: A Multi-

level Analysis of Jury Deliberations. Law & Society Review 45 (3): 667–98.Correll, Shelley J. 2004. Constraints into Preferences: Gender, Status, and Emerging Career Aspi-

rations. American Sociological Review 69 (1): 93–113.Correll, Shelley J., and Cecilia L. Ridgeway. 2003. Expectation States Theory. In The Handbook

of Social Psychology, ed. John Delamater, 29–51. New York: Kluwer Academic Press.


Crenshaw, Kimberl�e. 1991. Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Vio-lence Against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review 43 (6): 1241–99.

Cutler, Brian L., and Donna M. Hughes. 2001. Judging Jury Service: Results of the North Caroli-na Administrative Office of the Courts Juror Survey. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 19 (2):305–20.

Devine, Dennis J. 2012. Jury Decision Making: The State of the Science. New York: New York Uni-versity Press.

Devine, Dennis J., Laura D. Clayton, Benjamin B. Dunford, Rasmy Seying, and Jennifer Pryce.2001. Jury Decision Making: 45 Years of Empirical Research on Deliberating Groups. Psy-chology, Public Policy, and Law 7 (3): 622–727.

Diamond, Shari Seidman. 1993. What Jurors Think: Expectations and Reactions of Citizens WhoServe as Jurors. In Verdict: Assessing the Civil Jury System, ed. Robert E. Litan, 282–305.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Diamond, Shari Seidman, and Mary R. Rose. 2005. Real Juries. Annual Review of Law and SocialScience 1 (1): 255–84.

Diamond, Shari Seidman, Neil Vidmar, Mary R. Rose, and Leslie Ellis. 2003. Juror DiscussionsDuring Civil Trials: Studying an Arizona Innovation. Arizona Law Review 45:1–82.

Eisenstein, James, and Herbert Jacob. 1977. Felony Justice: An Organizational Analysis of CriminalCourts. Boston: Little, Brown.

Evans, Louwanda, and Wendy Leo Moore. 2015. Impossible Burdens: White Institutions, Emo-tional Labor, and Micro-Resistance. Social Problems 62 (3): 439–54.

Farrell, Amy, Liana Pennington, and Shea Cronin. 2013. Juror Perceptions of the Legitimacy ofLegal Authorities and Decision Making in Criminal Cases. Law & Social Inquiry 38 (4):773–802.

Feeley, Malcolm M. 1992. The Process Is the Punishment: Handling Cases in a Lower Criminal Court.New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Fiske, Susan T. 2010. Interpersonal Stratification: Status, Power, and Subordination. In Handbook

of Social Psychology, ed. Susan T. Fiske, Daniel T. Gilbert, and Gardner Lindzey, Ch. 26.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Fiske, Susan T., and Hazel Rose Markus. 2012. Facing Social Class: How Societal Rank InfluencesInteraction. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Fukurai, Hiroshi, and Richard Krooth. 2003. Race in the Jury Box: Affirmative Action in Jury Selec-tion. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Gastil, John, E. Pierre Deess, Philip J. Weiser, and Cindy Simmons. 2010. The Jury and Democra-cy: How Jury Deliberation Promotes Civic Engagement and Political Participation. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Hagan, John, Carla Shedd, and Monique R. Payne. 2005. Race, Ethnicity, and Youth Perceptionsof Criminal Injustice. American Sociological Review 70 (3): 381–407.

Hannaford-Agor, Paula L., Valerie P. Hans, Nicole L. Mott, and G. Thomas Munsterman. 2002.Are Hung Juries a Problem? Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.

Harris, Alexes, Heather Evans, and Katherine Beckett. 2011. Courtesy Stigma and MonetarySanctions: Toward a Socio-Cultural Theory of Punishment. American Sociological Review 76(2): 234–64.

Hastie, Reid, Steven Penrod, and Nancy Pennington. 1983. Inside the Jury. Cambridge, MA: Har-vard University Press.

Hughes, Everett Cherrington. 1945. Dilemmas and Contradictions of Status. American Journal ofSociology 50 (5): 353–59.

Hunt, Jennifer S. 2015. Race, Ethnicity, and Culture in Jury Decision Making. Annual Review ofLaw and Social Science 11 (1): 269–88.

Jack, Anthony Abraham. 2014. Culture Shock Revisited: The Social and Cultural Contingenciesto Class Marginality. Sociological Forum 29:453–75.

James, Rita M. 1959. Status and Competence of Jurors. American Journal of Sociology 64 (6):563–70.


Jost, John T., Brett W. Pelham, and Mauricio R. Carvallo. 2002. Non-Conscious Forms of SystemJustification: Implicit and Behavioral Preferences for Higher Status Groups. Journal of Experi-mental Social Psychology 38 (6): 586–602.

Kalvin, Harry, and Hans Zeisel. 1966. The American Jury. Boston: Little Brown.Kirk, David S., and Andrew V. Papachristos. 2011. Cultural Mechanisms and the Persistence of

Neighborhood Violence. American Journal of Sociology 116 (4): 1190–1233.Kramer, Greg M., Melinda Wolbransky, and Kirk Heilbrun. 2007. Plea Bargaining Recommenda-

tions by Criminal Defense Attorneys: Evidence Strength, Potential Sentence, and DefendantPreference. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 25 (4): 573–85.

Lamont, Michele, Graziella Moraes Silva, Jessica Welburn, Joshua Guetzkow, Nissim Mizrachi,Hannah Herzog, and Elisa Reis. 2016. Getting Respect: Responding to Stigma and Discriminationin the United States, Brazil, and Israel. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Lareau, Annette. 2002. Invisible Inequality: Social Class and Childrearing in Black Families andWhite Families. American Sociological Review 67 (5): 747–76.

Li, Ji, Leonard Karakowsky, and Jacob P. Siegel. 1999. The Effects of Proportional Representationon Intragroup Behavior in Mixed-Race Decision-Making Groups. Small Group Research 30(3): 259–79.

Lynch, Mona, and Craig Haney. 2015. Emotion, Authority, and Death: (Raced) Negotiations inMock Capital Jury Deliberations. Law & Social Inquiry 40 (2): 377–405.

McCall, Leslie. 2005. The Complexity of Intersectionality. Signs 30 (3): 1771–1800.Meeker, B. F., and P. A. Weitzel-O’Neill. 1977. Sex Roles and Interpersonal Behavior in Task-

Oriented Groups. American Sociological Review 42 (1): 91–105.Miller, Monica K., and Brian H. Bornstein. 2004. Juror Stress: Causes and Interventions. Thur-

good Marshall Law Review 30:237–70.Mills, Carol J., and Wayne E. Bohannon. 1980. Character Structure and Jury Behavior: Concep-

tual and Applied Implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38 (4): 662–67.Mize, Gregory E., Paula Hannaford-Agor, and Nicole L. Waters. 2007. The State-of-the-States Sur-

vey of Jury Improvement Efforts: A Compendium Report. Williamsburg, VA: National Centerfor State Courts.

Moran, Gary, and John C. Comfort. 1982. Scientific Juror Selection: Sex as a Moderator ofDemographic and Personality Predictors of Impaneled Felony Juror Behavior. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 43 (5): 1052–63.

Muller, Christopher, and Daniel Schrage. 2014. Mass Imprisonment and Trust in the Law. Annalsof the American Academy of Political and Social Science 651 (1): 139–58.

Musick, Marc A., Mary R. Rose, Sarah Dury, and Roger P. Rose. 2015. Much Obliged: Volun-teering, Normative Activities, and Willingness to Serve on Juries. Law & Social Inquiry 40(2): 433–60.

Overby, L. Marvin, Robert D. Brown, John M. Bruce, Jr. Charles E. Smith, and John W. Winkle,III. 2005. Race, Political Empowerment, and Minority Perceptions of Judicial Fairness. SocialScience Quarterly 86 (2): 444–62.

Pettigrew, Thomas F. 1981. Race and Class in the 1980s: An Interactive View. Daedalus 110 (2):233–55.

Ridgeway, Cecilia L. 1991. The Social Construction of Status Value: Gender and Other NominalCharacteristics. Social Forces 70 (2): 367–86.

——. 2014. Why Status Matters for Inequality. American Sociological Review 79 (1): 1–16.Ridgeway, Cecilia L., and Joseph Berger. 1986. Expectations, Legitimation, and Dominance

Behavior in Task Groups. American Sociological Review 51 (5): 603–17.Ridgeway, Cecilia L., and Tamar Kricheli-Katz. 2013. Intersecting Cultural Beliefs in Social Rela-

tions: Gender, Race, and Class Binds and Freedoms. Gender & Society 27 (3): 294–318.Ridgeway, Cecilia L., and Lynn Smith-Lovin. 1999. The Gender System and Interaction. Annual

Review of Sociology 25:191–216.Rose, Mary R. 2005. A Dutiful Voice: Justice in the Distribution of Jury Service. Law & Society

Review 39 (3): 601–34.


——. 2009. Access to Juries: Some Puzzles Regarding Race and Jury Participation. In Access to

Justice, ed. Rebecca L. Sandefur, 12:119–44. Bradford, UK: Emerald Group.Rose, Mary R., Christopher Ellison, and Shari Seidman Diamond. 2008. Preferences for Juries

Over Judges Across Racial and Ethnic Groups. Social Science Quarterly 89 (2): 372–91.Sampson, Robert J., and Dawn Jeglum Bartusch. 1998. Legal Cynicism and (Subcultural?) Toler-

ance of Deviance: The Neighborhood Context of Racial Differences. Law & Society Review

32 (4): 777–804.Saperstein, Aliya, and Andrew M. Penner. 2012. Racial Fluidity and Inequality in the United

States. American Journal of Sociology 118 (3): 676–727.Seaman, Shaun R., Jonathan W. Bartlett, and Ian R. White. 2012. Multiple Imputation of Miss-

ing Covariates with Non-Linear Effects and Interactions: An Evaluation of Statistical Meth-

ods. BMC Medical Research Methodology 12:1–13.Sharkey, Patrick. 2013. Stuck in Place: Urban Neighborhoods and the End of Progress Toward Racial

Equality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Sommers, Samuel R. 2007. Race and the Decision Making of Juries. Legal and Criminological Psy-

chology 12 (2): 171–87.Sommers, Samuel R., and Phoebe C. Ellsworth. 2003. How Much Do We Really Know About

Race and Juries: A Review of Social Science Theory and Research. Chicago-Kent Law Review

78:997–1031.Strodtbeck, Fred L., Rita M. James, and Charles Hawkins. 1957. Social Status in Jury Delibera-

tions. American Sociological Review 22 (6): 713–19.Strodtbeck, Fred L., and Richard D. Mann. 1956. Sex Role Differentiation in Jury Deliberations.

Sociometry 19 (1): 3–11.Sugie, Naomi F. 2015. Chilling Effects: Diminished Political Participation Among Partners of

Formerly Incarcerated Men. Social Problems 62 (4): 550–71.Thompson, Victor R., and Lawrence D. Bobo. 2011. Thinking About Crime: Race and Lay

Accounts of Lawbreaking Behavior. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sci-

ence 634 (1): 16–38.Tyler, Tom R., and Yuen Huo. 2002. Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the

Police and Courts. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Waters, Nicole L., and Valerie P. Hans. 2009. A Jury of One: Opinion Formation, Conformity,

and Dissent on Juries. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 6 (3): 513–40.Weber, Max. 1968. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. New York: Bedmin-

ster Press.Webster, Murray, Jr., and James E. Driskell, Jr. 1978. Status Generalization: A Review and Some

New Data. American Sociological Review 43 (2): 220–36.Weitzer, Ronald, and Steven A. Tuch. 2005. Racially Biased Policing: Determinants of Citizen

Perceptions. Social Forces 83 (3): 1009–30.Western, Bruce. 2006. Punishment and Inequality in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.White, Ian R., Patrick Royston, and Angela M. Wood. 2011. Multiple Imputation Using Chained

Equations: Issues and Guidance for Practice. Statistics in Medicine 30 (4): 377–99.York, Erin, and Benjamin Cornwell. 2006. Status on Trial: Social Characteristics and Influence

in the Jury Room. Social Forces 85 (1): 455–77.

APPENDIX : MULTIPLE IMPUTATION METHOD

Missing data at the individual and case levels were multiply imputed using chained equa-

tions with the mi impute chained procedure in Stata 13. To address our need to multiply impute

data at two levels of analysis in a context in which the higher-level groups are relatively small

(juries do not consist of more than twelve people), missing data at the individual and case levels

were imputed separately. To avoid model misspecification, variables from each level of analysis

were used as auxiliary variables at the other level and then discarded before merging the two

imputed data sets. For example, dummy variables indicating whether the case involved a


murder, sexual assault, drugs, or nonsexual assault were included in the juror-level imputation,

but the imputed values of these variables were then thrown out and replaced by their imputed

values from the case-level imputation. Similarly, our dependent variable of interest was included

in the imputation model to avoid model misspecification, but imputed values of the dependent

variable were not used in analyses (White, Royston, and Wood 2011). Additionally, data were

not imputed for individuals who are fully missing from the data set, indicated by a jury with

fewer than the lawful number of jurors, or for individuals or cases when no case-level informa-

tion was available.

The imputation model at each level of analysis included all variables included in our anal-

ysis models as well as additional auxiliary variables that relate to these variables or might theo-

retically be thought to help predict whether the variables used in analyses are missing (White,

Royston, and Wood 2011). For example, at the juror level, such auxiliary variables included

jurors’ attitudes toward the criminal justice system and a categorical measure of jurors’ incomes.

At the case level, such variables included the length of the trial and whether a victim was

present.

Missing data for each variable were imputed using the proper model specification given

the variable type. Namely, logistic regression was used to impute binary variables, ordered logis-

tic regression was used to impute ordinal variables, and multinomial logistic regression was used

to impute multinomial variables, such as race. Continuous variables were imputed using predic-

tive mean matching.

To avoid perfect prediction, the data were augmented by adding a few extra observations

with small weights (White, Royston, and Wood 2011) and certain variables were omitted from

the imputation of specific other variables. For example, the interactions between whether jurors

are Hispanic and location and between whether jurors are of another race/ethnicity and location

were omitted from the imputations of the interactions between whether jurors were black and

location. Finally, given that our analysis models use ordered logistic regression, although interac-

tions were included in the imputation models to avoid misspecification, they were recalculated

passively for use in analysis (Seaman, Bartlett, and White 2012).

Appendix Table A1.Missing Data

N Missing % Total Jurors (3,497) Missing

Juror CharacteristicsGender 542 15.50Race/ethnicity 412 11.78Age 391 11.18Education 340 9.72Minority opinion 187 5.35Time to express views 290 8.29Participation 274 7.84Satisfaction with deliberations 299 8.55Satisfaction with verdict 261 7.46Case Characteristics

Defendant gender 465 13.30Defendant race/ethnicity 348 9.95Case type 254 7.26


Appendix Table A2.Descriptive Statistics (Means) for All Available Cases and After MultipleImputation

All Available Cases After Multiple Imputation (N 5 3,176)

Juror CharacteristicsFemale 0.57 0.57Race/ethnicity

White 0.44 0.42Black 0.26 0.28Hispanic 0.22 0.22Other 0.08 0.08

Age18–25 0.10 0.1026–35 0.25 0.2536–45 0.25 0.2546–55 0.23 0.2356–65 0.12 0.12> 65 0.05 0.05

EducationHigh school or less 0.20 0.21Some college 0.31 0.30� College graduate 0.50 0.49

Minority opinion 0.20 0.20Time to express views‡ 6.40 6.41

(1.18) (1.17)Participation 5.73 5.74

(1.27) (1.26)Satisfaction with deliberations 5.88 5.90

(1.59) (1.57)Satisfaction with verdict 5.88 5.89

(1.80) (1.79)

All Available Cases After Multiple Imputation (N 5 330)

Case CharacteristicsDefendant female 0.11 0.12Defendant race/ethnicity

White 0.10 0.10Black 0.56 0.56Hispanic 0.29 0.29Other 0.05 0.05

Case typeMurder 0.17 0.17Sexual assault 0.05 0.06Drugs 0.28 0.28Assault (not sexual) 0.11 0.12

Trial locationLA 0.23 0.25Maricopa 0.26 0.24Bronx 0.25 0.23DC 0.26 0.28

‡Standard deviations shown in parentheses for ordinal variables.


App

endi

xT

able

A3.

Odd

sR

atio

s(O

R)

and

95

Per

cent

Con

fide

nce

Inte

rval

s(9

5%

CI)

from

Ord

ered

Log

isti

cR

egre

ssio

ns

Show

ing

Ass

ocia

tion

sw

ith

Juro

rs’

Sel

f-E

xpre

ssio

n,

Aft

erL

istw

ise

Del

etio

n

Mod

el1

aM

odel

2M

odel

3M

odel

4

OR

(95%

CI)

OR

(95%

CI)

OR

(95%

CI)

OR

(95%

CI)

Juro

rC

hara

cter

istics

Fem

ale

1.0

8(0

.89,

1.3

3)

1.6

6*

(0.9

4,

2.9

2)

1.6

1(0

.91,

2.8

4)

1.7

7*

(0.9

1,

3.4

4)

Rac

e/et

hn

icit

yB

lack

0.6

9(0

.41,

1.1

8)

0.5

6(0

.22,

1.4

4)

0.5

9(0

.23,

1.5

1)

0.6

7(0

.24,

1.8

3)

His

pan

ic0.4

4***

(0.2

8,

0.6

9)

0.2

6***

(0.1

2,

0.5

6)

0.2

9**

*(0

.13,

0.6

1)

0.4

0**

(0.1

7,

0.9

4)

Age 2

6–35

1.1

5(0

.80,

1.6

4)

1.1

5(0

.80,

1.6

5)

1.1

4(0

.80,

1.6

3)

1.1

2(0

.79,

1.6

0)

36–45

1.6

5***

(1.1

3,

2.4

3)

1.6

5**

(1.1

2,

2.4

3)

1.6

4**

(1.1

1,

2.4

1)

1.6

2**

(1.1

0,

2.3

8)

46–55

1.7

5***

(1.2

0,

2.5

5)

1.7

2***

(1.1

7,

2.5

3)

1.7

1**

*(1

.17,

2.5

1)

1.7

0***

(1.1

6,

2.4

9)

56–65

1.6

1**

(1.0

5,

2.4

6)

1.5

6**

(1.0

1,

2.4

1)

1.5

9**

(1.0

3,

2.4

4)

1.6

0**

(1.0

4,

2.4

7)

>65

1.4

0(0

.81,

2.4

2)

1.3

2(0

.76,

2.2

9)

1.3

0(0

.74,

2.2

7)

1.3

1(0

.75,

2.3

0)

Educa

tion

Som

eco

lleg

e1.2

1(0

.92,

1.6

1)

1.2

3(0

.68,

2.2

2)

1.2

4(0

.68,

2.2

4)

1.1

3(0

.58,

2.2

0)

�C

oll

ege

grad

uat

e1.5

2***

(1.1

7,

1.9

8)

1.1

9(0

.68,

2.0

8)

1.1

9(0

.68,

2.0

9)

1.1

5(0

.62,

2.1

5)

Min

ori

tyopin

ion

0.6

9**

*(0

.54,

0.8

9)

1.2

0(0

.34,

4.1

5)

Juro

rC

hara

cter

istic

Inte

ract

ions

Rac

e/et

hn

icit

y-G

ender

Bla

ck-F

emal

e0.5

8*

(0.3

4,

1.0

1)

0.5

7**

(0.3

3,

0.9

8)

0.5

4**

(0.2

9,

0.9

9)

His

pan

ic-F

emal

e1.0

6(0

.65,

1.7

5)

1.0

3(0

.63,

1.6

9)

0.6

9(0

.40,

1.2

)G

ender

-Educa

tion

Fem

ale-

Som

eco

lleg

e0.6

1(0

.33,

1.1

1)

0.6

3(0

.34,

1.1

6)

0.7

3(0

.36,

1.4

8)

Fem

ale-

Coll

ege

grad

uat

e0.5

9*

(0.3

3,

1.0

5)

0.6

2(0

.34,

1.1

1)

0.6

0(0

.30,

1.2

)R

ace/

eth

nic

ity-

Educa

tion

Bla

ck-S

om

eco

lleg

e1.4

4(0

.67,

3.0

8)

1.4

3(0

.67,

3.0

7)

1.3

2(0

.56,

3.0

8)

Bla

ck-C

oll

ege

grad

uat

e2.4

4**

(1.1

5,

5.1

6)

2.3

5**

(1.1

1,

4.9

7)

2.0

3*

(0.9

1,

4.5

2)


App

endi

xT

able

A3.

Con

tinued

Mod

el1

aM

odel

2M

odel

3M

odel

4

OR

(95%

CI)

OR

(95%

CI)

OR

(95%

CI)

OR

(95%

CI)

His

pan

ic-S

om

eco

lleg

e1.3

7(0

.67,

2.8

0)

1.3

3(0

.65,

2.7

1)

1.3

1(0

.58,

2.9

4)

His

pan

ic-C

oll

ege

grad

uat

e2.1

0**

(1.0

2,

4.3

2)

2.0

0*

(0.9

8,

4.0

9)

1.9

8*

(0.9

0,

4.3

6)

Min

ori

tyopin

ion

-Fem

ale

0.4

2(0

.08,

2.1

3)

Min

ori

tyopin

ion

-Rac

e/et

hn

icit

yB

lack

-Min

ori

tyo

pin

ion

0.3

9(0

.07,

2.0

2)

His

pan

ic-M

inori

tyopin

ion

0.2

7*

(0.0

6,

1.1

4)

Min

ori

tyopin

ion

-Educa

tion

Som

eco

lleg

e-M

inori

tyopin

ion

1.6

6(0

.31,

8.8

6)

Coll

ege

grad

uat

e-M

inori

tyopin

ion

1.0

3(0

.27,

3.9

0)

Min

ori

tyopin

ion

-Gen

der

-Rac

e/et

hn

icit

yFem

ale-

Bla

ck-M

inori

tyopin

ion

1.9

4(0

.42,

8.9

2)

Fem

ale-

His

pan

ic-M

inori

tyopin

ion

6.1

2***

(1.6

2,

23.1

5)

Min

ori

tyopin

ion

-Gen

der

-Educa

tion

Fem

ale-

Som

eco

lleg

e-M

inori

tyopin

ion

0.6

2(0

.14,

2.8

1)

Fem

ale-

Coll

ege

grad

uat

e-M

inori

tyopin

ion

1.5

5(0

.33,

7.4

1)

Min

ori

tyopin

ion

-Rac

e/et

hn

icit

y-E

duca

tion

Bla

ck-S

om

eco

lleg

e-M

inori

tyopin

ion

1.2

7(0

.19,

8.5

8)

Bla

ck-C

oll

ege

grad

uat

e-M

inori

tyopin

ion

2.1

8(0

.28,

16.6

7)

His

pan

ic-S

om

eco

lleg

e-M

inori

tyopin

ion

0.7

2(0

.12,

4.3

7)

His

pan

ic-C

oll

ege

grad

uat

e-M

inori

tyopin

ion

0.7

3(0

.13,

4.0

4)

Cas

eC

hara

cter

istics

Def

endan

tfe

mal

e0.9

5(0

.74,

1.2

3)

0.9

2(0

.71,

1.1

8)

0.9

3(0

.72,

1.1

9)

0.9

4(0

.73,

1.2

3)

Def

endan

tra

ce/e

thn

icit

yB

lack

1.1

0(0

.76,

1.6

1)

1.0

6(0

.73,

1.5

4)

1.0

7(0

.74,

1.5

5)

1.0

6(0

.73,

1.5

4)

His

pan

ic1.3

0(0

.89,

1.9

0)

1.2

7(0

.87,

1.8

4)

1.2

8(0

.88,

1.8

5)

1.2

6(0

.87,

1.8

3)

Cas

ety

pe

Murd

er0.9

2(0

.68,

1.2

6)

0.8

9(0

.65,

1.2

1)

0.8

9(0

.65,

1.2

0)

0.8

9(0

.65,

1.2

1)


App

endi

xT

able

A3.

Con

tinued

Mod

el1

aM

odel

2M

odel

3M

odel

4

OR

(95%

CI)

OR

(95%

CI)

OR

(95%

CI)

OR

(95%

CI)

Sex

ual

assa

ult

1.2

5(0

.79,

1.9

6)

1.2

4(0

.79,

1.9

4)

1.2

6(0

.81,

1.9

9)

1.2

9(0

.82,

2.0

4)

Dru

gs1.0

0(0

.78,

1.3

0)

1.0

0(0

.77,

1.2

9)

1.0

1(0

.78,

1.3

0)

1.0

0(0

.77,

1.3

0)

Ass

ault

(not

sexual

)1.0

1(0

.69,

1.4

7)

1.0

1(0

.70,

1.4

7)

1.0

4(0

.72,

1.5

1)

1.0

4(0

.72,

1.5

2)

Tri

allo

cati

on

Mar

icopa

0.7

4(0

.48,

1.1

5)

0.7

0(0

.45,

1.0

7)

0.7

1(0

.46,

1.1

0)

0.6

8*

(0.4

4,

1.0

6)

Bro

nx

0.6

4(0

.34,

1.2

0)

0.5

8(0

.30,

1.1

1)

0.6

1(0

.32,

1.1

8)

0.5

7*

(0.2

9,

1.1

0)

DC

0.8

3(0

.55,

1.2

5)

0.9

5(0

.62,

1.4

4)

0.9

6(0

.63,

1.4

8)

0.9

4(0

.61,

1.4

5)

Juro

r-C

ase

Inte

ract

ions

Bla

ck-M

aric

opa

1.1

8(0

.3,

4.6

0)

1.3

7(0

.36,

5.2

2)

1.3

9(0

.35,

5.5

3)

1.5

8(0

.37,

6.7

7)

Bla

ck-B

ron

x1.2

3(0

.54,

2.7

9)

1.3

9(0

.59,

3.3

0)

1.3

0(0

.55,

3.0

7)

1.4

3(0

.6,

3.4

0)

Bla

ck-D

C1.7

3*

(0.9

0,

3.3

2)

1.5

6(0

.81,

3.0

2)

1.5

6(0

.80,

3.0

4)

1.6

1(0

.82,

3.1

5)

His

pan

ic-M

aric

opa

1.5

6(0

.72,

3.3

9)

1.6

0(0

.73,

3.5

0)

1.5

4(0

.71,

3.3

6)

1.6

6(0

.78,

3.5

2)

His

pan

ic-B

ron

x1.0

5(0

.49,

2.2

5)

1.1

9(0

.55,

2.5

7)

1.1

1(0

.51,

2.4

0)

1.2

0(0

.55,

2.6

3)

His

pan

ic-D

C2.6

6**

(1.1

4,

6.1

8)

2.1

2(0

.86,

5.1

9)

2.0

6(0

.83,

5.1

0)

2.1

0(0

.82,

5.4

1)

aA

llm

odel

sal

soad

just

edfo

r“o

ther

”ra

ce/e

thn

icit

yan

dit

sap

pli

cable

two-w

ayan

dth

ree-

way

inte

ract

ion

s.*O

dds

rati

osi

gnif

ican

tat

p�

0.1

0(t

wo-t

aile

d).

**O

dds

rati

osi

gnif

ican

tat

p�

0.0

5(t

wo-t

aile

d).

***O

dds

rati

osi

gnif

ican

tat

p�

0.0

1(t

wo-t

aile

d).

Not

e:A

llst

andar

der

rors

clust

ered

atth

eju

ryle

vel

.


jurors subjective experiences of deliberations in criminal cases · 2017-02-07 · characteristics...

Documents