Abstract
In Jury Decision Making: The State of the Science, Dennis Devine provides a thorough examination of empirical literature related to the factors shaping juror and jury decision making and proposes a comprehensive theoretical approach to understanding the complex processes involved. Devine is an assistant professor with the Department of Psychology at Indiana University—Purdue University at Indianapolis with an expertise in jury decision-making practices. This text is a response to research and theoretical models of juror- and jury-level decision making that provide valuable insight but lack an integrative approach. As such, the purpose of this text is to examine extant research and theoretical perspectives and to consolidate this information into a comprehensive picture of how jurors and juries reach a verdict. There are three sections in the text: The methodological and theoretical foundation, a summary of research, and a presentation of a new theory of jury decision making. Following a thorough and well-documented review of theoretical perspectives and extant research, Devine constructs a two-part, broad and inclusive model of juror and jury decision making. He concludes with suggestions for testing this model and potential policy implications.
The book begins with a discussion of two key issues providing the impetus for this text: Limited and/or inconsistent research findings related to juror and jury decision making and flawed theoretical approaches to understanding juror and jury decision making. Devine traces the almost exponential growth in jury research from the 1950s to present with an emphasis on advancements in methods used and diversification of topics. He next discusses the evolution of increasingly complex theories and models used to predict decision-making outcomes for both jurors and juries. Devine concludes this initial component of the book with several criticisms of extant theoretical models including the emphasis on why rather than how decisions are made, the focus on criminal trials to the exclusion of other types of trials, the failure to integrate juror-level and jury-level models, and the lack of a comprehensive approach that incorporates all aspects of the trial and its participants. In these introductory chapters, Devine does an excellent job of capturing the growing interest in jury decision making and highlights an important gap in the field of jury research—the need for a comprehensive integrated model to understand how jurors, as individuals, and juries, as groups, arrive at a verdict. This section should be particularly useful for students and scholars wanting to examine the historical development of jury research as it provides a clear summary of general trends in jury research and provides context for current research and theory.
Before presenting his proposed model, Devine provides a thorough and well-documented summary of existing empirical literature related to jury and juror decision making. This literature review covers a variety of topics including juror/jury characteristics, trial context, trial participant characteristics, evidence, and deliberation processes. Relying largely on studies utilizing experimental or meta analysis techniques, Devine provides the reader with a detailed and well-organized summary of research to date with a wealth of references for further information. While the literature review is thorough and well organized, it could be somewhat tedious for those only looking for a survey of the state of the science of jury research. Because this section of the text comprises roughly two-thirds of the text, this book in general may not be well suited for the introductory level student or scholar. However, this level of detail may be particularly useful for legal scholars and practitioners interested in the finer aspects of jury selection and policy evaluation.
The final two chapters of this book contain what is arguably the most important aspect and the focus of the text: Devine’s theoretical model for juror and jury decision making. Devine presents two tandem models. The first of these models, he calls the “Director’s Model” which examines the factors that shape how jurors assess information provided both before and during the trial in their individual attempt to construct a “story” of what happened. The “Story Sampling” model examines how jurors interact in the deliberation stage of the trial to determine a mutually accepted “story” that forms the basis for the verdict. The models are quite complex and incorporate a number of factors too intricate for a full discussion in this review. However, it is important to note that the variables and processes included are well informed by the empirical research reviewed previously in the text. Both models interact to explain how a verdict is reached through complex cognitive processes and social interactions. Finally, Devine provides a list of hypotheses and suggestions for testing these proposed theories.
This last component of the book accomplishes what the author sets out to do. It provides an integrated, multifaceted theory of jury decision making. As the author acknowledges, some elements of the models may be missing, but the models provide the means to unify diverse research and theoretical perspectives into a cohesive model for further analysis. However, it seems that such complex models warrant more discussion than only two chapters. Devine manages to justify his models sufficiently for understanding his logic and provides the basis for testing his theory and assumptions, but it leaves the reader wanting to know more. Perhaps this is his intent. This book and the associated models provide a stepping stone for discussion and research on integrated decision making among juries. As such, this text and particularly these chapters are well suited for more advanced law students and scholars wishing to evaluate, research, and build upon Devine’s models.
In summary, this book contributes to the study of juror and jury behavior through offering a detailed review of the state of research and theoretical perspectives as well as a consolidated approach for understanding jury decision making. Because it is more theoretical in nature, this book may not be particularly useful for legal practitioners unless looking for a summary of current research. However, this text would be particularly useful for law students and scholars interested in theoretical discussions and future research.